"I think the concept of punishment is supposed to be finite," says one Colorado legislator.
We note on our website at the established Denver criminal defense firm of Shazam Kianpour & Associates a bedrock legal canon of American law. It addresses the prosecutorial role, and is both direct and simple. We duly stress that the government must prove an alleged criminal offender's guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt."
A recent article terms it a "groundbreaking" study focused on an important criminal law topic. It has also been called "remarkable."
The wording of Turn Over a New Leaf is certainly clever. The accompanying details concerning its particulars don't seem to have been too well-considered, though.
Here's a key problem concerning Colorado justice authorities' initial contacts with juveniles who find themselves in trouble with the law: differential treatment is often doled out to young offenders across the state who have similar profiles and are charged with the same types of crimes.
Many criminal suspects in Colorado and elsewhere adamantly believe that the police and prosecutors did not play fair while arresting and charging them with a criminal offense.
Criminal law is a legal realm that is perhaps unparalleled for its complexities and open-ended questions.
From the perspective of a "suspect" in a flawed criminal lineup in Colorado or elsewhere, it's pretty easy to see why concern would attach to the process.
An admitted robber gave the FBI cellphone numbers of alleged accomplices. Agents used a "reasonable grounds" standard to obtain so-called "cell-site" evidence from a mobile service provider that tracked the locations of one of those individuals. That data yielded information resulting in his criminal conviction.
It's been a bedrock legal principle and undisturbed judicial ruling issued at the highest level for well more than half a century, and yet news stories emerge with some regularity evidencing prosecutorial misconduct aimed at avoiding its application.