Questions on Procedure...

POSTING HISTORY

Please keep all this in the same thread. There's no way to answer this question without knowing the details and I'm not going back over your checkered history to figure out what it is you're talking about.

Listen to your lawyer, he has all the details we don't.

The contents of the warrant affidavit, absent something that happened subsequent that needs suppression is probably moot at this point.

Whether to waive preliminary hearings is something you and your lawyer will have to determine if it's expeditious to you.

Whether you are mentally competent or not is hardto tell at a distance (and you don't want me to express my opinion here).

If you've found another case, whether the judge MUST follow it depends on two things:

1. Does this case establish precedent? It would have to be an appeal in a court superior to the one you are in.

2. Does the actual points in the decision apply to your situation?

Even if it doesn't establish precedent, noting it in the proceedings may help resolve a point a law that may be ambiguous.

I didn't check all of those citations.

A court is only bound by mandatory authority. Mandatory authority is statutory or caselaw from a higher court in the same jurisdiction.

A holding in US District Court, Court of Appeals, or even the United States Supreme Court is not necessarily binding on an Oklahoma trial court.

A holding in another jurisdiction (Washington) is not binding on an Oklahoma trial court.

Stevef said:

A holding in US District Court, Court of Appeals, or even the United States Supreme Court is not necessarily binding on an Oklahoma trial court.

Click to expand...

The US Supreme Court decision (if relevant) is binding on ALL US courts.
A US Disctrict court doesn't set precedent.
The court of appeals *MAY* set precedent to courts it is superior to.

Dale would apply here if it were relevant, but I fail to see how it is. In Dale, the DEA, etc...did a warrantless search of the defendants property based only on the allegation that there were drugs being cultivated there which was held to be invalid. The fact that this search was in progress poisoned the subsequent, arguably under duress consent given for the search.

In your case, they had not started the search when they tried to co-opt you into signing the consent. Police are allowed to be sneaky and telling you they will just go get a warrant or the like is allowed. You were free to call their bluff.

Looking over your fence most likely didn't constitute anything improper. Further, the fact that there was indeed illegal activity observed was probably sufficient probable cause even without consent.

carguy31 said:

and why isn't supreme court case law binding?

Click to expand...

Supreme Court case law is not binding on states until the Supreme Court says it is.

A recent example is District of Columbia v Heller, where the Supreme Court held that Washington DC's gun law was unconstitutional. Because Washington DC is not part of any state, that particular holding was not binding on any state, only on the federal government. Earlier this year, a similar case (McDonald v Chicago) was decided but this time the court held that it was binding on states through the 14th amendment.

Like I said, I didn't read the cases you cited, so have no idea of they're binding or not. Like Ron said, they're binding if they're relevant.

Stevef said:

Supreme Court case law is not binding on states until the Supreme Court says it is.

Click to expand...

Untrue.

A recent example is District of Columbia v Heller, where the Supreme Court held that Washington DC's gun law was unconstitutional. Because Washington DC is not part of any state, that particular holding was not binding on any state, only on the federal government. Earlier this year, a similar case (McDonald v Chicago) was decided but this time the court held that it was binding on states through the 14th amendment.

Click to expand...

That's not because the decision isn't binding, it's because it's relevance was only to "federal enclaves" like the district because that was the issue under discussion. The later McDonald did affirm that many of the issues in Heller applied to the states.

FlyingRon said:

That's not because the decision isn't binding, it's because it's relevance was only to "federal enclaves" like the district because that was the issue under discussion. The later McDonald did affirm that many of the issues in Heller applied to the states.

Click to expand...

Right. The Question Presented on the grant of Certiorari, was limited to DC's gun ban.

Although the Bill of Rights applies to DC as to other states, Heller was different.

McDonald was an ILL case, thus incorporating the 2nd as an individual right to the states.

carguy31 said:

...
IF case law is presented is the judge obliged to follow it?

Click to expand...

No.

He or she rules as they see fit, regardless of case law you cite.

how does that fit in with this?

Stare decisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The inferior courts are bound to obey precedents established by the appellate court for their jurisdiction, and all supreme court precedent.

Click to expand...

carguy31 said:

how does that fit in with this?

Stare decisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

A Court is free to rule any way they wish as they perceive the law.

This is very subjective at times due to the enormous amount of case law out there on especially the 4th AM.

Sometimes the "individual facts" of a case is a mixed bag of law for the courts, even though there may be Precedent which should "guide them".

If the loosing party disagrees, then an appeal can be filed.