He wanted it dismissed with prejudice so that she can't be called into court on these same charges again. It's just that the state dismissed it before defense could file his motion
So on the very day that the defense has a hearing on this motion the prosecution dismisses the case without prejudice. Which simply resets the clock and gives him additional time to gather evidence and then recharge the case. That is just wrong and sneaky as crap. If a defendant had tried to pull something like that Judge Boyd would have been furious.
@@lordraydensI certainly do pay my taxes. I also don't live in Texas. But I do think that fairness is important and this seemed very unfair to the defendant. She can't be a few minutes late to court. But the state can delay delay delay and use underfunded labs as the excuse.
@@klee88029 The government can choose to spend more money to fund these labs and so on and the government chooses not to. The state has all the power and they should follow their own rules which they set. The government can change the law, all that is happening is the defendant is following the law.
@@seyley2901 She didn't have a case to rule on as it was dismissed. The defence motion was denied so she CAN be retried with new evidence as there is no prejudice. Defence lost this one
@@seyley2901yup they'll be getting her later forsure unless the lawyer try appealing the judges ruling and gets accepted to higher judge.in other words unless she has alot of money to burn she not gonna be able todo anything about it either.
If the court technically retains jurisdiction for 30 days, I think she could have granted the motion. And she should have. If you can't get tests back from the lab in 9 months, you should be forced to dismiss with prejudice because who's to say those lab tests will be valid nearly a year later? How long do you have to wait for due process?
Agreed I was thinking the same thing. I'm not the most knowledgeable in law but I hope they can appeal that decision. Love judge Boyd but I think this one may have been an incorrect call
Exactly! Or as the defense said, if there's a legitimate reason for excessive delay there's a system in place for that, he can file something with the court asking for more time and explaining why.
Prosecutors do this all the time. They have such a back log of lab work, which is outsourced that they dismiss and then months later you get a summons in the mail saying they are pursuing charges. I think it is a double standard for defendants. The State gets to drag its heels and then come back on you. It smells of double jeopardy.
This reminds me of the moment when King Charles I was sentenced to death. He tried to raise an objection, but Judge Bradshaw declared that Charles was already “dead in law” and therefore had no right to speak.
So the prosecution decided to be slick and dismiss it that morning so they could get another shot at the case and refile it because they've been dragging their feet for 9 months.
The impression I get here is that the lab is the one with the backlog. The question THEN becomes.. do you release folks for a non-speedy trial meaning many felons end up back on the street, or do you wait a bit? I'd pick wait if it was a felony since one of the court's responsibilities is to keep the public safe. The Constitution stipulates 'speedy trial'.. but I think each state interprets that differently. And issues of public safety never can be ignored.
It's hard to get good results because the lab techs are using the drugs themselves. Go look up the labs that Massachusetts used a few years back. They had to dismiss thousands of cases because of the lab.
It may not be the state’s “fault” that the labs haven’t got back, but they are outsourcing that job to a private company so it’s their responsibility to get those lab results back in a timely manner. Nine months? Bullshit double standard. This was a bullshit ruling by this judge
Technically it is. They have the burden of proof and control of the evidence. The state could have asked the court for more time, but they dropped the ball. This attorney held them accountable, but the state outmaneuvered him. You can be sure if the state tries to pursue charges again, this attorney will raise hell. Judge Boyd is not afraid to rule against the state in that eventuality.
I OBJECT! I STRONGLY OBJECT! I OBJECT IN THE MOST STRENUOUS TERMS YOUR HONOR! Oh okay...we gonna play fast and loose with the law 🙄. I don't think the defendant is a King Pin of drug suppliers to all of North America...but you can't judge a book by it's cover...😊
Defense thinks that once the Lab backlog is cleared, they would then be able to test the drug sample sent to them and Prosecutors would then be able to charge her. So basically the lab couldn't test the drug in a timely way so Prosecutors had to dismiss. Defense doesn't want her re charged.
Because with just Dismissed the state can come back when the lab results finally get done and recharge the defendant, Dismissed with Prejudice means they can never come back and bring charges again. Hope that makes sense.
Since the case wasn't dismissed with prejudice it was just dismissed the state can come back within the statute of limitations for whatever crime she was charged with and recharge. It's like she's being punished while not being charged. True, she's free and able to go about her life but not really. What if she wants to get married, have children, buy a house, move to another state or country, or anything else in her life that takes planning. She's not free to do that because this case is still hanging over her until the Statue of limitations for the crime runs out because she can be charged at any time for that crime. I'm all for punishing criminals but I believe in speedy prosecutions. What if the state comes back within the statute of limitations and files charges and then she's found innocent. She wasn't free during that time even though she was not in jail. Her life has been altered until the statute of limitations runs out or the charges are filed and she's found innocent or guilty. On the other side of the argument is the status taking too long to get evidence against criminals. This person is free and in the public with you and me. What if she's dangerous? What if she's a danger to our children? Because the state is delaying the prosecution, she's out and might commit more crimes. In essence, if she's guilty, the public is being put at risk. If she's innocent, her life is being put on hold. Both cases are because the state has failed to prosecute in a timely manner.
The defendant was extremely lucky, and the prosecution failed the people. After 180 days, they still have not processed the proof. It might be too budgetary constraints or other mitigating circumstances beyond their control, which should be addressed with better funding, if that will help. This defendant is clearly free to go because of this situation I described.
Until they refile. The lawyer argued wrong, he should have brought up the fact, under her ruling, they could continue to dismiss and refile until the statue of limits runs it's course, which in turn and practice would be unconstitutional due to the speedy trial rules. She would still rule against him but at least it would be in the record for appeal.
It's the exact opposite. The state now has two years to file charges. She knows there are charges pending. So for the next two years of her life she may be free and walking around but she's still imprisoned and can't move forward with her life. She doesn't know if she's going to jail, getting probation, or anything. Should she get married, get pregnant, buy a house, buy a car, move to another state? Until the statute of limitations runs out on the charges she was charged with, her life has no direction. Sure, she's not in jail but she's also not free. I'm all about punished criminals and if she did something wrong she should be punished. But I also believe in swift punishment. A person's whole life shouldn't be put on hold for years waiting for the punishment to come. Let's say she is a dangerous criminal. Now she's free in the public to continue committing crimes because the state failed to get lab results fast enough. Putting the public at risk. That's not what we pay taxes for.
Looks like dealing drugs can score you a pretty competent, feisty defense attorney. It didn’t work for Precious in this case but it’s nice to see the Defense attorney TRYING for their clients instead of making deals with the state. Defense swung and missed but it was worth the effort. I wonder how long it takes to get those lab results back. 6 months sounds like plenty of time to get tested drugs back from a lab.
Sorry, this is NOT double jeopardy. For that to be true there has to be a second trial after a legal adjudication on the same charges. The defendant has a right to have all the evidence in order for the trial, the delay is about evidence, nothing else. I have a hard time believing that the founders desired what you are glad about when they said 'speedy trial' in the constitution.
It sounds like it was “much ado about nothing, as if they came back to file the same charges the defense lawyer would then pull this up and there WOULD be a case in front of the court, and the information would be presented at that time, but the Prosecutor’s Office would be stupid to waste time like that……
The state had nine months to ask the court for more time. If the delay was truly because the lab was backed up and not the prosecution did not get the evidence to the lab in a timely manner, it would have been easy to prove. I don’t think the prosecution purposefully delayed anything. They probably just dropped the ball. Shit happens. 🤷🏻♂️ But when shit happens in criminal prosecution, somebody’s liberty is at stake.
Actually it's the exact opposite. The case is currently dismissed but it can be recharged later until the statute of limitations runs out. So now she's in limbo until the Statute of limitations has run out. So for the next two years she doesn't know if she's being charged with a crime or not. She doesn't know if she should get married or if she should purchase a house or a new vehicle because will she be free to pay for it or participate in her marriage.
I feel like there was something wrong there. I feel like that by not dismissing it with prejudice it allows the state to come back at sometime to retry that case if they feel like it essentially holding this person hostage for these charges. She didn’t want to let it go. And the state that’s why the defense attorney was so adamant about dismissing it with prejudice to prevent the state from coming back and the judge knew what was up but wouldn’t do it. Why?
First Time Ive Seen Judge B Make the WRONG Choice. She knows whats up and what the Prosecutor is doing but she sided with th and in a way she played "dumb" by saying there is no case that she does not have jurisdiction. If she was truly fair and impartial in this case she would have dismissed it with prejudice but im sure shes leaning more in favor of the prosecution here because it is a drug case and the actual facts behind the case probably irk her to the point where she doesn't feel comfortable dismissing it with prejudice but the fact of the matter is that as a judge she has to remain impartial and I feel like in this case she was not.
I have watched tons of these videos with Judge Boyd, and she consistently favours the prosecution to an almost absurd degree. She passed the buck here, in what was a slam dunk defence motion. Sums up her decisions on the bench in my view
This is the first time I have seen Judge Boyd fail. This prosecutor wants to circumvent a defendant’s right to a speedy trial. He wants the court to ignore the fact that his office did not do what they should have in the time allotted to them. Judge Boyd let the prosecutor “dismiss” the case that morning so he can refile after they get their crap together with evidence/lab work. Now the prosecutor can send the lab work off, get results, refile, and the defendant will be back to square one. The defendant and her attorney did everything they were supposed to do and if they hadn’t;t done it then there would be repercussions. The State did not do what they should have and the court is protecting them. I’m sad to see Judge Boyd chose to do this. Precedence should have been made this day concerning this tactic that I am sure is used by the prosecution a lot. An attorney defending his client to his fullest extent really did step up to try to set precedence that will protect defendants from this backdoor double jeopardy BS and the court failed. Sad.
Courts are allowed to dismiss without prejudice and refile charges within the statute of limitations. They do it all the time for a myriad of reasons. In this case there’s a backlog with third party drug screenings.
@@lordraydens Absolutely everyone is so reasonable these days. Polite, patient, empathetic, understanding. Like I’m sure everyone in this thread leaving a post would be perfectly FINE with a prosecutor circumventing double jeopardy and possibly habeus corpus (if this case is re-filed after lab results come back in and the defendant is issued bail and cannot make bail and ends up incarcerated. Again.) Like we’d all be ok doing everything we are supposed to do according to the LAW but the prosecutor and the judge don’t have to abide by the LAW? Kudos for this defendant’s attorney for at least having the stones to try to get the prosecutor and the judge to abide by the law. Hey. I really like Judge Boyd. However, not everyone is perfect. Judge Boyd wouldn’t have a job if no one broke the law and I have seen her uphold the law in every previous video I have watched of her in court. I’m not changing my mind about how I feel she did in this video and I’m sure most of the people posting here will disagree with me. I’m not going to make y’all change your minds either. Calling it a day, folks. Have a good one.
I believe Judge Boyd was correct. The case is no longer existing. It was a clever move by the prosecutor to have it dismissed without prejudice. I doubt they will refile. Her decision was simple. The case was no longer before her since another judge dismissed it. I don’t think the prosecutor did this so he could refile, but for future court purposes should,she reoffend. Dismissing without prejudice means the State can refile the case. I think the ruling is correct. It is a procedural error and not an error of evidence or judicial process. The defense can present its opinion of the error if the State refiles. They can also appeal. Someone dropped the ball at the prosecutors office, but that doesn’t absolve the defendant of culpability.
The defendant waited over 8 months without being prosecuted, which is more than 2 months beyond what the state statutes demand. That should supersede any slick sneaky tactic by the prosecutor to drag this out longer. The judge totally failed in her job. Not the first time, either. On a lesser note, I'm so sick of her trying to force people to adhere to her whole "kids are baby goats" crap. First definition of the word "kid" is a child. Then she goes and mangles the word "moot" and pronounces is as "mute". She needs to better educate herself and stop with the bias.
She's saying the Court is "mute" as the case is dismissed therefore she has nothing before the Court to decide upon. Defense believes it's a moot point as shown by him debating the situation.
![[UA] NAVI vs MOUZ | BO5 | IEM Rio 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CMBYk0cbGoA/mqdefault.jpg)
That Defense attorney was earning his fee! He was extremely well prepared and argued a good cause for his client! Well done! 👍🏻
This is the best defense attorney I've seen on here he really does his homework and quotes laws or statutes goes the mile for his clients
He wanted it dismissed with prejudice so that she can't be called into court on these same charges again. It's just that the state dismissed it before defense could file his motion
So on the very day that the defense has a hearing on this motion the prosecution dismisses the case without prejudice. Which simply resets the clock and gives him additional time to gather evidence and then recharge the case. That is just wrong and sneaky as crap. If a defendant had tried to pull something like that Judge Boyd would have been furious.
ok, then pay your taxes so we can have better labs to get things done faster
@@lordraydensI certainly do pay my taxes. I also don't live in Texas. But I do think that fairness is important and this seemed very unfair to the defendant. She can't be a few minutes late to court. But the state can delay delay delay and use underfunded labs as the excuse.
@@AnneLilley it's not an excuse!
Well maybe if so many people didn't use illegal substances, the Prosecution and State Labs wouldn't be so backlogged. Did you ever think about that?
@@klee88029 The government can choose to spend more money to fund these labs and so on and the government chooses not to. The state has all the power and they should follow their own rules which they set. The government can change the law, all that is happening is the defendant is following the law.
With prejudice... they can't try her again .
Yes they can, if they produce new and fresh evidence...
@@seyley2901 Not if it is dismissed WITH PREJUDICE! They can not retry in that case. Without prejudice they could retry
@pegallen6983 ... but you heard that the prosecution dismissed the charges. So, there is no possibility of a dismissal with prejudice.
@@seyley2901 She didn't have a case to rule on as it was dismissed. The defence motion was denied so she CAN be retried with new evidence as there is no prejudice. Defence lost this one
@@seyley2901yup they'll be getting her later forsure unless the lawyer try appealing the judges ruling and gets accepted to higher judge.in other words unless she has alot of money to burn she not gonna be able todo anything about it either.
If the court technically retains jurisdiction for 30 days, I think she could have granted the motion. And she should have. If you can't get tests back from the lab in 9 months, you should be forced to dismiss with prejudice because who's to say those lab tests will be valid nearly a year later? How long do you have to wait for due process?
Agreed I was thinking the same thing. I'm not the most knowledgeable in law but I hope they can appeal that decision. Love judge Boyd but I think this one may have been an incorrect call
Exactly! Or as the defense said, if there's a legitimate reason for excessive delay there's a system in place for that, he can file something with the court asking for more time and explaining why.
Prosecutors do this all the time. They have such a back log of lab work, which is outsourced that they dismiss and then months later you get a summons in the mail saying they are pursuing charges. I think it is a double standard for defendants. The State gets to drag its heels and then come back on you. It smells of double jeopardy.
That’s why the defense wanted it dismissed without prejudice.
@@RVBadlands2015 Dismissed with prejudice is the correct one, without means they can still come back and retry the case.
They have such a back log of lab work / The State gets to drag its heels - make it make sense
Well maybe if so many people didn't use illegal substances, the Prosecution and State Labs wouldn't be so backlogged. Did you ever think about that?
This reminds me of the moment when King Charles I was sentenced to death. He tried to raise an objection, but Judge Bradshaw declared that Charles was already “dead in law” and therefore had no right to speak.
So the prosecution decided to be slick and dismiss it that morning so they could get another shot at the case and refile it because they've been dragging their feet for 9 months.
The impression I get here is that the lab is the one with the backlog. The question THEN becomes.. do you release folks for a non-speedy trial meaning many felons end up back on the street, or do you wait a bit? I'd pick wait if it was a felony since one of the court's responsibilities is to keep the public safe. The Constitution stipulates 'speedy trial'.. but I think each state interprets that differently. And issues of public safety never can be ignored.
@rbarnes4076 prosecution could have filed paper work to get more time. Unless they've been found guilty before. They're innocent until proven guilty
I wish he had been my lawyer this is gold he did the work
Perhaps the defense will appeal the judges ruling to try to get a decision that this should be a dismissal with prejudice.
The defense is correct.
Good maneuver
What kind of testing are they doing that takes longer than 7 months!
How hard is it to do lab work to test the drugs? Crazy
It's hard to get good results because the lab techs are using the drugs themselves. Go look up the labs that Massachusetts used a few years back. They had to dismiss thousands of cases because of the lab.
Very, very good defense attorney. Far better than most.
Everyone but the defendant is paid to be there.
Too bad the defense attorney put in all that effort for a case that technically does not exist.
I love judge Boyd she stands up for children every time we need more people to do the same She is very consistent in her dealings with people
That guy is a real attorney
That was very interesting
IYS Not the States Fault that the Labs are in backlog.
Yes it is. They how the labs, it their responsibility.
It may not be the state’s “fault” that the labs haven’t got back, but they are outsourcing that job to a private company so it’s their responsibility to get those lab results back in a timely manner. Nine months?
Bullshit double standard. This was a bullshit ruling by this judge
Technically it is. They have the burden of proof and control of the evidence. The state could have asked the court for more time, but they dropped the ball.
This attorney held them accountable, but the state outmaneuvered him. You can be sure if the state tries to pursue charges again, this attorney will raise hell. Judge Boyd is not afraid to rule against the state in that eventuality.
I OBJECT! I STRONGLY OBJECT!
I OBJECT IN THE MOST STRENUOUS TERMS YOUR HONOR!
Oh okay...we gonna play fast and loose with the law 🙄. I don't think the defendant is a King Pin of drug suppliers to all of North America...but you can't judge a book by it's cover...😊
She is one sharp cookie!
Once the gavel strikes on a dismissal, the SOL has tolled. Great ruling.
Mute? Its "moot." 😊
Mute means without speech. Moot means pointless.
And she’s out here calling people out for calling children kids 😂
Are the defence and prosecutor brothers?
Same barber and tailor.
Too legalistic for poor old me. Dont follow all this but know. Judge would do what is right. She is very good.fair
I'm a little confused. If the case is dismissed then what exactly does the defense want? Can anyone explain it in layman's terms? Thanks!
Defense thinks that once the Lab backlog is cleared, they would then be able to test the drug sample sent to them and Prosecutors would then be able to charge her. So basically the lab couldn't test the drug in a timely way so Prosecutors had to dismiss. Defense doesn't want her re charged.
With prejudice means they can't come back and refile. Without prejudice they can get their stuff together and refile.
Because with just Dismissed the state can come back when the lab results finally get done and recharge the defendant, Dismissed with Prejudice means they can never come back and bring charges again. Hope that makes sense.
Thanks for all your explanations ! 🤙
Since the case wasn't dismissed with prejudice it was just dismissed the state can come back within the statute of limitations for whatever crime she was charged with and recharge. It's like she's being punished while not being charged. True, she's free and able to go about her life but not really. What if she wants to get married, have children, buy a house, move to another state or country, or anything else in her life that takes planning. She's not free to do that because this case is still hanging over her until the Statue of limitations for the crime runs out because she can be charged at any time for that crime.
I'm all for punishing criminals but I believe in speedy prosecutions. What if the state comes back within the statute of limitations and files charges and then she's found innocent. She wasn't free during that time even though she was not in jail. Her life has been altered until the statute of limitations runs out or the charges are filed and she's found innocent or guilty.
On the other side of the argument is the status taking too long to get evidence against criminals. This person is free and in the public with you and me. What if she's dangerous? What if she's a danger to our children? Because the state is delaying the prosecution, she's out and might commit more crimes.
In essence, if she's guilty, the public is being put at risk. If she's innocent, her life is being put on hold. Both cases are because the state has failed to prosecute in a timely manner.
The defendant was extremely lucky, and the prosecution failed the people. After 180 days, they still have not processed the proof. It might be too budgetary constraints or other mitigating circumstances beyond their control, which should be addressed with better funding, if that will help. This defendant is clearly free to go because of this situation I described.
They will just wait till the lab results get done and then charge her again, that is why the defense wanted dismissed with prejudice.
Until they refile. The lawyer argued wrong, he should have brought up the fact, under her ruling, they could continue to dismiss and refile until the statue of limits runs it's course, which in turn and practice would be unconstitutional due to the speedy trial rules.
She would still rule against him but at least it would be in the record for appeal.
It's the exact opposite. The state now has two years to file charges. She knows there are charges pending. So for the next two years of her life she may be free and walking around but she's still imprisoned and can't move forward with her life. She doesn't know if she's going to jail, getting probation, or anything. Should she get married, get pregnant, buy a house, buy a car, move to another state?
Until the statute of limitations runs out on the charges she was charged with, her life has no direction. Sure, she's not in jail but she's also not free.
I'm all about punished criminals and if she did something wrong she should be punished. But I also believe in swift punishment. A person's whole life shouldn't be put on hold for years waiting for the punishment to come.
Let's say she is a dangerous criminal. Now she's free in the public to continue committing crimes because the state failed to get lab results fast enough. Putting the public at risk. That's not what we pay taxes for.
Looks like dealing drugs can score you a pretty competent, feisty defense attorney. It didn’t work for Precious in this case but it’s nice to see the Defense attorney TRYING for their clients instead of making deals with the state. Defense swung and missed but it was worth the effort. I wonder how long it takes to get those lab results back. 6 months sounds like plenty of time to get tested drugs back from a lab.
Defense just trying to prevent the State from attempting a second bite of the apple.
Well done.
Sorry, this is NOT double jeopardy. For that to be true there has to be a second trial after a legal adjudication on the same charges.
The defendant has a right to have all the evidence in order for the trial, the delay is about evidence, nothing else. I have a hard time believing that the founders desired what you are glad about when they said 'speedy trial' in the constitution.
she only finds a flaw because the case was dismissed and it's a non-issue
Is that the *only* reason?
It’s the only reason she stated. She seemed to really listen to the argument.
It sounds like it was “much ado about nothing, as if they came back to file the same charges the defense lawyer would then pull this up and there WOULD be a case in front of the court, and the information would be presented at that time, but the Prosecutor’s Office would be stupid to waste time like that……
Why is the lawyers can talk and everyone can hear find,but when the defendants talk they always been down to the mic.
Lawyers learn to project their voice. The average person does not.
A soft voice is also a way ppl manipulate and cover up their actions so the court will be more lenient.
@AnnaBanana-gz4om
It’s so they can feign humility and contrition.
Most defendants are nervous and not used to the court system. For the lawyers, this is their workplace.
How is it that "awaiting lab results" isn't considered "just cause"? This lawyer would have a field day in Manning's night court.
Yeah, but they were waiting for nine months. Nine months for lab results? That is definitely unreasonable
The state had nine months to ask the court for more time. If the delay was truly because the lab was backed up and not the prosecution did not get the evidence to the lab in a timely manner, it would have been easy to prove. I don’t think the prosecution purposefully delayed anything. They probably just dropped the ball. Shit happens. 🤷🏻♂️ But when shit happens in criminal prosecution, somebody’s liberty is at stake.
Better drag this chick back into court there's an entire army of tax leeches depending on fresh blood in the criminal injustice system
Guess she got lucky👍
Actually it's the exact opposite. The case is currently dismissed but it can be recharged later until the statute of limitations runs out. So now she's in limbo until the Statute of limitations has run out. So for the next two years she doesn't know if she's being charged with a crime or not. She doesn't know if she should get married or if she should purchase a house or a new vehicle because will she be free to pay for it or participate in her marriage.
I feel like there was something wrong there. I feel like that by not dismissing it with prejudice it allows the state to come back at sometime to retry that case if they feel like it essentially holding this person hostage for these charges. She didn’t want to let it go. And the state that’s why the defense attorney was so adamant about dismissing it with prejudice to prevent the state from coming back and the judge knew what was up but wouldn’t do it. Why?
@8:41 judge said "...dismiss with prejudice is somewhat MUTE?...." I'm shocked judge Boyd said that, the word she should have said is MOOT.
She did say moot. Closed captioning makes up its own words.
Another dirty prosecutor tactic
First Time Ive Seen Judge B Make the WRONG Choice. She knows whats up and what the Prosecutor is doing but she sided with th and in a way she played "dumb" by saying there is no case that she does not have jurisdiction. If she was truly fair and impartial in this case she would have dismissed it with prejudice but im sure shes leaning more in favor of the prosecution here because it is a drug case and the actual facts behind the case probably irk her to the point where she doesn't feel comfortable dismissing it with prejudice but the fact of the matter is that as a judge she has to remain impartial and I feel like in this case she was not.
I have watched tons of these videos with Judge Boyd, and she consistently favours the prosecution to an almost absurd degree. She passed the buck here, in what was a slam dunk defence motion. Sums up her decisions on the bench in my view
Did she ask for a speedy trial
does she need to?
Judge, not mute, moot.
Did Judge Boyd say "mute" instead of "moot"??
No, she said "moot." The auto-CC routinely misinterprets that word.
Judge Boyd, the correct word is "moot", not "mute".
This is the first time I have seen Judge Boyd fail. This prosecutor wants to circumvent a defendant’s right to a speedy trial. He wants the court to ignore the fact that his office did not do what they should have in the time allotted to them. Judge Boyd let the prosecutor “dismiss” the case that morning so he can refile after they get their crap together with evidence/lab work. Now the prosecutor can send the lab work off, get results, refile, and the defendant will be back to square one. The defendant and her attorney did everything they were supposed to do and if they hadn’t;t done it then there would be repercussions. The State did not do what they should have and the court is protecting them. I’m sad to see Judge Boyd chose to do this. Precedence should have been made this day concerning this tactic that I am sure is used by the prosecution a lot. An attorney defending his client to his fullest extent really did step up to try to set precedence that will protect defendants from this backdoor double jeopardy BS and the court failed. Sad.
Courts are allowed to dismiss without prejudice and refile charges within the statute of limitations. They do it all the time for a myriad of reasons. In this case there’s a backlog with third party drug screenings.
it's not the state's fault the labs are backed up. gee, maybe people should stop committing crimes!
@@lordraydens Absolutely everyone is so reasonable these days. Polite, patient, empathetic, understanding. Like I’m sure everyone in this thread leaving a post would be perfectly FINE with a prosecutor circumventing double jeopardy and possibly habeus corpus (if this case is re-filed after lab results come back in and the defendant is issued bail and cannot make bail and ends up incarcerated. Again.) Like we’d all be ok doing everything we are supposed to do according to the LAW but the prosecutor and the judge don’t have to abide by the LAW? Kudos for this defendant’s attorney for at least having the stones to try to get the prosecutor and the judge to abide by the law. Hey. I really like Judge Boyd. However, not everyone is perfect. Judge Boyd wouldn’t have a job if no one broke the law and I have seen her uphold the law in every previous video I have watched of her in court. I’m not changing my mind about how I feel she did in this video and I’m sure most of the people posting here will disagree with me. I’m not going to make y’all change your minds either. Calling it a day, folks. Have a good one.
@@dallasflynn5200 blah blah blah obviously you just wanna be an acabman
I believe Judge Boyd was correct. The case is no longer existing. It was a clever move by the prosecutor to have it dismissed without prejudice. I doubt they will refile. Her decision was simple. The case was no longer before her since another judge dismissed it. I don’t think the prosecutor did this so he could refile, but for future court purposes should,she reoffend.
Dismissing without prejudice means the State can refile the case. I think the ruling is correct. It is a procedural error and not an error of evidence or judicial process. The defense can present its opinion of the error if the State refiles. They can also appeal.
Someone dropped the ball at the prosecutors office, but that doesn’t absolve the defendant of culpability.
Judge got it wrong... the defendant's motion to dismiss with PREJUDICE was filed before the dismissal without prejudice. Disappointed in judge.
Q❤d
The defendant waited over 8 months without being prosecuted, which is more than 2 months beyond what the state statutes demand. That should supersede any slick sneaky tactic by the prosecutor to drag this out longer. The judge totally failed in her job. Not the first time, either.
On a lesser note, I'm so sick of her trying to force people to adhere to her whole "kids are baby goats" crap. First definition of the word "kid" is a child. Then she goes and mangles the word "moot" and pronounces is as "mute". She needs to better educate herself and stop with the bias.
It's "moot' Judge B, not "mute"...
"moo" is her middle name.
She's saying the Court is "mute" as the case is dismissed therefore she has nothing before the Court to decide upon. Defense believes it's a moot point as shown by him debating the situation.
@NOELTM I thought of that after I commented lol, appreciate your comment.
@@stumack9755 Get yo mamma to push the car!
I was so disappointed in her for that. That's sovcit level grammar 😢
He told the judge why she could do it and she chose not to. She's a hanging judge not a fair judge.
why is judge eating?
You notice how Judge Boyd had become more aggressive towards the defendants and the court workers? It seems like she’s more and more aggressive.
no, she is very fair