The State vs the Judge, round 1!
Heard about a fascinating situation that occurred in Criminal Court very recently. Apparently the Prosecutor was on his second day in that Court section, and a bureaucratic snafu developed between the State (Prosecutor) and the Judge over the definition of Diversion. Specifically, the Judge wanted paperwork on record now the particular case would be dropped if the requirements of Diversion were met. The Prosecutor wanted to create that paperwork later, at the time the requirements were met. Apparently the case was set for trial on the day the Diversion candidate came to Court for a monthly status update. There was no trial, no witnesses, no motions, etc. because of the Diversion program. The Judge wanted to know what happened in four and a half months, when six months were up and the Program requirements. Would trial proceed? According to the Judge, it would, even though all Diversion requirements were met. The Prosecutor squirmed at this outcome, because Diversion is part of the D.A.’s Office, and the Judge was nullifying the positive results of the D.A.’s program by insisting on trial. The Prosecutor said at the time the program terms were completed, he would talk to his boss and the proper charge dismissal documents would be met.
So the Judge ordered TRIAL in three weeks, although discovery, interrogatories, motions, etc. haven’t been heard yet, and effectively threw the poor defendant out of Diversion in the process. All this to force the D.A.’s hand to create the documents the Judge wanted when he wants them, not when they want to give them to him.