I’m
very happy that this article will be published in a
In the
But
in
After the jump, you can read my favorite quote from the article, as well as the article’s abstract. At the end of this post is a link to the pre-publication draft of the full article.
Ambrose Bierce, the legendary American newspaper editor, columnist, and author, defined “litigation” as “[a] machine which you go into as a pig and come out of as a sausage.”[1] And a “litigant,” he wrote, is “[a] person about to give up his skin for the hope of retaining his bones.”[2] If those cynical definitions don’t adequately convey Bierce’s views, the following anecdote leaves little doubt about his contempt for the American legal system:
Upon learning that a
Although
Bierce lived and wrote in the mid-1800s to the early-1900s,[4] he
would probably have the same disdain toward our modern criminal justice
system. He might even feel some sympathy
for today’s criminal defendants—litigants who, unlike the consenting
personal-injury plaintiff in
Second, here’s the abstract to my article:
It is incredibly
easy for a prosecutor to file a complaint, thus setting the criminal litigation
machinery in motion. But in felony cases, defendants are entitled to a preliminary
hearing which serves as a check on prosecutorial power. The “prelim” is an
adversarial hearing at which the prosecutor must present evidence and call
witnesses who are subject to cross-examination. The prelim’s purpose is to test
whether there is probable cause to believe the defendant committed a felony,
thus preventing “unlawful detention” and “hasty, malicious, improvident and
oppressive prosecutions.”
Nearly all states
allow prosecutors to use hearsay, with limitations, at the prelim. Given that,
a Machiavellian prosecutor wondered, “If hearsay is admissible at the prelim,
and if the complaint consists of hearsay, why don’t we just have someone read
the complaint at the prelim and dispense with witnesses and evidence entirely?”
The judiciary proved to be an eager coconspirator, and the preliminary-hearing
swindle was born. Today, in some places, the prelim has been eliminated in
substance and largely in form—a mere shell of its former self.
This Article
demonstrates how, exactly, the swindle works, and explains why it is illegal:
it defeats all of the policies and purposes underlying the prelim and directly
violates clear statutes, case law, and even the Constitution. This Article also
explains the intended consequence of the swindle: it is amazingly easy for
prosecutors to file, and win bind-over in, felony cases. Interestingly, in one
venue that has implemented the swindle, felony cases have risen from less than
38 percent to more than 50 percent of all cases.
The swindle is just the most recent, albeit the most severe, form of prosecutorial and judicial abuse of the prelim. Because of this cumulative abuse, felony defendants now have fewer protections than do misdemeanor defendants—the exact opposite of what the law intended. Given this state of affairs, this Article provides a model motion that challenges bind-over after a defective prelim, preserves these issues for appeal, and protects defense counsel from future claims of ineffectiveness.
Finally, here’s the citation and a link to the full, pre-publication draft of my article: Michael D. Cicchini, The Preliminary-Hearing Swindle: A Crime Against Procedure, 58 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. __ (forthcoming, 2025).
Please send any comments, criticisms, praise, etc., to my email at mdc@CicchiniLaw.com. Enjoy!
[1]
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary, in The
[2]
[3] J. Gordon Hylton, The Devil’s Disciple and the Learned Profession: Ambrose Bierce and the Practice of Law in Gilded Age America, 23 Conn. L. Rev. 705, 706 (1991) (internal citation omitted).
[4] See
J. E. Luebering, Ambrose Bierce: American Author, B
No comments:
Post a Comment