Sight Translation for Court Interpreters Sight

Transcription

Sight Translation for Court Interpreters
Sight Translation #1
SIGHT TRANSLATION #1
It is my understanding that the defendant had been charged with a 273.5
on November 10, 1999. He entered a no contest plea and he was sentenced
to 90 days in county jail, straight. At the time he entered a no contest plea,
he had been 15 days actual and 7 days for good time. I believe that this was
his second encounter with the law. The first one was a strike. He was sent
out to a state prison in Chino, California and served 2 years. He was
released on parole and no violation of parole was reported as of this date.
By the way, Your Honor, he was in Chino for a violation of 215, assault with
a deadly weapon upon a minor with the enhancement of attempted rape.
Your Honor, we understand that the offense committed by my client is a
serious and violent felony. However, we believe that the strike was an
isolated incident and my client should not be convicted for the rest of his
life for an offense that he did admit having committed, and that he paid for.
It seems that the People want to use his prior record to enhance my client’s
latest offense which as Your Honor knows is a wobbler. Hit and run, Your
Honor, is generally a misdemeanor, but the People have indicated in their
complaint, that they want it to be a wobbler for the time being, and that
they will decide before the pretrial hearing, whether they will charge my
client with misdemeanor hit and run or felony hit and run. I understand
that the People have the right to file a complaint with a charge classified as
a wobbler, but what I do not understand, is why this Court is allowing the
People to base their decision on priors that are not related in any way or
manner with the offense at hand. I respectfully request from you, Your
Honor, that you rule in conformity with the law. Specifically with Section
291 of the Evidentiary Code.
Finally, Your Honor, case JV201938, has been overwhelmingly hard to
counsel due to the nature of the charges and the fact that the Petition was
not filed in accordance to the Welfare and Institution Codes, but rather, it
was filed according to the Penal Code which we all know, is the code that
governs adult offenders and not juvenile defendants. All these
irregularities made it hard for the defense to properly prepare for the case
and we had to overcome several hurdles that were placed by the Petitioner
for either lack of knowledge of the law as it is applied to minors, or they
purposely placed these hurdles to make the defense’s job more complicated
than what it actually should be. I believe that the Court should look at the
case file of the Petitioner versus Roberto G. and find the Petitioner in
contempt of court.
Submitted, Your Honor.
Please be seated. In the matter of Antonio Rigoberto Paniagua, after
reviewing the testimony of the police officers on duty at the time the victim
was killed, along with the various documents and motions filed by both
sides, I am inclined to grant a new trial on the grounds that the police
officers called to testify in the original trial apparently were not truthful. It
certainly bothers me, as an officer of this court, that these police officers
took the stand in trial court, and related to the jury something that was not
the truth. Officer Miranda stated during the trial, that he was on duty and
he received a radio-call asking him to investigate a domestic violence
incident. Furthermore, he testified that he met officer Hanks at the scene
of the incident and that both officers went into the apartment complex to
investigate what was happening. Both officers claimed on the stand, that
neither one had a gun in his hand. In fact, both officers claimed that they
did not fire any shots. However, the expert witness called to testify in this
case, showed to the court and the jury convincing evidence that the officers’
statements were not true. The expert witness said, and I am quoting from
this testimony: “there were two types of casings found at the scene of the
crime. One type matched the victim’s gun, while the other type, matched
the officer’s gun.
In fact, after rifling the officers’ weapons, our office was able to
conclusively determine that two of the casings recovered from the body of
the deceased, matched the officers’ guns. I have no doubt of that and I am
submitting evidence to that effect”, end of quote. That two officers testified
that they had never fired a shot, while the expert witness brings to the trial
court conclusive evidence that they in fact, did fire their guns, is at the very
least, disturbing to this court. Furthermore, two eyewitnesses testified that
the officers had their weapons drawn and that they were ready to fire. One
of these two witnesses characterized the officers as trigger-happy officers.
I have tried many cases on the bench and I have never found a case similar
to this one. I am quite disturbed with the allegations made by the
eyewitnesses during their testimony. I find that the case of Antonio
Rigoberto Paniagua ought to be retried on or before November 10, 2001.
This order is final. Thank you for coming.
Defendant entered a guilty plea to Count III of the information. Said count
charges the defendant with the commission of the crime of breaking and
entering, in violation of Section 225 of the Penal Code. Defendant was
asked by the court to waive and give up his constitutional rights even
though he had already initialized the waiver form given to the clerk of the
court. The defendant refused to waive and give up his constitutional rights
alleging that he did not have to waive his rights in open court since he had
already waived his constitutional rights in a prior appearance. The law
clearly states that the defendant has to waive his rights at the time of
entering his plea. Defense counsel asked for a brief recess to discuss this
with his client. The Court gave defense counsel the opportunity to discuss
this issue with his client. After a rather extended break, the defendant
appeared before the Court and he waived and gave up his constitutional
rights.
Defendant claims on appeal, that he was forced to waive his rights. He
claims that his counsel told him that if he did not enter a guilty plea, and
thus did not waive and give up his constitutional rights, the Court would
commit him to more than 10 years in state prison.
Defendant claims that he was actuated and therefore, defendant wishes to
change his plea. The Court determined that the defendant did not have the
legal right to withdraw his plea solely on the grounds stated in his brief
submitted to this Court on May 19, 2002. The Court found that the
defendant had already signed a waiver form and therefore, he could not
withdraw his plea solely on the fact that he was actuated by his counsel.
The Court, however, called the attorney to testify in this matter and it was
determined that defense counsel did not act improperly.
1. The defendant represents to the Court that the defendant is satisfied
that his attorneys have rendered effective assistance. The defendant
understands that by entering into this agreement, the defendant
surrenders certain rights as provided in this agreement. The defendant
understands that the rights of criminal defendants include the following:
a. If the defendant persisted in a plea of not guilty to the charges, the
defendant would have the right to a speedy jury trial with the assistance of
counsel. The trial may be conducted by a judge sitting without a jury if the
defendant, the United States, and the judge all agree.
b. If a jury trial is conducted, the jury would be composed of twelve
laypersons selected at random. The defendant and the defendant’s
attorney would assist in selecting the jurors by removing prospective jurors
for cause where actual bias or other disqualification is shown, or by
removing prospective jurors without cause by exercising peremptory
challenges. The jury would have to agree unanimously before it could
return a verdict of either guilty or not guilty. The jury would be instructed
that the defendant is presumed innocent, that it could not convict the
defendant unless, after hearing all the evidence, it was persuaded of the
defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that it was to consider
each charge separately.
c. If a trial is held by the judge without a jury, the judge would find the
facts and, after hearing all the evidence and considering each count
separately, determine whether or not the evidence established the
defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
d. At a trial, the United States would be required to present its witnesses
and other evidence against the defendant. The defendant would be able to
confront those witnesses and the defendant’s attorney would be able to
cross-examine them. In turn, the defendant could present witnesses and
other evidence in defendant’s own behalf. If the witnesses for the
defendant would not appear voluntarily, the defendant could require their
attendance through the subpoena power of the Court.
e. At a trial, the defendant could rely on a privilege against selfincrimination to decline to testify, and no inference of guilt could be drawn
from the refusal of the defendant to testify. If the defendant desired to do
so, the defendant could testify in the defendant’s own behalf.
What Happens If I Am Convicted Of A Probation Violation?
If a person is convicted of a probation violation, sometimes the court will
extend his probation, or impose additional terms. Often, the court will
sentence the probationer to a period of time in jail, followed by the
continuation of his probation. Sometimes, the probationer will be
resentenced to jail or prison, or will be ordered to complete a term that was
previously "suspended."
When Are Defendants Sentenced To Jail?
If the court feels that a more serious punishment is required than a term of
probation, the offender may be sentenced to jail. "Jails" are typically run by
County governments, and are used to house defendants prior to trial, and
to punish people who have been convicted of less serious crimes. Although
the exact terms vary from state to state, typically the maximum jail
sentence is one year. At times, the offender will simply be sentenced to jail,
while more typically the defendant will have to serve a term of probation
after completing his jail sentence.
What Happens If I Go To Prison?
The most serious punishment for most crimes involves sentencing the
defendant to prison, the "state penitentiary." Following serving his
"minimum term," a portion of his sentence that varies from state to state, a
defendant who is in prison will usually qualify for parole. Many defendants
who are incarcerated can earn "good behavior" or "good time" credits,
which allow them to qualify for an earlier release date by behaving. The
idea is that model prisoners are less likely to re-offend, and that prisoners
will behave better if they have an incentive not to cause trouble. Some
prisoners will not be eligible for "good time," due to the nature of their
offenses. Often "habitual offenders" are not eligible for "good time" credits.
Some jurisdictions have abolished "good time" for all prisoners.
On Thursday, October 20, 2011, Mario Lima was placed under arrest at
1023 No. Main street, after being observed exhibiting loud and tumultuous
behavior, in a public place, directed at a uniformed police officer who was
present investigating a report of a crime in progress. These actions on the
behalf of Lima served no legitimate purpose and caused citizens passing by
this location to stop and take notice while appearing surprised and
alarmed.
On the above time and date, I was on uniformed duty in an unmarked
police cruiser assigned to the Administration Section, working from 7:00
a.m. to 3:30 p.m. At approximately 12:44 p.m., I was operating my cruiser
on Westwood Blvd near Main Street. At that time, I overheard a radio call
for a possible break in progress at Main Street. Due to my proximity, I
responded.
When I arrived at Main Street I radioed headquarters and asked that they
have the caller meet me at the front door to this residence. I was told that
the caller was already outside. As I was getting this information, I climbed
the porch stairs toward the front door. As I reached the door, a female
voice called out to me. I turned and looked in the direction of the voice and
observed a white female, later identified as Lucia Ramos. Ramos, who was
standing on the sidewalk in front of the residence, held a wireless
telephone in her hand and told me that it was she who called. She went on
to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with
backpacks on the porch of 23 No. Main Street. She told me that her
suspicions were aroused when she observed one of the men wedging his
shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry. Since I was the
only police office on location and had my back to the front door as I spoke
with her, I asked that she wait for other responding officers while I
investigated further.
Suddenly three men approached us with knives and guns. They pointed the
guns at me and took Ms. Ramos as a hostage. Right after they left the
scene, I radioed for back up. Five units came to the scene and caught up
with the car where Ms. Ramos was held captive. Officer James, badge
number 489, stopped the car and arrested Mr. Lima at 1023 No. Main
Street.
Parole is a privilege, not a right, and many prisoners are refused parole
when they first apply. Parole boards expect to hear a prisoner admit
responsibility for his crimes. They also expect that the prisoner will take
advantage of the programs made available in prison, such as, if
appropriate, GED programs, Alcoholics Anonymous, and vocational
training. They will also look at the prisoner's conduct during incarceration,
and whether the prisoner has been cited for misconduct. (Typically,
prisoners will be "ticketed" for their violations of prison rules, with offenses
classified as "major" or "minor." A prisoner who was involved in a fight
would likely be ticketed for a "major" offense, while a prisoner who yelled
at a guard might be ticketed for a "minor" offense, depending on the
circumstances. These "tickets" can be challenged through administrative
hearings, but are usually upheld as valid.) They may also look at the
prisoner's age, the amount of time he has served, the remaining time in his
sentence, and his mental health. The exact criteria for parole vary from
state to state.
Perhaps the most important assessment that the parole board attempts to
assess is the likelihood that the prisoner will re-offend. Parole boards have
no interest in releasing people into society who will commit more crimes,
particularly given that the media will sometimes hold the parole board as
responsible as the criminal in such cases. Increasingly, potentially
dangerous offenders, such as sex offenders, are finding that they are never
granted parole, even in states where they are eligible.
Some prisoners are not eligible for parole, either because of state policy, or
because of the crime they committed. Some crimes carry a flat term of
years, which must be completed without the possibility of parole. A
defendant who is sentenced to "life" in prison will either be sentenced to
"parolable life," or to "non-parolable life." If a person serving a "life" term
is eligible for parole, he typically must serve fifteen or twenty years of his
sentence before he can request parole. If a person is serving non-parolable
life, he never becomes eligible for parole.
As domestic violence awareness has increased, it has become evident that
abuse can occur within a number of relationships. The laws in many states
cover incidents of violence occurring between married couples, as well as
abuse of elders by family members, abuse between roommates, dating
couples and those in lesbian and gay relationships.
In an abusive relationship, the abuser may use a number of tactics other
than physical violence in order to maintain power and control over his or
her partner:
Emotional and verbal abuse:
Survivors of domestic violence recount stories of put-downs, public
humiliation, name-calling, mind games and manipulation by their
partners. Many say that the emotional abuse they have suffered has left the
deepest scars.
Isolation:
It is common for an abuser to be extremely jealous, and insist that the
victim not see her friends or family members. The resulting feeling of
isolation may then be increased for the victim if she loses her job as a result
of absenteeism or decreased productivity (which are often associated with
people who are experiencing domestic violence).
Threats and Intimidation:
Threats -- including threats of violence, suicide, or of taking away the
children -- are a very common tactic employed by the batterer.
The existence of emotional and verbal abuse, attempts to isolate, and
threats and intimidation within a relationship may be an indication that
physical abuse is to follow. Even if they are not accompanied by physical
abuse, the effect of these incidents must not be minimized. Many of the
resources listed in this book have information available for people who are
involved with an emotionally abusive intimate partner.
After the witness walked us through the layout of the apartment, the
attorney for the defense filed an objection on narrative. The Court denied
the objection and the witness continued with his description of the
distribution of the house. With a black marker, he drew something similar
to a blueprint of the house and also indicated that there was a police officer
outside the house acting as a watchdog, so to speak. The witness indicated,
on the record, that he did not witness the commission of any heinous crime
or anything similar to what the Prosecutor mentioned during the People’s
opening. However, the witness indicated that he was aware that the
defendant was attending a batterer’s program as one of the conditions of
his probation. Said probation was granted by Judge Mark Spree when the
defendant pled to battery against a spouse and/or cohabitant.
After testifying for the Prosecution, the defense informed that Court that
they intend to recall the witness, if the Prosecution fails to submit a report
listing the physical evidence seized at the defendant’s place of employment.
“No queríamos bronca con chavo que se le hechó encima a uno de nuestros
primos hermanos. El día de este tremendo mitote, este fulanito estaba
contra uno de los rincones de la casa del convivio. De repente, se hechó
encima de Manuel y salió como bólido. Es un chavo que tiene la cabeza
rapada como la de un soldado raso. Creo que ya lo habían procesado
penalmente porque andaba metido en un negocio medio turbio que
involucraba la droga. Siempre anda con unos matones que traen pistola y
que se me hace que andaban haciendo de las suyas cuando Carlos los vio en
la esquina de la tienda de abarrotes. Carlos dijo que parecían unos
borrachos empedernidos. Que parecían como personas descarriadas.
Abandonadas por la fortuna. Personas con corazones corruptos. Estaban
tan pasados que no podían con sus almas”
La declaración previa se llevó a cabo conforme a las normas establecidas
por el C. Juez en lo Penal, Licenciado Marcos Quiroz. El declarante fue
informado de las sanciones a las que se expone toda persona que declara
falsos y luego firmó esta declaración al pie y al calce conforme a derecho.
On the day of the allegedly illegal police action at the defendant’s domicile,
nothing out of the ordinary was taking place when the arresting officer
approached the defendant’s home and shouted: “This is a raid. Come out of
your home with your hands up. You are surrounded.”
The day of the bust, the defendant was at home with his two first cousins,
who are want to be gang bangers, having a meeting of the minds, so to
speak, as to how to carry out the next hold up. All three of them came out
of the house with their hand below their back. The arresting officers went
into the house searching for more people and for evidence that could
corroborate the allegations made by prosecutors and by an eyewitness in
his supplemental declarations made to one of the Deputy District Attorneys
working in the case.
The defendant was in a one year work furlough as indicated by the
additional exhibits attached to the motion to set aside evidence filed by the
defense at the beginning of this case.
Toda persona que se presente en este reclusorio tras haber estado en
arraigo domiciliario deberá traer la documentación expedida por la
Delegación correspondiente a su domicilio, la cual indicará las condiciones
de su condena condicional y los plazos de reclusión. Si el procesado se
encuentra sujeto a una orden de arraigo por haber cometido un delito en
contra de la salud, dicho procesado deberá traer la documentación
expedida por la Agencia de Control de Estupefacientes.
Dicha
documentación deberá incluir los resultados de los análisis, ya sea de orina,
sangre o algún otro tipo, los cuales indiquen que sí se encontraron vestigios
de drogas en dicha persona.
Tras haber presentado los documentos pertinentes a su causa, al procesado
se le aceptará como recluso por el plazo estipulado por el C. Juez de
Primera Instancia.
La Agencia del Ministerio Público correspondiente junto con el Agente del
Ministerio Público adscrito al juzgado a cargo de la causa tendrán el
derecho a recibir el informe de reclusión expedido por este reclusorio, el
cual indicará su comportamiento y el crédito otorgado a dicho procesado
por trabajo en el reclusorio.
ight Translation for Court Interpreters
The superseding indictment filed by the People in case number
7SE290293, includes four counts. Count one charges the defendant,
Araceli Gutierrez, of having violated Section 187 of the Federal Penal Code,
to wit: attempted murder. It is alleged in this complaint that Araceli
Gutierrez, also known as Araceli Domingo Gutierrez, also known as Araceli
Gutierrez Domingo, unlawfully and intentionally tried to harm, produce
corporal injuries and/or kill the named victim herein, to wit: Maria
Pedroza Martínez. Count two charges the defendant, Araceli Gutierrez, of
having violated Section 209 of the Federal Penal Code, to wit: brandishing
a deadly weapon, a Magnum and Wesson, semiautomatic, 45 gun. It is also
alleged in this complaint that on February 12th, 1998, the aforementioned
defendant tried to conceal a deadly firearm, to wit: a 45 Magnum and
Wesson, a semiautomatic. Count three charges the defendant Araceli
Gutierrez, also known as Araceli Domingo Gutierrez, also known as Araceli
Gutierrez Domingo, of having violated Section 390 of the Federal Penal
Code, to wit: Firing a deadly weapon against a police officer in the
performance of his duties. It is also alleged in this complaint that the
aforementioned defendant drove a vehicle, to wit: a Ford Escort, California
license plate 3DHT548, along a highway, exhibiting a deadly firearm and
firing it against other vehicles.
Count four charges the defendant of having violated Section 298 of the
Federal Penal Code, to wit: Resisting arrest. The defendant in this case is
on formal probation out of another District Court. The defendant is advised
that by entering a no contest plea in this matter, such plea may be used to
violate his probation granted in the other District Court.
The defendant has been offered a deal consisting of 21 years in state prison,
straight time, without the possibility of parole. Mr. Araceli Gutierrez, you
are hereby advised that in order to take this offer, you have to give up your
constitutional rights. You have to give up your right to a court trial, your
right to a jury trial, your right to confront and cross examine witnesses
testifying against you, your right to self-incrimination. At this time, your
attorney will explain those rights to you. You are hereby advised that your
attorney has requested an indicated sentence in this matter. In order to
evaluate your matter, the court will take a 10 minute recess. Thank you.
Los agentes policiales que investigaban un asunto de presunto tráfico ilegal
de drogas encontraron en una de las pesquisas de un domicilio particular,
10 kilogramos de cocaína. Los agentes a cargo de dicha pesquisa, fueron
interrogados por el C. Juez en lo Penal, Alberto Murillo, en referencia al
lugar, las personas y el tipo de sustancias reguladas encontradas en el lugar
de cateo. Según el mencionado C. Juez en lo Penal, se expidió una orden
de cateo en contra del domicilio registrado puesto que existía motivo
fundado para creer que se almacenaba, fabricaba y distribuía algún tipo de
sustancia regulada. El allanamiento de tal domicilio arrojó resultados
positivos y se secuestraron pruebas de suma importancia para la
tramitación de la causa que se promovió en el Juzgado 120 del Distrito
Federal, en contra de Gabriel Cortéz Cortéz, uno de los presuntos
discípulos del capo de la droga de Mazatlán, Alberto Carrío Rodríguez.
La causa, la que se encuentra en la etapa de investigación, se promovió por
medio de un escrito acusatorio expedido por el C. Agente de Ministerio
l
Público, Licenciado Carlos Gómez, y en la actualidad se está resolviendo la
tipificación exacta de tres de los ilícitos no tipificados, los que se
incluyeron en los cargos I, II y III del escrito acusatorio. Los resultados de
esta pesquisa aclaran aún más los tipos de delitos que se cometieron en tal
domicilio. En relación a los autores materiales e intelectuales de estos
delitos, me permito mencionar que se han identificado a ocho participantes
y a cuatro cómplices.
May it please the Court, Counsel Kirk Kolbo, on behalf of the defendant,
Mariano Cortez. I want to begin, Your Honor, for myself and my client,
and on behalf of our entire defense team; by thanking Your Honor and the
Court for the courtesy you have extended to all the parties and counsel
throughout the trial of this matter. Our thanks extend to the Court’s staff,
to the Sheriff’s Office, to the court reporters, to the court interpreters who
have taken turns trying to keep up with the lawyers and the witnesses in
this case. With respects to my closing arguments, Your Honor, I’m not
going to try to be comprehensive. It’s been a long enough trial, that a
witness-by-witness, or document-by-document account would neither be
practical nor useful. Instead, I want to take some time to focus on some
areas that seem important and seem to have re-occurred throughout this
case. There are of course, as the Court knows, three issues before the Court
on the trial of this matter. And that certainly is what I intend to focus my
remarks on. There is also, as the Court knows, a fourth issue before the
Court concerning whether discrimination played a crucial and determining
role in this case. After we held a Pitchess Hearing, we were able to obtain
further information regarding the arresting officer and the complaints filed
in his Department for either discriminatory conduct or excessive use of
force in the performance of his duties. The jury had the opportunity to
hear testimony from some of the victims of this cruel and unprofessional
police officer. And let me remind the Court, as well as the jury, that most
police officers are outstanding officers and citizens. This arresting officer
is the exception to the rule. He is the one that arrested my client without
probable cause. My client was simply driving northbound on Pacific
Boulevard when, out of the blue, a black and white unit pulled him over
without any reason whatsoever. I want to concentrate on the arrest since it
is the starting point of this matter. However, I would kindly ask the Court
for a 10-minute break in order to consult with one member of the defense
team.
Thank You.
Me dirijo a este Honorable Juez para pedirle que deje sin lugar la denuncia
hecha en mi contra por parte del Sr. Moreno Díaz. Le informo a usted muy
Distinguido y Honorable Juez Penal Roberto Lima que el Sr. Moreno Díaz
es mi vecino de más de 10 años y que él me amenazó hace dos meses atrás
porque yo me negué a tener una relación amorosa con él. La actitud que él
decidió tomar es inventar falsos y denunciarme ante la Delegación del
Ministerio Público correspondiente a mi domicilio. El Sr. Moreno Díaz
afirma que yo intenté robarle bienes de su posesión y que yo estoy a cargo
de un negocio de la prostitución y que uso mi casa para esos fines. Nada
está más apartado de la realidad y la verdad. Eso se lo aseguro. El levantó
falsos en mi contra y yo vengo a responderle. Mi única manera de probar
que él está mintiendo es presentarle a usted C. Juez en lo Penal, Roberto
Lima, varios testigos que aseveren que él está mintiendo. Jamás me
encontré en una situación similar. Deseo también solicitarle a este
Honorable Juez que expida autos de presentación o comparecencia para
que mis testigos se vean obligados a presentarse ante usted. Además le
notifico que estoy dispuesta a promover una demanda por calumnias en
contra del Sr. Moreno Díaz. Solicitaré indemnización por daños y
perjuicios y si es necesario, promoveré una acción penal en su contra ya
que como usted bien sabe, las calumnias son sancionables tanto en la vía
penal como en la vía civil.
Sin otro particular, lo saluda atentamente, su más segura servidora.
Marta Pedroza Gómez
The Court has considered the prosecution’s motion for the imposition of
sanctions for the failure of the defense to disclose in a lawfully, timely
manner, a tape recording of the 29 July 2000 interview of defense witness,
Maria Lopez, by defense investigator, William Pavelic. The Court has
heard the argument of counsel. Penal Section Code 1054.3, requires the
defense to disclose to the prosecution before trial, the names and addresses
of the persons the defense intends to call as witnesses at trial, together with
any relevant written or recorded statements of those persons, or reports of
the statements of those persons.
As Lopez was being called to testify on 27 February at a conditional
examination pursuant to Penal Code 1335, defense counsel belatedly
revealed the existence of a second investigator’s report regarding a
statement made by Lopez. After a brief ex-parte hearing, pursuant to Penal
Code 1054.7, the Court directed the defense to immediately disclose the
second report to the prosecution. The Prosecution made several inquiries,
assisted by the Court, as to the existence of any other reports, notes or tape
recordings of either of Lopez’s statements to Pavelic. Both Mr. Douglas and
Mr. Monaco, clearly and unequivocally stated to the Court that no tape
recording of either of Lopez’s statements was in the possession of the
defense. This assertion was false. The late disclosure resulted in a fourcourt-day delay of proceedings before the jury.
In fashioning the appropriate sanction for the delay of the disclosure of
both the tape recording and second report, the Court must examine
whether the delay was the result of inadvertence, negligence or an
intentional act designed to gain a tactical advantage. The Court may also
examine the history of discovery proceedings that have already taken place
in this case, noting that the Court has already made a decision on finding
that the defense deliberately and unlawfully withheld discoverable
materials with the intent to gain a tactical advantage.
Lopez is an important witness for the defense because her testimony is that
the defendant’s automobile was parked on the street at the defendant’s
residence between 8:30 p.m. on 12 June, until it was impounded by the Los
Angeles Police Department during the mid-morning hours of 13 June. This
would conflict with the Prosecution’s theory that the defendant used the
car to travel to and from the crime scene. It would also support the
defendant’s alibi as proferred during Mr. Monaco’s opening statement on
behalf of the defendant.
Alaberto Moreno Padilla ha sido representado por su abogado particular en
la causa penal número 9288/01. Durante la averiguación previa y justo
antes de la expedición del auto de formal prisión, el inculpado cursó un
pedimento para retirar su declaración ministerial puesto que dicho
inculpado argumenta que fue obligado a rendirla sin permitirle gozar su
garantía procesal de tener un abogado presente durante la declaración.
Ante esta disyuntiva, el C. Secretario Judicial del Juzgado Penal 14, redactó
un acta sobre lo acontecido para una futura investigación de las
afirmaciones hechas por el Sr. Moreno Padilla.
La ley rige las diligencias previas al dictamen de las condenas, ya sea
dentro de esta jurisdicción como afuera de la misma, indica claramente que
todo individuo tiene el derecho de ser representado durante su declaración
ministerial. El no informarle a todo inculpado de dicho derecho procesal,
serán causales suficientes para que el inculpado procure un juicio de
amparo.
En esta causa en particular, el inculpado no solicita el amparo sino que
afirma haber sido obligado a declarar algo diferente de lo que en realidad
aconteció. En particular, el indiciado indico: “Estabamos teniendo una
discusión muy acalorada cuando llegó el chino y nos dijo que José estaba
haciendo de las suyas en la cantina del pueblo. Nosotros no le hicimos caso
y en menos que canta un gallo, este chino sacó un cuete de la cintura de su
pantalón y le disparó a Carlos, quien cayó de espalda al piso con una herida
en la sien. El chino trató de dispararme, pero se le trabó el mecanismo del
arma y no le salió el tiro. En realidad, le salió el tiro por la culata porque la
policía lo vio tratar de disparar en mi contra. En lo que respecta a Carlos,
el murió en el acto. No creo que se haya dado cuenta quién le tiró. El
chino trató de hacerle creer a la policía que yo había matado a Carlos.
Inclusive le mencionó que habían varios testigos que habían visto y oído
nuestra tan acalorada discusión. Lo que este chino no se percató es que la
policía lo vio al momento que trató de dispararme. Lo que sí acepto es que
yo tenía la intención de matar a Carlos. Es que el chino llegó primero y me
privó de ese gusto.”
La declaración anterior no contiene toda la verdad. En realidad, la parte en
la que el inculpado indica que el también quería matar a Carlos, es falsa. El
inculpado insiste y argumenta que lo obligaron a decir eso porque el chino
pertenece a la corporación y todos sus cuates lo trataban de defender. Eso
es todo lo que tuvo que decir el inculpado. Doy fe.
This is the case of the People versus Juan Martin Rodriguez and Pedro
Prieto Quintanilla. In the case of Juan Martin Rodriguez, the defense has
filed a motion to dismiss this matter on the grounds of lack of evidence.
That motion is denied. The Court has determined that the evidence
submitted by the prosecution during the preliminary hearing is sufficient
to hold the defendant to answer for the violation of section 273.5 of the
Penal Code, commonly known as domestic violence. Counsel for Mr. Pedro
Prieto Quintanilla filed a motion to dismiss this matter on the grounds of
lack of discovery on the part of the prosecution. After carefully reviewing
this motion, the Court cannot dismiss a 187 case, based on lack of discovery
alone. The Court has decided to grant the defense a continuance so that
counsel for Mr. Prieto Quintanilla can obtain all the discovery necessary for
the trial preparation. Furthermore, I order the prosecution to turn in to
the defense each and every piece of evidence the prosecution expects to use
during the trial. Failure to comply with this court order shall result in
contempt of court and the corresponding punishment shall be applied to
the prosecuting agency.
Mr. Martin Rodriguez and Mr. Prieto Quintanilla, you have the right to
have a trial in your matter within 60 days from the date of the preliminary
hearing. In your case, Mr. Prieto Quintanilla, your counsel has requested
additional time to prepare for the trial. Before the Court can grant that
continuance, the Court must be satisfied that you wish to waive and give up
your right to a speedy trial. If you do not waive and give up your right to a
speedy trial, I cannot grant the continuance requested by your own counsel
and the trial will have to begin tomorrow morning.
Mr. Martin Rodriguez, in your matter, the trial may begin tomorrow.
However, since the defense counsels have not filed a motion for severance
of co-defendants, your trial must be held on the same date set for Mr.
Quintanilla’s trial. Thus, you will also have to waive and give up your right
to a speedy trial. I understand that both co-defendants agree in waiving
and giving up their right to a speedy trial. Therefore, trial will be set for
July 24, at 9 a.m. in this Department. Thank you counsels. Mr. Rodriguez
and Mr. Quintanilla…….I’ll see you on the 24th.
In a state prosecution, the filing of a felony complaint is insufficient to
engage the federal Constitution’s speedy trial protections, which do not
operate until a formal information or indictment is filed. Absent a
violation of a statutory speedy trial provision, a showing of specific
prejudice is required to establish a violation of the state Constitution’s
speedy trial right. Appellant was arrested in 1995 for an alcohol-related
charge, three years and ten months after a warrant was issued in 1991 for
her arrest, after she failed to appear for arraignment on a felony drunk
driving charge. A preliminary hearing was held on the 1991 offense, and
appellant was held to answer. She then moved to dismiss the charge due to
denial of her state and federal right to a speedy trial, as her federal speedy
trial right attached upon the filing of the felony complaint.
The trial court denied the motion without prejudice, and appellant was
found guilty. The trial court then conducted a hearing on the violation of
appellant’s speedy trial rights. Appellant maintained that she had not ever
lived at the address to which the arraignment notice was sent, and that she
had no recollection of where she was the day of the arrest. The trial court
denied the motion because appellant’s federal right to a speedy trial did not
attach until the filing of the information in 1995. Regarding appellant’s
right under the state Constitution, the trial court held that she had not
proved prejudice caused by the delay. The Court of Appeal affirmed,
holding that there was no error in hearing the speedy trial motion after
trial, and that appellant suffered no prejudice as a result of the delay.
The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s judgment.
The court declined to overrule decisions declining to recognize a
presumption of prejudice arising from post-complaint delay. In this
situation, where the accused has not been formally charged, the state
Constitution’s due process and speedy trial guarantees protect the same
interest. As a result, the courts should use the same test to determine if
those rights have been violated. Because appellant was not entitled to a
presumption of prejudice, and because the delay occurred prior to the
preliminary hearing, an affirmative demonstration of prejudice was
required under the state Constitution. As a result, there was no error in
ruling on the motion only after the completion of the trial.
Alejandro Rodrigo Pernico, con el carácter de sentenciado dentro de los
autos del toca penal al rubro superior indicado, ante usted con el debido
respeto comparezco y expongo:
Que por medio del presente ocurso con fundamento en lo establecido por
los artículos 8, 103 Constitucional así como el 163 de la Ley de Amparo, se
me tenga presente desahogando la siguiente declaración rendida ante las
autoridades policíacas de la Delegación Benustiano Carranza, en la ciudad
de México:
El 14 de los actuales me apersoné en la Delegación Benustiano Carranza
con el fin de elevar una denuncia en contra de José Armando. El Sr.
Armando se apoderó ilícitamente de una camioneta de carga, placas
453MDF del Distrito Federal, de mi pertenencia. Al momento de
apoderarse de dicho bien, el susodicho me dijo: “Afloja la lana o me llevo la
pickup. Estoy hasta el tope con tu actitud. Tú sí que puedes robarle a la
gente pero no te gusta que te lo hagan a ti. Me la llevo y se acabó.” A tal
manifestación me remito.
En términos de lo dispuesto por el artículo 171 de la Ley de Amparo en
vigor, solicito se decrete la suspensión de la resolución citada por el
Magistrado de este Tribunal de Apelaciones.
Protesto lo necesario.
Alejandro Rodrigo Pernico
En un poder notarial general, se otorgan las siguientes facultades.
 Facultades de administración en el ámbito civil (Ejemplo: Rendir,
exigir y aprobar cuentas, firmar y seguir correspondencia, etc.)
 Facultades para variar las circunstancias físicas de los bienes,
realizando los trámites necesarios para su legalización, inscripción
catastral o inscripción registral.
 Facultades de adquisición a titulo oneroso o gratuito de bienes
muebles (Ejemplo. adquirir, comprar, o recibir en donación, por acto
inter-vivos, a título oneroso o gratuito).
 Facultades de plena Representación tributaria: La realización de
cualquier trámite ante las administraciones tributarias (estatal,
autonómico, foral y local).
 Facultades arrendaticias o que atribuyan posesión (Ejemplo:
suscribir, modificar, extinguir, liquidar, percibir las rentas,
desahuciar, comprometer y dar en arrendamiento, aparcería,
precario y comodato).
 Facultades contractuales: Facultad para constituir, modificar,
extinguir o resolver los distintos tipos de contratos.
 Facultades de contratación administrativa: Contratar por
adjudicación directa, subasta o concurso público de todo tipo.
 Facultades laborales. Suscribir, modificar, extinguir y liquidar
contratos laborales.
 Facultades mercantiles de trafico ordinario (factor notorio para
determinar un poder general)
 Facultades financieras
 Facultades bancarias
 Facultades cambiarias (respecto de letras de cambio, cheques,
pagarés, talones, cartas ordenes de crédito y travelers’ checks)
 Facultades societarias.
 Facultades de representación ante autoridades y organismos
públicos
 Facultades hereditarias
 Facultades de representación procesal
En la ciudad de Mexicali, Baja California, siendo las diez horas del día
quince de mayo de mil novecientos ochenta y nueve, comparece ante el
suscrito Licenciado Francisco Pereira, Agente del Ministerio Público
Federal Auxiliar, quién actúa en forma legal con testigos de asistencia que
al final firman y dan fé, el C. Guillermo Manero, a quién se le protesta
conforme a la Ley para que se conduzca con la verdad en relación a los
hechos ajenos y se le exhorta en los mismos términos con el mismo fin por
lo que respecta a hechos propios, haciéndole saber de las penas en que
incurren los falsos declarantes y por sus generales manifestó llamarse
como queda escrito, ser de 33 años de edad, casado, con instrucción,
Agente de la Policía Judicial Federal, originario de México, D.F., y vecinos
de esta ciudad, con domicilio para oír y recibir toda clase de notificaciones
en las oficinas que ocupa la corporación a la que pertenece y en relación a
esta su comparecencia declaró: - Que en este acto tiene a la vista y da
lectura en voz alta al oficio número 481 de fechas once de mayo del año en
curso, reconociendo como suya la firma que aparece al calce del mismo por
haberla puesto en su puño y letra y ser la misma que utiliza en todos los
asuntos públicos como privados. - Que es todo lo que tiene que manifestar
y previa lectura de lo anterior lo ratifica firmando al calce y margen de la
presente para constancia ante el suscrito y testigos de asistencia que al
final firman y dan fe.
Los comparecientes presentaron a un niño recién fallecido y cuya
edad era de 4 días de vida. Se adjuntó el acta de defunción
correspondiente. -----------------------Los comparecientes dicen que encontraron al presentado en un
parque junto a un árbol y que ya estaba muerto. El Agente del
Ministerio Público adscrito a la delegación correspondiente fue
notificado de la presencia de un presentado sin vida. El Ministerio
Público despachó dos Delegados para cerciorarse de lo acontecido. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Conforme al artículo 65 del Código de Procedimiento Civiles para el
Distrito Federal los comparecientes manifestaron que el menor fue
encontrado con las ropas que lleva puestas, declararon el día y el
lugar donde hallaron al presentado y las posibles causas de tal
muerta, si es que tuvieran conocimiento de las mismas. Se extienden dos actas la de nacimiento y la de defunción a petición
de las partes. El presentado lleva el nombre dado por el Juez del
Registro Civil, a saber: Aníbal Alameda. El Juez del Registro Civil
actúa conforme a derecho al asignarle el nombre y apellido
mencionado.
-----------------------------------------------------------El médico forense adscrito a la oficina del Ministerio Público se hizo
presente para llevar a cabo la autopsia de rigor. --------------------------------------------------------Doy fe de lo acontecido. Los comparecientes firmaron al calce previa
lectura de la correspondiente acta de nacimiento y del presente. Este
documento público perderá validez cuando no contenga el sello de
este juzgado. -------------------------
Yo, Alberto Pereira Morales, por la presente comparezco en este juzgado de
primera instancia para desahogar mi declaración ministerial conforme al
artículo 129 de Código de Procedimientos Penales para el D.F.
El suscrito protesta que lo que procede es cierto y que según su leal saber y
entender corresponde a lo sucedido la noche del 23 de enero de 1998.
Primero: el declarante no se percató de ninguna actividad delictiva
consumada por el inculpado. Segundo: el abajo-firmante se encontraba
presente en el lugar de los hechos pero no tiene conocimiento alguno de la
presunta responsabilidad del inculpado en la comisión del delito de
tentativa de asesinato. Tercero: el infrascrito no conoce a la víctima del
delito y por lo tanto no está en condición de declarar sobre los posibles
móviles del delito mencionado. Cuarto: A pesar que el inculpado insiste
que el suscrito tiene conocimiento de lo acontecido, el abajo-firmante niega
cualquier conocimiento de los hechos e indica en estas constancias
procesales que a pesar de conocer al inculpado jamás estuvo presente en
ninguna acción dolosa cometida por dicho inculpado. Quinto: el inculpado
es una persona de alta solvencia moral y el suscrito considera poco
probable las acusaciones interpuestas en su contra.
Tras la lectura de rigor, las partes participantes firmaron el documento al
pie y al calce del mismo. Doy fe.
La parte actora reclama judicialmente el divorcio necesario de su consorte,
a virtud de que, además de la incompatibilidad de caracteres existente
entre ambos, la demandada se ha separado del hogar conyugal, por más de
seis meses, sin mediar causa justificada para ello y, como esta situación es
antijurídica e ilegal y no puede perdurar indefinidamente, recurre a la vía
judicial demandando el divorcio con todas las consecuencias inherentes a
la disolución del vínculo matrimonial.
Se ha dado entrada a la demanda en la vía y forma propuesta; se ha
emplazado a juicio y en los términos de ley a la parte demandada; que la
señora Teresa Pereira por su escrito relativo que obra en autos, la
ha confesado en todas y cada una de sus partes, esto es que está casada
legalmente con el actor; no haber procreado ningún hijo; que es verdad que
se vio precisada a dejar el domicilio conyugal en los términos expresados
en la demanda; y es conforme en divorciarse.
Que esta confesión expresa, implica allanarse a la demanda, misma que ha
sido ratificada ante la presencia judicial; por lo que habiendo recaído
acuerdo en el sentido de que se cita a las partes para oír sentencia, se dicta
ésta como lo ordena la ley.
En la ciudad de Mexicali, Baja California, siendo las diez horas del día
quince de mayo de mil novecientos ochenta y nueve, comparece ante el
suscrito Licenciado Francisco Pereira, Agente del Ministerio Público
Federal Auxiliar, quién actúa en forma legal con testigos de asistencia que
al final
firman y dan fe, el C. Guillermo Manero, a quién se le protesta conforme a
la Ley para que se conduzca con la verdad en relación a los hechos ajenos y
se
le exhorta en los mismos términos con el mismo fin por lo que respecta a
hechos propios, haciéndole saber de las penas en que incurren los falsos
declarantes y por sus generales manifestó llamarse como queda escrito, ser
de33 años de edad, casado, con instrucción, Agente de la Policía Judicial
Federal, originario de México, D.F., y vecinos de esta ciudad, con domicilio
para oír y recibir toda clase de notificaciones en las oficinas que ocupa la
corporación a la que pertenece y en relación a esta su comparecencia
declaró:
- Que en este acto tiene a la vista y da lectura en voz alta al oficio número
481 de fechas once de mayo del año en curso, reconociendo como suya la
firma que aparece al calce del mismo por haberla puesto en su puño y letra
y ser la misma que utiliza en todos los asuntos públicos como privados. Que
es todo lo que tiene que manifestar y previa lectura de lo anterior lo ratifica
firmando al calce y margen de la presente para constancia ante el suscrito y
testigos de asistencia que al final firman y dan fe.
El chavo del distrito se rompió el alma tratando de convencer a su ruca
para que se case con él. La ruca se había ido de rol cuando llegó su amigo
de este chavo con una escuadra. Él siempre vacilaba que lo habían metido
al bote varias veces por andar robando. Me dijo que le habían metido en la
universidad y que para salir tuvo que aflojar mucha lana con el carcelero de
la universidad.
Desde que salió, los dos chavos se dedican al vacilón. Yo no sabía que el
chavo que vive conmigo había estado en la de cuadritos con el chavo que
estuvo en la
universidad por robar electrodomésticos.
El chavo que vive conmigo parece que contrató los servicios de este otro
chavo para que haga un trabajito. Le dio una foto de su ruca de él y le pidió
que la ablande a
ver si así ella quería casarse con él.
Yo escuché una vez que la ruca andaba enfadada con este chavo porque él
era muy celoso. Recuerdo que él le dijo a ella que si lo dejaba le iba e dar en
la madre y que se la tenía jurada.
La mera neta es que yo no sé si mi compa le pidió al otro chavo que la
matara. Sólo puedo declarar que él le pidió que la ablandara.
Yo le pido que dejen de ser ladillentos y me dejen en paz.
La declaración previa fue rendida conforme a derecho ante las autoridades
del
Ministerio Público del Distrito Federal.
Doy Fe.
Estimado Licenciado Romero,
Por este medio me permito comunicarme con usted con el fin de
proporcionarle información sobre el pedimento cursado por el Licenciado
Portella, el cual solicita al C. Juez en lo Penal Licenciado Mariano Sinfin la
postergación del período de revelación de pruebas constitucional bajo las
causales de inaccesibilidad a dos fuentes de información, las cuales han de
proporcionar pruebas testimoniales que apuntan a la culpabilidad del hoy
inculpado, el Sr. Manuel Zanabria Díaz de Cabrera.
Según el Artículo 28 del Código de Procedimientos Penales, le informa que
el período de revelación de pruebas no puede ser prolongado puesto que
está establecido por la Constitución Nacional, a menos que el Licenciado
Portella tenga la intención de reformar la Constitución Nacional previo a la
presentación del pedimento mencionado.
I stood before you back in January. I said to you if you listen carefully to
that tape--and you'll have the tape in the jury room. You put it in a tape
recorder. When you listen to it, listen carefully because you can hear in the
background the sound of someone being struck or slapped. And that's what
the 911 operator heard and she told you on the witness stand that she heard
that. She heard the sound, the noise of someone being beaten and she put
that out on the radio. You recall that? She put it out on the radio that there
was a woman being beaten at 3606 north Cresta Avenue. They may say that
this isn't important evidence. I say they're wrong. There's physical abuse
here, wife beating here, spousal abuse, spousal battery going on and this is
an emergency situation. And Sharon Gilbert, the 911 operator, puts this call
out code 2, high, get somebody to 3606 north Cresta Avenue fast. And they
do. And they do. About 4:00 o'clock in the morning, Officer Edwards
arrived at 3606 north Cresta Avenue. You recall Officer Edwards. He and
his partner, they drove up Cresta--I'm sorry--they drove up Ashford to pass
the Ashford gate. They stopped at Cresta where they saw the call box. He
got out of his patrol car and he pushed the button at the call box, and a
voice responded on the other side. It was the voice of the maid at that time,
Michelle Aboudram. Officer Edwards identified himself, told Michelle that
he was there in response to a 911 call and that he needed to speak to the
person that made the call. Michelle said, "Hey, there's no problem here.
Don't worry about it. Go on about your way." But Officer Edwards was
persistent and he said, "No, no, no. I'm not leaving until I speak to the
person that made that call." And as he spoke to Michelle Aboudram,
someone ran out of the bushes in the dark. Do you recall that testimony?
You heard it. It was here. Someone ran from the bushes in the dark. It was
a woman, a woman with blond hair. She was wearing a bra. She was
wearing a bra and pajamas or sweatpants. And that woman came running
from the bushes in the darkness toward the gate where the call box was and
she was yelling something. She was shouting something. Do you remember
what she was shouting? Remember what the testimony was in this case?
She was shouting, "He's going to kill me, he's going to kill me, he's going to
kill me," and she shouted this four or five times as she arrived at that
button and began pushing that button to get out of that gate, to get off that
property, to get out of his house.
Mismas probanzas que adminiculadas recíprocamente arrojan, hasta este
momento procesal, indicios suficientes para establecer la probable
responsabilidad del indiciado ALFONSO MARTÍN DEL CAMPO DODD en
la comisión de los delitos de HOMICIDIO por los cuales fue consignado,
pues de las probanzas antes transcritas adminiculadas con la declaración
inicial rendida por el indiciado ante el Ministerio Público, en la cual acepta
los hechos que se le imputan, se hace evidente hasta este momento su
probable responsabilidad en los hechos que se estudian. Y si bien es cierto
que ante este Juzgado, en vía de declaración preparatoria, dijo no ratificar
lo anteriormente dicho toda vez que había sido presionado, golpeado y
amenazado por los agentes de la Policía Judicial de la Procuraduría
General de Justicia del Distrito Federal, que al preguntar cómo había
hecho las cosas les contestaba que no sabía y lo golpeaban, y le decían que
no se hiciera y así fue como le sacaron la declaración y que el de la voz
aceptó en declarar; posteriormente fue llevado al lugar de los hechos en
donde lo estuvieron fotografiando, señalando asimismo que un día antes
de los hechos estuvo en compañía de los hoy occisos, en la casa de una
amiga de su hermana de nombre VIOLETA GARIBAY, que el día 29 de
mayo del año en curso, siendo aproximadamente las 11:30 horas llegó a su
domicilio y procedió a desvestirse para irse a dormir, quedándose dormido
sin percatarse a qué hora llegaron GERARDO, su esposa y sus hijas, y al
estar durmiendo el de la voz de pronto escuchó un grito de pánico que le
decían “CHACHO”, de inmediato abrió la puerta de la recámara del que
habla, se percató que estaba un sujeto entre la recámara del de la voz y la
de su cuñado, que dicho sujeto llevaba tapada la cabeza con una media, que
de inmediato se le vino encima al de la voz a golpes y puñetazos, que traía
vendas en las manos y que ambos se golpearon, que esto sucedió en la
recámara, y en eso se percató que entró otro sujeto a la recámara del de la
voz que también llevaba media, traía un cuchillo en la mano derecha, los
cuales le iban a dar una puñalada, que le preguntaban por el vehículo de la
marca Jetta, que le pegaban con los puños y las manos abiertas y no le
decían nada, que también con una figura de porcelana se la rompieron en
la cabeza y le preguntaban dónde había dinero, que le ordenaron que se
vistiera y cuando estaba en la puerta de la recámara del declarante, se
percató que nada más un sujeto iba armado con un cuchillo y que ambos se
lo intercambiaban, que los sujetos rompieron otras figuras al de la voz en la
cara y en la cabeza y se hizo que se desmayaba, y cuando vio que lo iban a
matar les dijo “no me maten y que cooperaba”, que nadie se dio cuenta de
los hechos que le manifestaron, que su familia se encontraba bien y que
únicamente estaban desmayados.
Procedimiento para la selección
Al iniciarse la vista, se procederá a la lectura de cargos y el acusado hará
saber al tribunal su opción. Si se decide por la alternativa del jurado, se
llamará a los candidatos a jurados para celebrar los procedimientos de voir
dire, a través del cual se procederá a la selección de aquéllos que formarán
parte del equipo que habrá de juzgar la causa.
Los candidatos previamente seleccionados mediante un sorteo serán
llamados a sala para ser interrogados con el propósito de determinar si
habrán de juzgar con imparcialidad la causa, característica definitoria de su
función. El juez tendrá a su cargo la celebración del procedimiento
tomando un juramento preliminar, , individual o colectivamente, e
impartiendo instrucciones generales sobre el proceso y el caso particular
así como de la conducción del interrogatorio. Podrá permitir también a las
partes (Ministerio Público y Defensa) cuestionar a los candidatos.
Procedimiento de Recusación
Las partes tendrán el derecho a recusar candidatos por causas motivadas
dispuestas por la legislación procesal o sin causa motivada o
perentoriamente, hasta un número limitado por la propia ley dependiendo
de la gravedad de las imputaciones. Una vez las partes hayan acordado
quiénes serán los jurados (doce regulares y hasta dos suplentes), éstos
serán juramentados en forma definitiva como el juzgador de hechos en el
caso concreto. Esta juramentación constituye el comienzo del juicio para
efectos de la garantía constitucional del acusado a no ser expuesto más de
una vez a ser castigado por el mismo delito (Doble Enjuiciamiento).
1. The defendant represents to the Court that the defendant is satisfied
that his attorneys have rendered effective assistance. The defendant
understands that by entering into this agreement, the defendant
surrenders certain rights as provided in this agreement. The defendant
understands that the rights of criminal defendants include the following:
a. If the defendant persisted in a plea of not guilty to the charges, the
defendant would have the right to a speedy jury trial with the assistance of
counsel. The trial may be conducted by a judge sitting without a jury if the
defendant, the United States, and the judge all agree.
b. If a jury trial is conducted, the jury would be composed of twelve
laypersons selected at random. The defendant and the defendant’s
attorney would assist in selecting the jurors by removing prospective jurors
for cause where actual bias or other disqualification is shown, or by
removing prospective jurors without cause by exercising peremptory
challenges. The jury would have to agree unanimously before it could
return a verdict of either guilty or not guilty. The jury would be instructed
that the defendant is presumed innocent, that it could not convict the
defendant unless, after hearing all the evidence, it was persuaded of the
defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that it was to consider
each charge separately.
c. If a trial is held by the judge without a jury, the judge would find the
facts and, after hearing all the evidence and considering each count
separately, determine whether or not the evidence established the
defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
d. At a trial, the United States would be required to present its witnesses
and other evidence against the defendant. The defendant would be able to
confront those witnesses and the defendant’s attorney would be able to
cross-examine them. In turn, the defendant could present witnesses and
other evidence in defendant’s own behalf. If the witnesses for the
defendant would not appear voluntarily, the defendant could require their
attendance through the subpoena power of the Court.
e. At a trial, the defendant could rely on a privilege against selfincrimination to decline to testify, and no inference of guilt could be drawn
from the refusal of the defendant to testify. If the defendant desired to do
so, the defendant could testify in the defendant’s own behalf.
Drug paraphernalia would include any device or instrument that on its face
is used for the production, packaging, distribution, or ingesting of a
controlled substance. This encompasses a lot because police are trained to
look for homemade paraphernalia as well as commercial products. They
are also well aware that common household products are used for
production, packaging, distribution, and ingesting and will use simple field
tests to find trace residue of drugs after they seize these items. If trace
residue of drugs is found...it's likely to be paraphernalia.
So, small scales, large amount of small baggies, spoons, cigarette paper,
ash trays, anything resembling a roach clip, any tube-shaped glass, etc. So
many folks get busted that the average street cop is well versed in drug
culture. They are likely smarter than the tool who just got caught.
You are likely to get busted for paraphernalia because the possession
charge requires some amount beyond trace amount to prosecute. The test
can only determine the contents of the residue, such as pot. It cannot
determine how much, when it was smoked, who smoked it, how many
times, etc. The residue will just qualify it as paraphernalia.
It's a misdemeanor, and you will probably serve minimal jail time if any
(jails are so overcrowded with violent offenders and felons, that
misdemeanants get off pretty light). However, you will have a drug offense
on your criminal record. Every time the cops confront you and run your ID,
they will see the offense and start looking for probable cause that you are
involved with drugs. This coupled with the reason they confronted you may
get them the right to search your vehicle.
They can already search you legally (for their "safety").
Estimado Sr. Juez:
He sido denunciado por circular a 250 km/h en la Nacional 530 cuando iba
camino de mi pueblo. Según me dijeron los Agentes que me pararon, el
radar me detectó a la velocidad antes indicada en un tramo limitado a
70km/h.
Yo, por mi parte, puedo decir que he visto perfectamente esa señal con el
número 70 en negro, dentro del círculo rojo con el fondo blanco. Sin
embargo, por más que me he fijado, no he visto ninguna unidad de medida
junto al numerito 70. Como Ud. sabrá mejor que yo, que para eso ha
estudiado derecho, la Ley 54/1893 establece que que el Sistema Métrico
Internacional será el obligatorio en el país, y dentro de las reglas
propiamente dichas del citado Sistema Métrico Internacional, se establece
que la unidad de longitud será el metro, y la unidad de tiempo será el
segundo.
No se si cuando Ud. terminó derecho le dio tiempo a hacer algo de
matemáticas, pero por si acaso voy a informarle de que la velocidad se
mide dividiendo la distancia recorrida entre el tiempo empleado para
recorrerla, por lo que tomando la unidad de medida de la distancia (metro)
y la unidad de medida del tiempo (segundo), obtendremos la unidad de
medida de la velocidad: METROS POR SEGUNDO, que, tal y como nos
dice la Ley anteriormente citada , SERÁ LA UNIDAD DE MEDIDA
OBLIGATORIA PARA LA VELOCIDAD.
Yo no le voy a negar que fuese a 250 km/h, que de hecho los iba, pero es
que la señal que yo vi sólo ponía 70, y en virtud del imperio de la ley que
todos debemos respetar y del que Ud. es el máximo exponente, no he
dudado en considerar que el 70 se refería a la unidad internacional de la
velocidad, el metro por segundo; si Ud. hace la conversión, observará que
70 m/s equivalen a 252km/h, con lo cual yo circulaba a 2 km/h por debajo
de lo permitido.

Sight Translation for Court Interpreters Sight

Transcription

Similar documents

Nivel 2 - Aspectos Culturales

Nivel 3

Rivercenter Mall restores history

latina - Sesac

St. Peter Chanel Catholic Church

Bitter sweet mural blessing for San Anto

Untitled - viii salón internacional de humor gráfico

Descargar PDF - Newton College

El gibaro

Sunshine Cottage celebró la llegada del otoño

Descargar Catalogo de rifles Mendoza PDF 2011

redit nº 6 - Universidad de Málaga

competition law private litigation in the spanish courts

descargar volumen completo en pdf

Guías OA SAR 2010 - Sociedad Argentina de Reumatología