NationStates Jolt Archive

This scumbag clearly doesn't deserve to be a judge. A prosecutor showed up late without notifying the court. So the judge throws a hissy fit and dismisses the case against an accused child rapist to spite the prosecutor.

Gallagher said her decision to throw out the charge had nothing to do with the girl's credibility.

"It was all about the unprofessional actions of a prosecutor," she said. "You don't show up -- too bad. Don't treat me like a punk and not show up in court without giving us the courtesy of notifying us where you are."

How about instead of treating you like a punk, we just treat you like you're unemployed and disbarred?

http://www.local6.com/news/9397637/detail.html

So the prosecutor shows up late? and gets off free?

sweet deal for the accused

And that Judge should be canned

is there a link to this?

So the prosecutor shows up late? and gets off free?

sweet deal for the accused

And that Judge should be canned

is there a link to this?
Sorry, just added it to the original post.

Ah, the vagaries of the justice system, where judges having bad hair days can screw up even the best of cases...and I'm going into law why? *wanders around confused*

Down with the entire American system of laws.

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment- a role I do so relish.

In America, people are innocent until found guilty, yes?

So, constitionally, the judge did not release a child rapist. She merely protected an alleged child rapist from a trial.

Down with the entire American system of laws.
Until a better system can be devised it'll be every man for himself. The anti-gun folks would shit their pants.

Until a better system can be devised it'll be every man for himself. The anti-gun folks would shit their pants.
And the guns folks would go around shooting people because "OMG THEY HAVE A GUN THEY MIGHT SHOOT ME."

Ooh, Cleveland.

Judges in Ohio are elected. No worries he'll get slaughtered in the elections.

Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..."

Now, I know that waiting 45 minutes for the prosecution does not even compare to the fact that defendants wait around for months at a time to even go to trial... but something about the constitutional principle does suggest that just because one is accused of a crime one should not sit around endlessly awaiting the whim of the state.

Indeed, in principle showing up so late, without notice, is like failing to show up at all... and in our common law tradition, if the prosecution does not show up there simply is no case.

Let this judge make an example of the prosecutor. The accused really is innocent until proven guilty... and if the prosecutor cannot be bothered to show up to make a case against him, it seems perfectly appropriate that he should be free to go.

Realistically, of course, the prosecutor will probably successfully refile. I actually benefited from a similar situation several years ago... My friends and I had been arrested, drunk and naked on the roof of a building, and charged with various offenses including "projecting missiles"--i.e. throwing bottles. Anyway, we just wanted to get it over with, so we asked the judge to advance our hearing date; but apparently the cops never got the memo, because no one showed up to prosecute the case.

We were let go... and we later received a notice that the cops had a certain period (nine months?) to refile, which they never did. But if the prosecutor here really thinks he has a solid child-rape case, I suspect he'll be more eager to do the paperwork than these cops were to catch a couple of rowdy kids.

(Incidentally, our other friend--who did not move up her hearing--wound up paying out the ass in fines.) :)

Hang the judge alongside the child rapist.

And now for the rrRREst of the story.....the prosecutor was late because he was in the middle of filing a motion to have the very same judge removed from the case because SHE made remarks that were prejudicial to the victims case. The prosecuter did not think that this judge could be impartial.

Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..."

Now, I know that waiting 45 minutes for the prosecution does not even compare to the fact that defendants wait around for months at a time to even go to trial... but something about the constitutional principle does suggest that just because one is accused of a crime one should not sit around endlessly awaiting the whim of the state.

Indeed, in principle showing up so late, without notice, is like failing to show up at all... and in our common law tradition, if the prosecution does not show up there simply is no case.

Let this judge make an example of the prosecutor. The accused really is innocent until proven guilty... and if the prosecutor cannot be bothered to show up to make a case against him, it seems perfectly appropriate that he should be free to go.

Realistically, of course, the prosecutor will probably successfully refile. I actually benefited from a similar situation several years ago... My friends and I had been arrested, drunk and naked on the roof of a building, and charged with various offenses including "projecting missiles"--i.e. throwing bottles. Anyway, we just wanted to get it over with, so we asked the judge to advance our hearing date; but apparently the cops never got the memo, because no one showed up to prosecute the case.

We were let go... and we later received a notice that the cops had a certain period (nine months?) to refile, which they never did. But if the prosecutor here really thinks he has a solid child-rape case, I suspect he'll be more eager to do the paperwork than these cops were to catch a couple of rowdy kids.

(Incidentally, our other friend--who did not move up her hearing--wound up paying out the ass in fines.) :)
The reason defendants wait around for months for trial is because the defense specifically waives their right to speedy trial. Usually because they use the time to build thier own defense, or delaying tactics to frustrate the opposition.

If the defendant does not waive his right to a speedy trial then the prosecution must start with whatever case they have at the time.

The reason defendants wait around for months for trial is because the defense specifically waives their right to speedy trial. Usually because they use the time to build thier own defense, or delaying tactics to frustrate the opposition.

If the defendant does not waive his right to a speedy trial then the prosecution must start with whatever case they have at the time.

No. Local rules vary, but The Speedy Trial Act of 1974 requires that at the federal level a trial must start within 70 days (yes, that's over two months) and allows for delays while the prosecution builds a case. There are a number of situations, however, that the act exempts: the most common and certainly the most accepted reason is the need to track down a missing witness--or the defendant her/himself. Most states have a similar rule.

The Supreme Court has declined to establish a general rule for the states (speedy trial has been incorporated), preferring a case-by-case "balancing" approach that weighs the prosecution's reasons for the delay, the likelihood of their gaining a prejudicial advantage, and the timing of the accused's assertion of the right.

A delay of one year or more triggers a presumption that the Sixth Amendment has been violated... but this merely increases the government's burden of proof. Prosecution delays of more than one year have withstood constitutional scrutiny under unusual circumstances.

That article should end with "Said judge was subsequently shot in the face at point-blank range with buckshot, and has been replaced with a competent judge."

That article should end with "Said judge was subsequently shot in the face at point-blank range with buckshot, and has been replaced with a competent judge."Seriously, why are we blaming the judge rather than the prosecutor who couldn't pull it together enough to do his damn job?

Seriously, why are we blaming the judge rather than the prosecutor who couldn't pull it together enough to do his damn job?

If you're not a lawyer, please, don't talk.

Long hours of paper work and preparation has caused me to be late on a couple mock trials. Mind you, I'm not even through with law school yet, and in a real world setting the stress is ten fold.

Seriously, why are we blaming the judge rather than the prosecutor who couldn't pull it together enough to do his damn job?

Cause it was the judge who let the defendant go without a second thought, with no regard as to just what the consequences of that action might be.

Something that the prosecutor had neither the inclination nor the authority to do.

Seriously, why are we blaming the judge rather than the prosecutor who couldn't pull it together enough to do his damn job?

The judge couldn't wait 45 minutes to try an alleged rapist? Jesus, just bring a damn DS to court and play a game 'til he turns up.

This scumbag clearly doesn't deserve to be a judge. A prosecutor showed up late without notifying the court. So the judge throws a hissy fit and dismisses the case against an accused child rapist to spite the prosecutor.



How about instead of treating you like a punk, we just treat you like you're unemployed and disbarred?

http://www.local6.com/news/9397637/detail.html

I have no problem with this. The prosecutor has a responsibility to prove the defendant guilty. The judge's only reponsibility here is objective interpretation of the law. If the prosecutor doesn't have enough respect for the court to show up on time then tough noogies.

Instead of throwing out the case, it'd have made more sense to fine the prosecutor for 'contempt of court' and postpone the trial.

This Judge threw a hissy fit, and allowed an accused pedophile to go home scott free, because THE JUDGE was personally offended.

This is a prime example of one person having too much power.
This clearly was one person overstepping her boundaries, and making a terrible decision.

The lawyer should have been fined, and that damn trial should have continued.
Keep in mind what the laywer was doing, that caused him to be late.

You give people the slightest taste of power, and it makes complete retards of them.

This Judge threw a hissy fit, and allowed an accused pedophile to go home scott freeThe case can be refiled, so the accused is not off scott free yet.

The case can be refiled, so the accused is not off scott free yet.


Admittedly, most of my legal knowledge was gleaned from Jerry Orbach and his ilk, but I was under the impression that having your case dismissed, was equivalent to having the state drop the charges against you?

Admittedly, most of my legal knowledge was gleaned from Jerry Orbach and his ilk, but I was under the impression that having your case dismissed, was equivalent to having the state drop the charges against you?I can't say I have any more legal knowledge. But I was going on what others have said so far.

But looking up some things I stumbled on a list a legal terms, among which :
Prejudice

the ability of a party whose case has been dismissed to refile it with the court, usually after overcoming the issue that led to its dismissal. If a case is dismissed with prejudice it may not be refiled; if it is dismissed without prejudice, the plaintiff (civil) or prosecutor (criminal) is permitted to refile if they so wish.
So it comes down to whether the case was dismissed with or without prejudice. And I'd guess the latter is the case (and otherwise they should have the judge's head on a pike)

The judge was being ridiculou in this situation, but answer me this - why couldn't the prosecutor have CALLED and said he would be late? Maybe the judge would have understood. There may have been a penalty, but not this...

I saw nowhere in the article that the prosecutor called, so naturally, I am to assume he did not.

And now for the rrRREst of the story.....the prosecutor was late because he was in the middle of filing a motion to have the very same judge removed from the case because SHE made remarks that were prejudicial to the victims case. The prosecuter did not think that this judge could be impartial.


Is everyone missing this part, or was it just made up ?


If this is fact, the judge needs to be evaluated.

Is everyone missing this part, or was it just made up ?


If this is fact, the judge needs to be evaluated.

I caught it.

So wait...Prosecution is late, and you punish prosecution by letting them win? I would immediately throw the guy in jail for 25 years.

The judge was being ridiculou in this situation, but answer me this - why couldn't the prosecutor have CALLED and said he would be late? Maybe the judge would have understood. There may have been a penalty, but not this...

I saw nowhere in the article that the prosecutor called, so naturally, I am to assume he did not.Last paragraph of the article.

County Prosecutor Bill Mason said calls were made to Gallagher's office, and she should have been aware of Schneider's pending arrival before deciding to throw out the case.

I think it's absolutely sick when some idiot finds punctuality more important than justice! That's unimaginably whacky. Maybe she'll win a Darwin Award, preferably presented by some maniac she herself let stay on the streets because of some malarkey like that.

Personally I think she was looking for any ol' excuse to let the guy off, since the prosecutor had tried to get her removed from the case that same day. But, you never know. Some people are psychotic about time, and to hell with justice or anything else.

So wait...Prosecution is late, and you punish prosecution by letting them win? I would immediately throw the guy in jail for 25 years.No, I think you have prosecution and defense mixed up.
Prosecution wants the guy in jail, while defense wants him off.

No, I think you have prosecution and defense mixed up.
Prosecution wants the guy in jail, while defense wants him off.

Oh yeah...whoops...

vicodin will do that to you...

Seriously, why are we blaming the judge rather than the prosecutor who couldn't pull it together enough to do his damn job?
I agree. The problem here is the prosecutor who should have been on time, or properly sent a message.

I have no problem with this - (favor defensionis and all that jazz) - given that the judge didn't mess up with any calls made from the prosecutor's office.

Ooh, Cleveland.

Judges in Ohio are elected. No worries he'll get slaughtered in the elections.
Horrible, horrible system :(

*shivers*

If you're not a lawyer, please, don't talk.I'm not a lawyer, but I do teach future lawyers as a scholar in public law. (Yes, law schools actually hire us crazy political scientists...)

Long hours of paper work and preparation has caused me to be late on a couple mock trials. Mind you, I'm not even through with law school yet, and in a real world setting the stress is ten fold.You're right, the stress will be ten-fold... because in the real world, you might actually have to be on time.

Cause it was the judge who let the defendant go without a second thought, with no regard as to just what the consequences of that action might be.Actually, I'm sure the judge had plenty of time for second, third, and even more thoughts in the 45 minutes she waited for the prosecutor.

And what is this with "no regard" for the consequences? The guy is being charged for a crime that allegedly took place some five or six years ago (check the article). He's been out that long, he was probably out at this point on bail or bond, and now he'll continue to be out until the prosecutor refiles charges and actually brings a case against him.

I think you are really blowing this out of proportion.

Something that the prosecutor had neither the inclination nor the authority to do.
The inclination? No. The authority? Of course... The prosecutor could have dropped the case, and the accused would have gone free. Indeed, at this point the ball is in the prosecutor's court: he can choose to refile, or he can choose to drop it. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

The judge couldn't wait 45 minutes to try an alleged rapist? Jesus, just bring a damn DS to court and play a game 'til he turns up.

First, how long is the judge supposed to wait? She apparently received no notice from the prosecutor, so for all she knew he might not show up for the rest of the day. She followed a very straightforward procedure: whatever the crime, if no one shows up to prosecute the charges, there are effectively no charges to prosecute.

Nothing in this article suggests that the judge has denied the prosecution the opportunity to refile. This sets their case back, and hopefully teaches them a lesson--again, an "innocent until proven guilty" defendant should not be kept waiting at the whim of the state, in the spirit (if not the doctrine) of the Sixth Amendment's speedy trial clause.

Instead of throwing out the case, it'd have made more sense to fine the prosecutor for 'contempt of court' and postpone the trial.Why?

Prosecutors are not ordered by the court to show up for a trial, so although this behavior is clearly disrespectful it's hard to call it "contempt" in the legal sense. Rather, the defendant was ordered to show up for trial at the hands of the prosecutor... If the prosecutor doesn't show, he/she misses a chance, but does not disobey the court (again, in the usual sense of contempt).

Moreover, since contempt requires willful disobedience, a contempt charge in this case would require that evidence be presented to the judge: she would have to know why he was late, what opportunities he had to show up, and so on. A judge can only declare "contempt" on the spot when someone misbehaves in the court room, in front of the judge.

Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..."

Now, I know that waiting 45 minutes for the prosecution does not even compare to the fact that defendants wait around for months at a time to even go to trial... but something about the constitutional principle does suggest that just because one is accused of a crime one should not sit around endlessly awaiting the whim of the state.

Hey! That sort of anti-American hate speech is treason. It undermines the war on terror and gives aid and comfort to our enemies. What would Osama bin Laden think if he read this forum and saw "even the Americans think that imprisoning the warriors of Allah without trial is wrong." :cool:

Fergi America']I think it's absolutely sick when some idiot finds punctuality more important than justice!

"Punctuality"?

She waited forty-five minutes. It's not like she was sitting there with an alarm clock in her hand, and when prosecution was not present at the appointed time she took "any excuse" to dismiss the case. Seriously, how long should she wait before she decides the prosecutor has missed his appointment? Or, how long do you think she should have waited for the defendant, had he been tardy, before charging him with contempt or allowing the prosecution to proceed in his absence?

I think she showed extraordinary patience waiting as long as she did.

By way of comparison, I mentioned above my own experience with a dismissal due to the absence of prosectution. The judge in my case waited all of five minutes... not even, as I recall. Obviously, the charges were far, far less serious... but it seems appropriate to me that presumed-innocent defendants--and with them the judge and other court officials--should NOT have to wait around until the prosecution feels like showing.

The primary reason that cases are dismissed is lack of evidence... and lack of prosecution is about the best lack of evidence there is.

*snip*

The primary reason that cases are dismissed is lack of evidence... and lack of prosecution is about the best lack of evidence there is.
Hear, hear. No prosecution, no case. Simple.

And I guess these parts keep escaping people:

Schneider was in his office preparing an appeal seeking to prevent the judge from continuing with the trial.

Earlier in the day, Schneider had asked the judge to remove herself from the case, saying the judge said last year that she thought the accuser had credibility problems.

County Prosecutor Bill Mason said calls were made to Gallagher's office, and she should have been aware of Schneider's pending arrival before deciding to throw out the case.

So a judge w/ allegations of bias dismisses a case when the prosecutor shows up late even though he had made calls stating he would be late.

Sounds like the lack of professionalism is on the judge.

And I guess these parts keep escaping people:

Schneider was in his office preparing an appeal seeking to prevent the judge from continuing with the trial.

Earlier in the day, Schneider had asked the judge to remove herself from the case, saying the judge said last year that she thought the accuser had credibility problems.

County Prosecutor Bill Mason said calls were made to Gallagher's office, and she should have been aware of Schneider's pending arrival before deciding to throw out the case.

So a judge w/ allegations of bias dismisses a case when the prosecutor shows up late even though he had made calls stating he would be late.

Sounds like the lack of professionalism is on the judge.
As I've stated previously, if the calls were placed in such manner that the judge should have been aware of them, then there could be a problem here.

If the calls were not made as described by the Prosecutors office, then the judge did not act incorrectly in my opinion.

The allegations of bias are irrelevant in this setting.

Earlier in the day, Schneider had asked the judge to remove herself from the case, saying the judge said last year that she thought the accuser had credibility problems...So a judge w/ allegations of bias dismisses a case when the prosecutor shows up late even though he had made calls stating he would be late.

Sounds like the lack of professionalism is on the judge.

Regardless, the prosecutor showed up (not just slightly) late. This judge, acted appropriately, in this case.

Maybe this judge should be investigated and punished for refusing to excuse herself from a case with potential bias. Maybe she had behaved improperly earlier. But what she did, at this moment in time, was not inappropriate.

If the prosecutor has a case against this guy, well, he'll re-file. If this part was so important to him, well, maybe he should have begun it earlier:

Schneider was in his office preparing an appeal seeking to prevent the judge from continuing with the trial.

And I guess these parts keep escaping people:Not at all. They are simply irrelevent or immaterial. But I'll give you the blow by blow...
Schneider was in his office preparing an appeal seeking to prevent the judge from continuing with the trial.So? It doesn't matter what he was doing, he wasn't there to prosecute his case. As I believe someone else just commented, if it were so important to him to remove this judge from the case, he should have been on the ball... According to the article, his suspicions of bias were generated by comments the judge made a year ago.

Earlier in the day, Schneider had asked the judge to remove herself from the case, saying the judge said last year that she thought the accuser had credibility problems.Yes, he did. However, the point above applies: he still had an existing duty to prosecute the case. Moreover, why are we simply taking the prosecutor at his word that the judge is biased? How certain are we that the appeal he was preparing would have succeeded in removing her from the case.

First, we know nothing about the context of the judge's comment. In all probability, it was during some pre-trial evidentiary hearing, in which it is quite common for a judge to comment on the evidence presented: after all, the whole point of the hearing is for the judge to decide if the prosecutor has enough evidence to pursue a case.

Now, if the judge simply said of the alleged victim, "I don't believe her," or expressed another "gut reaction" to the effect that she is not credible, that would indeed constitute bias.

If, however, the judge said something like, "Your only witness is a juvenile delinguent," or commented on other evidence of a lack of credibility--as long as that evidence was itself credible--then this is just the sort of thing judges say all the time in an evidentiary hearing. She might have said, "You have real problems with your witness... got anything else?" This is normal, and not unprofessional.

Of course, the article at hand gives us far too little evidence to judge the context of the comment. Thus, the only evidence relevent to our quasi-trial of the judge is the fact that the prosecutor was supposed to be in court, but failed to be.

County Prosecutor Bill Mason said calls were made to Gallagher's office, and she should have been aware of Schneider's pending arrival before deciding to throw out the case.This certainly is more to the point. Of course, we don't know much about those calls either, do we? Did the prosecutor say, "I will be there at 2pm, sorry for being late"? Or did he say call at 1:05 to say, "I'm coming"... then again at 1:15 to say, "Still coming, I'll be there any minute"? We've certainly all experienced that, and at some point it turns into a "cry-wolf" situation.

In any case, the judge is under no obligation to wait around for a prosecutor who cannot make it to court... and the judge's patience must ultimately be weighed against the defendant's rights. It does not matter what the crime is, because the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

Sounds like the lack of professionalism is on the judge.No. Based on all of the available evidence, it seems that the lack of professionalism was wholly that of the prosecutor.

And now for the rrRREst of the story.....the prosecutor was late because he was in the middle of filing a motion to have the very same judge removed from the case because SHE made remarks that were prejudicial to the victims case. The prosecuter did not think that this judge could be impartial.
That judge...is evil. Evil. Very, very evil.

That judge...is evil. Evil. Very, very evil.That's right.

Would you care to tell us how your psychic powers have allowed you to divine, not only that the defendant is guilty, but that the prosecutor has a valid case with respect to the judge's alleged bias?

I think the real bias here is all too obvious: we assume the defendant is guilty, and therefore we assume that whatever the prosecutor says is gospel.

On the other hand, there are compelling reasons to be suspicious of the prosecutor's story. If the judge's comments a year ago were so blatantly prejudicial to the case, then why did the prosecutor wait until literally the last possible moment to prepare an appeal?

That's right.

Would you care to tell us how your psychic powers have allowed you to divine, not only that the defendant is guilty, but that the prosecutor has a valid case with respect to the judge's alleged bias?

I think the real bias here is all too obvious: we assume the defendant is guilty, and therefore we assume that whatever the prosecutor says is gospel.

On the other hand, there are compelling reasons to be suspicious of the prosecutor's story. If the judge's comments a year ago were so blatantly prejudicial to the case, then why did the prosecutor wait until literally the last possible moment to prepare an appeal?

That's not the point.

The point is not that the accused is definantly guilty. The point is not that the prosecuetor was right.

The point is that the Judge released a possible child rapist into the world to spite a person who was not the victim. She should have fined the prosecutor and go on with the case. Anything else is an obstruction of justice and is evil.

The point is that the Judge released a possible child rapist into the world to spite a person who was not the victim.No, the point is that even if one of her motivations was "spite"--and that is all speculation--her action is perfectly appropriate and justified according to the law. When a prosecutor does not show up, the case is dismissed without prejudice: that's the way it has always been done, and there are good reasons for it, which have been repeatedly explained throughout this thread. If you think this is wrong, change the law... don't blame a judge for obeying it.

She should have fined the prosecutor and go on with the case.Fined him for what? He wasn't in contempt, since prosecutors do not routinely receive orders to appear in court.

Whatever you may like to be the case, the only options available to a judge are those provided within the bounds of the law.

Finally, no one released a "possible child rapist"--except to the extent that we are all "possible" child rapists. A judge released an accused child rapist for lack of evidence, i.e. lack of a prosecutor to provide evidence.

Anything else is an obstruction of justice and is evil.No. A system in which the state can take up a case whenever and however it chooses, with no regard for due process or the rights of a defendant: that is an obstruction of justice. And it is evil.

Do our civil protections sometimes result in criminals going free when a different system of justice might have convicted them? Yes. It happens. No one will question that.

As a society, however, we have made a decision to live with these (extremely rare) incidents so as to protect ourselves from tyranny. Personally, I prefer it this way.

Fined him for what? He wasn't in contempt, since prosecutors do not routinely receive orders to appear in court. .

Maybe in your state, but as a court administrator in Michigan it is a fact that notices to appear are sent to both sides and that notice IS an order for the prosecution to appear. Asst. Prosecutors have been held in contempt in our court for being late, and/or stupid. I doubt that it is much different in other states.

Typically, in situations where the judge dismisses the case because this kind of silliness, the prosecutor merely goes back to his office, re-issues the complaint before the inmate even gets released from jail, and the case starts all over again. Unfortunately, the inmate does end up spending more time in jail if he/she is not guilty, but you work with the laws you have, not the laws you wished you have (to paraphrase Rumsfeld).

Again, this is Michigan procedure so take it with a grain of salt.

Maybe in your state, but as a court administrator in Michigan it is a fact that notices to appear are sent to both sides and that notice IS an order for the prosecution to appear. Asst. Prosecutors have been held in contempt in our court for being late, and/or stupid. I doubt that it is much different in other states.

Why? I know for certain that in my state the prosecution's failure to appear is treated as a failure to prosecute, not just disobedience to the court.

Unfortunately, the inmate does end up spending more time in jail if he/she is not guilty, but you work with the laws you have, not the laws you wished you have (to paraphrase Rumsfeld).That may be. But it also happens that if a case is dismissed the prosecutor may (for whatever reason) decide not to refile the charges. I know, because it happened to me. Moreover, your argument only applies to defendants who remain incarcerated--defendants free on bail may benefit.

Of course, this may give the prosecution more time to build a case... or the defense more time to build a case: I guess the allocation of particular benefits may depend on the immediate circumstances.

But if neither side clearly benefits from the practice of dismissing cases for a prosecutor's absence, then your appeal to the plight of defendants amounts to little at all: sometimes they benefit, sometimes not.

Since utilitarian calculus fails us, we must rely on principle: and in principle, a case without a prosecutor or a plaintiff is not a case at all.