horribilisfan8184 said:
The first case had to do with waiving rights including speedy trial, which you didn't appear to know, the second with dismissing without prejudice, which you also didn't appear to know, both of which were provided to show how you were uninformed or deliberately trying to mislead--I simply showed how you were wrong. Most of your deflection here is about you making conclusions and offering them as valid when you haven't seen what Luke signed, know nothing about what really happened, and called Luke and his lawyer idiots in the process. Thanks for once again proving you are the idiot, not them.
Jazus, you are a complete idiot. There, now am I speaking your language?
The "speedy trial" requirement for misdemeanors is set by statute. It's on the order of a statute of limitations. Such statutes have exceptions. It was not a constitutional question, nor a constitutional "right." The State created the statutory period.
You said he had a speedy trial problem. I was just pointing out they didn't because it can be waived. Boy you really are dense when you try to be
Read the dam case, State v. Luke:
A criminal defendant has a fundamental constitutional right to a speedy trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 24 of the Montana Constitution. State v. Ariegwe, 2007 MT 204, ¶ 20, 338 Mont. 442, 167 P.3d 815; State v. Stops, 2013 MT 131, ¶ 18, 370 Mont. 226, 301 P.3d 811. Distinct from that constitutional right, a criminal defendant also has a statutory right to be brought to trial on a misdemeanor charge within six months of entering his or her plea, with important exceptions discussed below. Section 46–13–401(2), MCA. In the present case, Luke has asserted only his statutory right to a speedy trial.
And it can be waived by Luke. Still proves my point and negates your stupid statement originally
There was no agreement, no plea, no deferred sentence, no deferred prosecution. The fact is, a trial was held six days after the statutory deadline, because the State met an exception to the requirement.
Still missing the point statute of limitations can be waived by the defendant
The defendant didn't waive any "right." He claimed the State violated a statute. There is nothing in the case of Luke Taylor Daly that suggests that the State violated a statute, or that Luke was deprived of any "right." It has zero to do with this case, and is proof you are blustering about stuff you actually don't know anything about, and fabricating court cases to sound all legal beagle about it.
All we actually know from your diatribes on this topic is that you know more about Luke Taylor Daly than you do about football. I'm not sure where that's supposed to take us.
