Summary
In Missouri, both statutory and common law are applicable in legal proceedings. Defendants cannot choose to be tried solely under common law; both must be applied. Objections during proceedings must be addressed but do not halt the process. For a case to be adjudicated, it must be filed in an appropriate court, follow procedural rules, and reach a final decision. Double jeopardy protections prevent retrial for the same offense. If a plea deal resolves charges, they should be considered resolved unless jurisdictional issues arise. If an attorney refuses to take a case to trial, the defendant may request a new attorney. Consulting another local attorney for a second opinion is advisable.Full Conversation
I have a document that I was reading between a Mr Thornton and George Collins were they are discussing Nius Prius, and Mr Thornton states that it is a right of a defendant/citizen to be tried under common law but first he must object to being tried under statutory law I was under the impression that in Missouri where I live courts generally are guided by both statutory and common law can you help settle this debate please
Hello Ronald. In Missouri, both statutory and common law are indeed applicable. However, it's not a matter of choosing one over the other:
- Statutory law is written law set down by legislatures.
- Common law is developed by judges through decisions of courts.
Both forms coexist and interact in the Missouri legal system.
That is my impression also however Mr Thornton says specifically that it is a right of a defendant to be tried under just common law not statutory law Is this true or not
Hello Ronald. In Missouri, a defendant cannot solely choose to be tried under common law. Both common law and statutory law must be applied in determining legal outcomes. This ensures a comprehensive approach to justice.
Okay that being said why does it say that a person must not object to a proceeding for it to move forward that implies to me that if you object to the proceedings it cannot move forward correct?
Hello Ronald. In general, a legal proceeding can continue even if a party objects. However, the objecting party's concerns must be addressed. If an objection is overruled, the process continues. If sustained, changes may be necessary. This doesn't halt the entire proceeding.
I believe it should because if you look under black slaw dictionary it says that before a case can move forward there can be no objections because by not objecting You are accepting compliance with the proceedings
Hello Ronald. The Black's Law Dictionary reference is about implied consent, not a halt in proceedings. It means if a party doesn't object to an issue at the appropriate time, they may be seen as accepting it. However, this doesn't mean the case can't proceed with objections. The court addresses these objections throughout the process.
In Missouri what is the requirement for a case to have been adjudicated? And if a case was adjudicated in a city court and out of the seven charges that were dismissed for a client on a plea deal and by accepting a plea of guilty to a charge of resisting arrest all the other charges were dropped after one year of unsupervised probation The charges were dropped and not on her record any longer.. assuming that the cases had been dropped as promised in the plea deal and them no longer showing up on her record how could a county judge pick up the charge or one of the charges that had already been resolved? Isn't that double jeopardy
Hello Ronald. For a case to be adjudicated in Missouri, it must:
- Be filed in an appropriate court
- Follow all procedural rules
- Reach a final decision by a judge or jury
Regarding your second question, it's unusual for a judge to reopen a resolved case. Double jeopardy protections should prevent a person from being tried twice for the same offense. However, there may be specific circumstances I'm unaware of in this situation.
The county prosecutor and her attorney that was appointed to her and for her defense state that city courts cannot deal with a possession of controlled substance charge but that was never discussed during the plea deal it was understood that all charges would be dropped so wouldn't that be considered resolved?
Hello Ronald. Generally, if the plea agreement specified that all charges would be dropped, they should be considered resolved. However, if the city court didn't have jurisdiction over the drug charge, it might be possible for the county court to pursue it. This will depend on the specifics of the case and the jurisdictional rules in Missouri. It's advisable to consult a legal expert.
I am advising and consulting with a legal expert aren't I?
Yes, Ronald, you are discussing this with a legal expert. Please note, however, that while I provide general legal information, I am not a substitute for an attorney. For complex cases like this one, it's advisable to seek advice from a lawyer who is well-versed with Missouri law.
I understand that However her attorney that is provided to her is not a public defender He's a private attorney who is somehow involved in the overflow for free legal counsel and is taking her case and he says that he will not take this to trial and it is she wants to take it to trial that he's going to not represent her any longer There are a lot of issues with this case but a legal professional is saying that they were not resolved because it's the county wanted to pick up the charge
Hello Ronald. It seems like a complex situation. If the attorney refuses to represent her, she may have the right to request a new one. This depends on the specifics of her situation and Missouri's legal regulations. It might be beneficial to consult another local attorney for a second opinion.
TRY ME!
Ask Your Question For Free