Bmorewiser

Bmorewiser t1_jeb6lg2 wrote

People would think heroin you can get from a pharmacy is “safe” as compared to shit you get in the street because, comparatively, it would be. And addicts typically don’t start using with the belief they’ll get addicted. Don’t you remember the “i never said I wanted to a junkie when I grow up” PSAs back in the 80s/90’s. Even as regulated as Oxy is, people still end up hooked. Legalizing drugs would make that problem worse and unless it was unlimited supply, you’d still have a black market issue

1

Bmorewiser t1_je9n12s wrote

I don’t think your idea will have the outcome you think, at least not quickly. The notion that most shootings are turf battles doesn’t track with my experience, which is plentiful but limited I guess only to cases that result in convictions or trials.

Most of the shootings are drug-adjacent, but not like the movies or tv might have you think. In the 80s and 90s it was common to see one crew just shoot up another rival crew over a spot on some corner but I don’t see that now. What I see is one crew beefing with another crew over some dumb shit, that leads to a fight, and that leads to a back and forth tit for tat.

There’s certainly some reason to think that legalization would limit the draw of gangs, and that would help. But some of these beefs date back decades and are just ingrained in the streets and neighborhoods. I’m not sure you’d get the result you think you would, but I’m also certain you’d end up creating more addicts and most of the murders, robberies, and burglaries I see are committed by addicts.

4

Bmorewiser t1_je4ut0z wrote

Unless the statute offers some unique quirk, there’s no way for the prosecutor to dismiss that case in a way that makes it so it cannot be brought again from the posture it was in at the time without engaging in some “funny business.”

Jeopardy attaches when the jury is sworn and evidence admitted. Before that, no jeopardy. It also can attach sometimes during a plea. But when the state dismisses a charge, that is almost always without prejudice to their ability to bring it back later if they want subject to some restrictions.

5

Bmorewiser t1_je2ab6p wrote

That’s the thing… they don’t have a right to say a word at this particular hearing. They don’t need time to gather thoughts or retain counsel to intervene, because they don’t get a say. They are not parties and even this court agreed they have no right to be heard.

They have a right to notice and to attend, and they got notice (albeit late) and they did attend (albeit virtually). They even got to speak when they weren’t entitled to. The decision puts form over substance on the thinnest of grounds all for nothing. Absent some change in position from Bates, all that happens here is a quick redo I would think.

8

Bmorewiser t1_je1vmjd wrote

I can answer. There is a set of statutes and a provision in the state declaration of rights setting forth certain rights for victims. Among those is a right to be notified of and attend certain proceedings. In others, there is a right to be heard too.

Here, the court found that notice on the day before the hearing was insufficient and, though I haven’t read carefully, it seems it found the right to appear means the right to appear in person.

The double jeopardy bit is more complicated, but the gist is because of the error in notification the hearing didn’t count and a dismissal isn’t a formal termination of jeopardy so they can send it back.

Something similar happened with the guy tried for killing Felicia Barns a few years back.

17

Bmorewiser t1_j9peyhp wrote

Keep your eyes open, your phone in your pocket, and you should be fine, regardless. That said, the area near Lexington market can sometimes be a bit dicey late at night but there’s usually people around. Baltimore to Charles is probably the safest bet, however.

3