First Supersnelrecht 'Trial'

Snelrecht trial #1: student gets 8 weeks (4 jail + 4 probation). Judge ignored arguments over denial of lawyer, forced confession, disproportionate use of force, denial of medical care, and necessity to protect others.

The prosecution presented her evidence, based on the written confession of the student, that the student had thrown a rock at a police officer and had placed a bike in front of a police van. It did not seem like the rock had hit the police officer. I have not heard any reports of injured police (while I have heard reports and seen both on video and in person of baton hits to the head, students trampled by police and horses, dog bites after MEs let the dogs off their leashes, people being shoved by ME shield many of whom were simply standing somewhere or walking by peacefully, an ME hitting a dog in the face with a baton, and property damage caused by MEs pushing people through fences). 

1. Student stated that he requested his lawyer before speaking to police and that the police told him he would not be let go or get a lawyer until he talked to them / confessed. Judge gave this argument no consideration saying that the defendant could not prove it.

2. Defendant said that the confession was forced by threat. Judge gave this argument no consideration saying that the defendant could not prove it.

This situation is why there has been a huge push to have all confessions videotaped. Here, the prosecutor presented merely a confession written by the police and signed by the defendant. This is a classic sign of a confession that is less than voluntary. The police have all the evidence and should be compelled to bring it forward. If they do not present the visual and audio recording of the confession, then they shouldn't be allowed to enter the written one into the record because that smacks of coerced confession.

This is especially important when the lawyer has 0 days to prepare for the trial. Of course, that is why they are using this procedure in the first place-- so that they can weaken the a right to a fair trial and defense by a lawyer so much that it becomes useless, even if it appears to have been respected on paper.

3. Defendant argued that the police used excessive force. Prosecutor said in opening statement that the police force was not excessive, and judge went a long with it. No photos, video, or witnesses were called on this matter (the defendant and his lawyer had 0 work days to prepare). Judge stated that the defendant should not have been there at all. Therefore, any actions that resulted were his own fault. This really just dodges the argument over the proportionality and necessity of the force used. If we take the judge's reasoning seriously, it would mean that if you jaywalk (you are somewhere you are not supposed to be), then a police officer may shoot and kill you. Further, if the police officer tries to shoot you, misses and hits and kills someone else, if the reasoning of the judge is accepted that 'everything that happened is your fault because you shouldn't have been there', then the jaywalker could legally be charged with murder. Of course, this kind of thinking is absurd. This example shows why a analysis of the necessity of using the type of force used and the proportionality of the force used to the threat posed is critical. Only if the police action was reasonable, appropriate (fit the circumstances and threat posed), and proportionate (no greater than necessary and no wider a group of people injured than necessary) could this argument even hold any weight.

4. Student stated that during his detention between Friday and today, he complained repeatedly of pain in his arm and that it might have been broken. The police denied his requests for hospital care. 

5. The student presented the argument that when he put the bike in front of the ME van that he believed he was taking action that was necessary to prevent imminent danger to the students who were stuck behind him and being charged by the ME. Again, the judge dismissed this by saying that anything that happened was his own fault because he shouldn't have even been there.

--R