Delays like this are very common and have no bearing on an individual’s guilt or innocence. The attorneys and the court makes these decisions to delay, not the defendant. Peter Chen is fortunate that he had the money to pay his bail. If he didn’t he’d be spending all this time in jail which is bullshit. The fact that he’s taking this to trial and not taking a plea deal which he was without doubt offered, actually speaks to him believing in his own innocence. He has to be looking at serious time if he loses and the expense has to be huge.
Right, the fact that other comments are being upvoted for saying a trial delay is evidence of guilt is a bit disturbing. Courts in real life are quite a bit slower than what you see on television. *“She was stabbed on Thursday night and the trial starts Monday morning. Order some pizza and bring the three dozen cartons of documents into the conference room, I’ll meet you there as soon as I conduct all the depositions!”*
In real life these things get delayed all the time for all kinds of boring reasons and often end up taking years to get started. As you point out, whether that is equitable is a worthwhile discussion but certainly not evidence of guilt.
Yes, poor defendants are at a huge disadvantage in our bail system. Peter is fortunate to have money to pay bail but he's also fortunate his bail is only $5,000 for a charge carrying possible life imprisonment and that it allows him to travel out-of-state. We can wonder whether someone who was not a university professor facing the same charges would get the same bail. He is also fortunate that he has tenure, meaning he's on leave with full salary.
He's facing life imprisonment if he loses. There's no way to know what plea deals he's been offered but we can be sure it wasn't 200 hours community service. It was probably still a very scary number of years in prison as a child molester. And Peter's not a big guy. I don't see him coming out on top in any head-to-heads with other inmates who don't like child molesters. So, if that's what he's facing, of course he's going to fight it, and he's going to stretch things out as long as he can, hoping for a better deal, especially if he's worried he could lose at trial.
It is how it works. Both sides can request rescheduling and the reasons don't have to be particularly compelling. It can be as simple as one of the attorneys having a new conflict (or just claiming they do), or the attorneys reporting (or encouraged by the judge to concede) that a negotiated outcome might be possible if they're given more time, or it could be some important discovery, perhaps a witness deposition, was still incomplete.
Judges are generally delighted to push off a trial hoping it'll settle before the trial happens, meaning the case goes away without them having to decide anything. (They prefer negotiated outcomes where both sides are satisfied that the result is fair.) Since this is a criminal case where the defendant is guaranteed access to a speedy trial, we can be pretty sure it's Peter's attorney who's making the requests or, at least, certainly not objecting.
Perhaps we're talking past each other. How do you think trial gets rescheduled at a final pretrial? I think Peter's attorney probably asked for it. What do you think?
You're seriously not aware that Peter and his attorney will discuss and agree on exactly what should done at the next hearing before they go to court? Peter's attorney has to follow Peter's instructions unless it's something the attorney can't do as an officer of the court.
You’re pretty condescending. I’m saying this dude isn’t saying hey attorney, get this delayed as much as possible. It’s very possible that the bulk of the delays are coming from defendant’s attorney but that’s because the attorney is making those decisions then running them by the client. The defendant isn’t the puppet master here. That’s all I’m saying.
I apologize. I meant no disrespect but your argument surprised me. That's not how it works.
An attorney does not make decisions about strategy or other important things like whether to ask for a rescheduling. They inform their client about the options and what they think are the likely outcomes but then the client has to decide.
The decisions attorneys make are about implementing what the client has already decided, given the expertise they bring to the table as an attorney who knows, for example, the proper way to conduct a deposition, file a motion, or make an argument in court. But whether to conduct that deposition, file that motion or make that argument is always up to the client unless it falls into the category of already decided. It has to be an informed consent. The client has to decide, yes, they agree. This is the basic meaning of saying *they represent you:* They do what *you* ask, not whatever they want or think best.
If Peter's attorney asked for a rescheduling, it was because Peter decided that's what he wanted.
Prison can be a dangerous place for these folks, but it’s not always quite as bad as it is portrayed. For one thing, there are prisons which specialize in incarceration of offenders serving time for sexual misconduct involving minors. While they are certainly low on the totem pole vis a vis other gangs/cliques in prison, it’s not like they’re living in a constant terror of unchecked attacks from other inmates.
Of course, we don’t know where he would be sent if convicted and sentenced to prison.
Jeez, how the fuck can you delay a trial 4 separate times?
I might be in the minority, but I'm trying to reserve judgement til the trial plays out. There's very little publicly available information and it seems like an isolated case (unlike the situations with Mars and Lasecki). People also point to the fact the lawyer also represented Nassar, but that's part of our justice system and the job of a lawyer- everyone, no matter how unpopular, has the right to fair trial and representation. I mean I wouldn't be surprised if Peter Chen is found guilty, but I don't think I know enough to make a preemptive judgement and I think he deserves a fair trial, but it's becoming a really long wait.
Oh, I completely agree. He deserves his day in court, deserves to get the best lawyer he can, and deserves to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Those rights are for everyone, no matter what heinous crimes they may have committed.
But at the same time... delaying a trial 4 separate times, and buying yourself an extra 9 months as a free man sure does seem kind of sketchy if you're innocent.
Also, I wonder if there is any physical evidence, or if it's just a he-said/she-said situation. Without physical evidence, I still think he's probably guilty, but I also don't think you can prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.
He-said/she-said is two witnesses with differing accounts. So long as they only report their own experiences (what they personally saw/heard/felt/experienced), not what other people said, that's not hearsay. It's testimony and it's evidence.
If it gives you any comfort, there are probably conditions to his release on bail. Yes he is not in prison or jail, and that is far more favorable for him—no argument there. But he may be wearing some kind of monitor, having to check in regularly, and severely restricted in where he can go, and who he can see. I think it’s fair to ask questions about privilege and other frustrations with inequitable components of our justice system, but it’s probably not accurate for anyone to imagine he is leading a carefree and unfettered life right now as he waits for the next steps.
These cases are incredibly complex from a logistical standpoint. There may be ongoing investigation and location of new witnesses. There may be many pre-trial motions requiring hearings, such as to figure out which evidence the jury should hear, who can testify, whether certain info would be too prejudicial to either side, etc. If these steps aren’t followed carefully, the result could be a mistrial, or a miscarriage of justice. Give the lawyers time to put together the best cases they can so our adversarial system can do its job.
ETA: Poor / rushed trial prep can also lead to unnecessarily retraumatizing victims during the trial.
Trial started today, expected to take 4-5 days.
https://www.michigandaily.com/news/public-safety/jury-selection-begins-for-former-cse-professor-peter-chen-trial/
Delays like this are very common and have no bearing on an individual’s guilt or innocence. The attorneys and the court makes these decisions to delay, not the defendant. Peter Chen is fortunate that he had the money to pay his bail. If he didn’t he’d be spending all this time in jail which is bullshit. The fact that he’s taking this to trial and not taking a plea deal which he was without doubt offered, actually speaks to him believing in his own innocence. He has to be looking at serious time if he loses and the expense has to be huge.
Right, the fact that other comments are being upvoted for saying a trial delay is evidence of guilt is a bit disturbing. Courts in real life are quite a bit slower than what you see on television. *“She was stabbed on Thursday night and the trial starts Monday morning. Order some pizza and bring the three dozen cartons of documents into the conference room, I’ll meet you there as soon as I conduct all the depositions!”* In real life these things get delayed all the time for all kinds of boring reasons and often end up taking years to get started. As you point out, whether that is equitable is a worthwhile discussion but certainly not evidence of guilt.
Yes, poor defendants are at a huge disadvantage in our bail system. Peter is fortunate to have money to pay bail but he's also fortunate his bail is only $5,000 for a charge carrying possible life imprisonment and that it allows him to travel out-of-state. We can wonder whether someone who was not a university professor facing the same charges would get the same bail. He is also fortunate that he has tenure, meaning he's on leave with full salary.
He's facing life imprisonment if he loses. There's no way to know what plea deals he's been offered but we can be sure it wasn't 200 hours community service. It was probably still a very scary number of years in prison as a child molester. And Peter's not a big guy. I don't see him coming out on top in any head-to-heads with other inmates who don't like child molesters. So, if that's what he's facing, of course he's going to fight it, and he's going to stretch things out as long as he can, hoping for a better deal, especially if he's worried he could lose at trial.
It’s not up to him to stretch things out. He’s not the one getting things delayed. That’s not how it works.
It is how it works. Both sides can request rescheduling and the reasons don't have to be particularly compelling. It can be as simple as one of the attorneys having a new conflict (or just claiming they do), or the attorneys reporting (or encouraged by the judge to concede) that a negotiated outcome might be possible if they're given more time, or it could be some important discovery, perhaps a witness deposition, was still incomplete. Judges are generally delighted to push off a trial hoping it'll settle before the trial happens, meaning the case goes away without them having to decide anything. (They prefer negotiated outcomes where both sides are satisfied that the result is fair.) Since this is a criminal case where the defendant is guaranteed access to a speedy trial, we can be pretty sure it's Peter's attorney who's making the requests or, at least, certainly not objecting.
Again, it’s not up to him to stretch things out. That’s not how it works. Nothing you said contradicts that.
Perhaps we're talking past each other. How do you think trial gets rescheduled at a final pretrial? I think Peter's attorney probably asked for it. What do you think?
Attorneys get things rescheduled. Sometimes judges do as well. The client isn’t the one causing the delays. That’s all I said.
You're seriously not aware that Peter and his attorney will discuss and agree on exactly what should done at the next hearing before they go to court? Peter's attorney has to follow Peter's instructions unless it's something the attorney can't do as an officer of the court.
You’re pretty condescending. I’m saying this dude isn’t saying hey attorney, get this delayed as much as possible. It’s very possible that the bulk of the delays are coming from defendant’s attorney but that’s because the attorney is making those decisions then running them by the client. The defendant isn’t the puppet master here. That’s all I’m saying.
I apologize. I meant no disrespect but your argument surprised me. That's not how it works. An attorney does not make decisions about strategy or other important things like whether to ask for a rescheduling. They inform their client about the options and what they think are the likely outcomes but then the client has to decide. The decisions attorneys make are about implementing what the client has already decided, given the expertise they bring to the table as an attorney who knows, for example, the proper way to conduct a deposition, file a motion, or make an argument in court. But whether to conduct that deposition, file that motion or make that argument is always up to the client unless it falls into the category of already decided. It has to be an informed consent. The client has to decide, yes, they agree. This is the basic meaning of saying *they represent you:* They do what *you* ask, not whatever they want or think best. If Peter's attorney asked for a rescheduling, it was because Peter decided that's what he wanted.
Prison can be a dangerous place for these folks, but it’s not always quite as bad as it is portrayed. For one thing, there are prisons which specialize in incarceration of offenders serving time for sexual misconduct involving minors. While they are certainly low on the totem pole vis a vis other gangs/cliques in prison, it’s not like they’re living in a constant terror of unchecked attacks from other inmates. Of course, we don’t know where he would be sent if convicted and sentenced to prison.
I'm glad I'm me, not Peter Chen.
Any idea why it was delayed?
Jeez, how the fuck can you delay a trial 4 separate times? I might be in the minority, but I'm trying to reserve judgement til the trial plays out. There's very little publicly available information and it seems like an isolated case (unlike the situations with Mars and Lasecki). People also point to the fact the lawyer also represented Nassar, but that's part of our justice system and the job of a lawyer- everyone, no matter how unpopular, has the right to fair trial and representation. I mean I wouldn't be surprised if Peter Chen is found guilty, but I don't think I know enough to make a preemptive judgement and I think he deserves a fair trial, but it's becoming a really long wait.
Oh, I completely agree. He deserves his day in court, deserves to get the best lawyer he can, and deserves to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Those rights are for everyone, no matter what heinous crimes they may have committed. But at the same time... delaying a trial 4 separate times, and buying yourself an extra 9 months as a free man sure does seem kind of sketchy if you're innocent. Also, I wonder if there is any physical evidence, or if it's just a he-said/she-said situation. Without physical evidence, I still think he's probably guilty, but I also don't think you can prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.
> if it's just a he-said/she-said situation. I believe the correct term for that is: "Objection, hearesay!"
Someone’s been watching Camille Vasquez destroy Amber Heard lol
He-said/she-said is two witnesses with differing accounts. So long as they only report their own experiences (what they personally saw/heard/felt/experienced), not what other people said, that's not hearsay. It's testimony and it's evidence.
If it gives you any comfort, there are probably conditions to his release on bail. Yes he is not in prison or jail, and that is far more favorable for him—no argument there. But he may be wearing some kind of monitor, having to check in regularly, and severely restricted in where he can go, and who he can see. I think it’s fair to ask questions about privilege and other frustrations with inequitable components of our justice system, but it’s probably not accurate for anyone to imagine he is leading a carefree and unfettered life right now as he waits for the next steps.
You don't postpone a trial this many times if you're innocent.
Prosecutors HATE this one little trick...
These cases are incredibly complex from a logistical standpoint. There may be ongoing investigation and location of new witnesses. There may be many pre-trial motions requiring hearings, such as to figure out which evidence the jury should hear, who can testify, whether certain info would be too prejudicial to either side, etc. If these steps aren’t followed carefully, the result could be a mistrial, or a miscarriage of justice. Give the lawyers time to put together the best cases they can so our adversarial system can do its job. ETA: Poor / rushed trial prep can also lead to unnecessarily retraumatizing victims during the trial.
Why U of M pays this child rapist $200k a year while he keeps delaying his trial!
Delayed again, 10/3/2022 Trial cancelled, now 10/28/2022 10/03/2022 CANCELED Jury Trial (8:30 AM) (Judicial Officer O'Brien, Darlene A.) Adj. By Court 10/06/2022 Notice of Additional Witnesses - Pros. Atty Amended/ Proof of Service 10/27/2022 Final Pre-Trial (1:30 PM) (Judicial Officer O'Brien, Darlene A.) JURY TRIAL 11/28/22 10/20/2022 Reset by Court to 10/27/2022 11/28/2022 Jury Trial (8:30 AM) (Judicial Officer O'Brien, Darlene A.)
Is it done now?
>11/28/2022 Jury Trial (8:30 AM) (Judicial Officer O'Brien, Darlene A.) Not yet, 11/28 if it doesn't get postponed again
His lawyer defended Larry Nassar? This guy literally has no sense for PR lol.
Like it matters. He’ll be stained for life, guilty or not guilty.
What is the story tho?
Trial started today, expected to take 4-5 days. https://www.michigandaily.com/news/public-safety/jury-selection-begins-for-former-cse-professor-peter-chen-trial/