Probable cause

[joshuasmom]

What is the name of your state? CA

If the judge finds no probable cause for one's arrest (after the fact and therefore released on a PR bond), why would the DA still be able to take the case to trial with no new evidence? (on a felony)

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by joshuasmom

What is the name of your state? CA

If the judge finds no probable cause for one's arrest (after the fact and therefore released on a PR bond), why would the DA still be able to take the case to trial with no new evidence? (on a felony)

Care to elaborate a little?

The arrest could be unrelated to the charges being prosecuted. Without details, there is no way to say.

And what do you mean that a court ruled that there was no probable cause for an arrest? Is this inferred or did a judge at some hearing actually tell you (or whoever) that the police had no good cause to make the arrest therefore you are free to go? Oh, and if there was no P.C. then there would be no need to release you on O/R - you could be released without ANY commitment.



- Carl

[joshuasmom]

Correct. I was being held, and the judge ruled there was no probable cause to have made the rest in the first place, so I was therefore released - but the original charges remained so now it's going to trial.

[seniorjudge]

Answer these questions:

Originally Posted by CdwJava

...
And what do you mean that a court ruled that there was no probable cause for an arrest? Is this inferred or did a judge at some hearing actually tell you (or whoever) that the police had no good cause to make the arrest therefore you are free to go?
....

[Litigation!]

Originally Posted by joshuasmom

Correct. I was being held, and the judge ruled there was no probable cause to have made the rest in the first place, so I was therefore released - but the original charges remained so now it's going to trial.

My response:

Was there a Grand Jury indictment in your case?

IAAL

[seniorjudge]

[url]http://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=297958[/url]

[url]http://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=298708[/url]


Does this have anything to do with your other posts?

[joshuasmom]

Originally Posted by seniorjudge

[url]http://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=297958[/url]

[url]http://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=298708[/url]


Does this have anything to do with your other posts?

No, this is unrelated. Basically, I'm wondering if there wasn't enough evidence to even warrent probable cause for an arrest, assuming there's no new evidence, is it probable there would be enough evidence to go to trial to prove beyond a reasonable doubt? Theoretically....

[seniorjudge]

Originally Posted by joshuasmom

No, this is unrelated. Basically, I'm wondering if there wasn't enough evidence to even warrent probable cause for an arrest, assuming there's no new evidence, is it probable there would be enough evidence to go to trial to prove beyond a reasonable doubt? Theoretically....

Theoretically?

There's a 50-50 chance, more or less.

Answer these questions:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CdwJava
...
And what do you mean that a court ruled that there was no probable cause for an arrest? Is this inferred or did a judge at some hearing actually tell you (or whoever) that the police had no good cause to make the arrest therefore you are free to go?
....

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by joshuasmom

No, this is unrelated. Basically, I'm wondering if there wasn't enough evidence to even warrent probable cause for an arrest, assuming there's no new evidence, is it probable there would be enough evidence to go to trial to prove beyond a reasonable doubt? Theoretically....

It depends. The original dismissal could have been because of missing paperwork, an inadequate probable cause declaration, etc. Without any details it is merely wild speculation.

- Carl

[joshuasmom]

Originally Posted by seniorjudge

Theoretically?

There's a 50-50 chance, more or less.

Answer these questions:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CdwJava
...
And what do you mean that a court ruled that there was no probable cause for an arrest? Is this inferred or did a judge at some hearing actually tell you (or whoever) that the police had no good cause to make the arrest therefore you are free to go?
....

It was at a preliminary hearing while still in custody, the judge ruled there was no probable cause for an arrest, therefore I was released, but the charges weren't dismissed. I was talking to people who thought it should never have gone this far due to the lack of evidence to even warrent an arrest, much less a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt..... I just thought I'd run it by you guys! I realize it's just a guess without supplying details.

[Litigation!]

My response:

I notice how you COMPLETELY ignored the easiest question on this thread. Perhaps all those drugs have given you brain damage . . .

IAAL

[joshuasmom]

Originally Posted by Litigation!

My response:

I notice how you COMPLETELY ignored the easiest question on this thread. Perhaps all those drugs have given you brain damage . . .

IAAL

Missed that one. No Grand jury indictment. Drugs aren't an issue.

[Litigation!]

Originally Posted by joshuasmom

Missed that one. No Grand jury indictment. Drugs aren't an issue.

My response:

Well, it's about time!!


IAAL

[seniorjudge]

Theoretically speaking, if a judge told me there was no probable cause for an arrest, I wouldn't re-file it.

(There are a million variables here and that is just one.)

[Litigation!]

Originally Posted by joshuasmom

Sooooo... why'd you ask, did you have some input?

My response:

Yeah!! I do!!

If there had been an Indictment, that would have been your answer.

But, apparently, the D.A. found new evidence, or has a different argument to bring you to trial.

IAAL