Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member MyAmerica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,074

    Update-MN-Lawyer asks for speedy trial in Cottonwood bus cra

    Fri, 30 May 2008 14:00:02 GMT
    Lawyer asks for speedy trial in Cottonwood bus crash

    MARSHALL, Minn. (AP) The lawyer for the woman charged in the fatal bus crash in southwestern Minnesota has filed a motion demanding a speedy trial for his client.

    Olga Marina Franco del Cid of Minneota has been in the Lyon County Jail since her arrest on February 20. She's charged with four counts of criminal vehicular homicide.

    Attorney Manuel Guerrero cites the length of her stay, says prosecutors have failed to return phone calls and provide him with their evidence against his client.

    Guerrero is demanding the trial start within 60 days of May 21st.

    Lyon County Attorney Rick Maes says he's returned Guerrero's calls and will provide the accident reconstruction report mentioned in his filing when it's completed.

    Four children from Lakeview School in Cottonwood died when a van ran a stop sign and hit their school bus February 19. Prosecutors say Franco was driving the van, but she claims it was her boyfriend. He hasn't been found.

    Information from: Independent, http://www.marshallindependent.com


    (© 2008 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. In the interest of timeliness, this story is fed directly from the Associated Press newswire and may contain occasional typographical errors. )

    http://wcco.com
    "Distrust and caution are the parents of security."
    Benjamin Franklin

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member MyAmerica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,074
    Franco lawyer files motion demanding speedy
    By Rae Kruger POSTED: May 30, 2008

    MARSHALL — Manuel P. Guerrero, the lawyer for the woman charged in the deaths of four students in the Feb. 19 Lakeview school bus crash, has filed a motion to demand a speedy trial for his client.

    Olga M. Franco, 24, of Minneota has been in the Lyon County Jail since her arrest on Feb. 20. Franco is charged with four counts of criminal vehicular homicide.

    The motion was filed this week.

    Guerrero cited the length of Franco’s jail stay as one reason for a speedy trial, a copy of the motion said.

    Guerrero also said Lyon County Attorney Rick Maes has failed to return phone calls from the defense lawyers and has failed to provide all discovery materials, the motion said. Guerrero specifically cited the failure to provide the reconstruction of the accident and brake reports, the motion said.

    “I’m not really sure where (Guerrero’s) coming from,
    "Distrust and caution are the parents of security."
    Benjamin Franklin

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #3
    Senior Member Americanpatriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    1,603
    This illegal alien killed 4 innocent children I demand that she rot in jail.
    <div>GOD - FAMILY - COUNTRY</div>

  4. #4
    Senior Member tencz57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    2,425
    She's in a World of hurt . Specially since she changed her story from a ammittance of guilt , her driving . To the next day Boyfriend story . yip , her lawyer is even itching to put her away . BYE
    Nam vet 1967/1970 Skull & Bones can KMA .Bless our Brothers that gave their all ..It also gives me the right to Vote for Chuck Baldwin 2008 POTUS . NOW or never*
    *

  5. #5
    Senior Member jp_48504's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    19,168
    No mention that she is an illegal who killed 4 children....
    I stay current on Americans for Legal Immigration PAC's fight to Secure Our Border and Send Illegals Home via E-mail Alerts (CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP)

  6. #6
    Senior Member azwreath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,621
    It sounds like her defense is attempting any number of legal manuevers, not the least of which is to have her released from custody which, should that occur, I think it goes without saying that she will be gone from this country so fast heads will spin and so much for justice.

    Other motives could be reduction of charges or outright dismissal. When I worked for an attorney awhile back, who's wife was a judge, there were a few cases before her where defendants got away on lesser charges involving pretty serious crimes after their defense attorneys successfully employed the same tactic.

    In this case, her defense may not succeed, but they will try anything to benefit their client because that's what they're being paid to do.

    Her defense may also be setting groundwork for the appeals process on the grounds that her constitutional rights were violated and/or denied.


    Rule 11.10 Plea; Trial Date


    If the defendant is not discharged the defendant shall plead to the complaint or be given additional time within which to plead. If the defendant so requests, the court shall allow the defendant at the Omnibus Hearing to enter a plea, including a not guilty plea, even if the Omnibus Hearing is continued or Omnibus Hearing issues are still pending for decision by the court. The entry of a plea other than guilty in that situation does not waive any pending jurisdictional or other issues that the defendant may have raised for determination by the court at the Omnibus Hearing. If the defendant enters a plea other than guilty, a trial date shall then be set. A defendant shall be tried as soon as possible after entry of a plea other than guilty. On demand made in writing or orally on the record by the prosecuting attorney or the defendant, the trial shall be commenced within sixty (60) days from the date of the demand unless good cause is shown upon the prosecuting attorney's or the defendant's motion or upon the court's initiative why the defendant should not be brought to trial within that period. The time period shall not begin to run earlier than the date of the plea other than guilty. If trial is not commenced within 120 days after such demand is made and such a plea is entered, the defendant, except in exigent circumstances, shall be released subject to such nonmonetary release conditions as may be required by the court under Rule 6.01, subd. 1


    Stat. § 611A.033 regarding the prosecuting attorney's duties under the Victim's Rights Act to make reasonable efforts to provide advance notice of the continuance.



    Rule 11.10 provides that a defendant shall be brought to trial within 60 days after demand therefor is made by the prosecuting attorney or defendant, unless good cause is shown for a delay, but regardless of a demand, the defendant shall be tried as soon as possible. (Rule 11.10 supersedes Minn. Stat. § 611.04 (1971) requiring the defendant to be brought to trial at the next term of court.) See Minn. Stat. § 611A.033 regarding the prosecutor's duties under the Victim's Rights Act in relation to speedy trial demands.



    For good cause the trial may be postponed beyond the 60-day time limit upon request of the prosecuting attorney or the defendant or upon the court's initiative. Good cause for the delay does not include court calendar congestion unless exceptional circumstances exist. See McIntosh v. Davis, 441 N.W.2d 115 (Minn.1989). Even if good cause exists for postponing the trial beyond the 60-day time limit, the defendant, except in exigent circumstances, must be released, subject to such nonmonetary release conditions as may be required by the court under Rule 6.02, subd. 1, if trial has not yet commenced within 120 days after the demand is made and the not guilty plea entered. Other sanctions for violation of these speedy trial provisions are left to case law. See State v. Kasper, 411 N.W.2d 182 (Minn.1987) and State v. Friberg, 435 N.W.2d 509 (Minn.1989).



    Rule 11.10 does not attempt to set arbitrary time limits (other than those resulting from the demand), because they would have to be circumscribed by numerous specific exclusions (See ABA Standards, Speedy Trial, 2.3 (Approved Draft, 196) which are covered in any event by the more general terms of the rule. (See ABA Standards, Speedy Trial, 2.3(h) (Approved Draft, 196.)



    Rule 11.10 does not specify the consequences of a failure to bring the defendant to trial within the time limits set by the rule. (This differs from ABA Standards, Speedy Trial, 4.1, Pre-Trial Release, 5.10 (Approved Drafts, 196 in which the consequences are set forth.)



    The consequences and the time limits beyond which a defendant is considered to have been denied the constitutional right to a speedy trial are left to judicial decision. (See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972).) The constitutional right to a speedy trial is triggered not when the plea is entered but when a charge is issued or an arrest is made. State v. Jones, 391 N.W.2d 224 (Minn. 1986). The existence or absence of the demand under Rule 11.10 provides a factor that may be taken into account in determining whether the defendant has been unconstitutionally denied a speedy trial. (See Barker v. Wingo, supra.)



    Under Rule 11.10 the time period following the demand does not begin to run earlier than the date of the plea of not guilty, not guilty be reason of mental illness or mental deficiency, or double jeopardy or that prosecution is barred by Minn. Stat. § 609.035. However, under Rule 11.10, the defendant may insist on the right to enter such a plea at the first Omnibus Hearing appearance even if the hearing is continued. This will assure that a defendant can get the speedy trial time limit running even if some Omnibus Hearing issues are continued for later decision by the court. The plea other than guilty was selected as the crucial date because the defendant is not required to so plead until at or after the Omnibus Hearing (Rules 8.03; 11.06; 11.10) and by that time all discovery and pre-trial proceedings will have been substantially completed. If demand is made before such plea, the 60-day period starts to run upon entry of the plea. It is contemplated that when the pre-trial proceedings have been completed, the court will require the defendant to enter a plea, if the defendant has not already done so, in order that the defendant cannot delay the trial by intentionally delaying the plea. (Rule 11).



    For anyone interested in reading legal procedure, you can find the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure, here:

    www.mncourts.gov/rules/criminal/RCRP.htm - 977k -
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  7. #7
    Senior Member lccat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,584
    This makes me sick, the Elitist lawyers are not interested in justice all they want to do is WIN!! Again, as I commented on another article, "our" FAMILIES are at the mercy of ILLEGALS and their Anchor Babies being murdered, raped, infected with disease, or robbed. We can see the results of the ILLEGAL invasion in our courts every day! But NOT to worry the Chamber of Commerce will get their "cheap labor" increasing "their privatized" PROFITS, thanks to Bush, the Congressional Leadership, State and Local elected and appointed officals!!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •