SupremeCourt accepts Vt. case

William A. Nelson, Brillon's attorney, said on Wednesday. "My first reaction was surprise, because the Supreme Court takes so few cases.

There didn't seem to be anything in this case that would pique the interest of the court."
Nelson said the court does not provide reasons as to why it selects the cases it does, and said he could not guess as to why the court had accepted the case. "It could be that they think the Vermont Supreme Court is wrong," Nelson said. "I think it's equally likely that they believe the state Supreme Court is right, and want to mention it on a national level."

Marthage asked the court to accept the case because she claimed the Vermont court's decision blamed the state for delays caused by the defendant. According to Marthage's petition, Brillon fired three of his six public defenders, threatening one.

"The Vermont Supreme Court has vacated a felony conviction and barred a retrial due to speedy trial right violations that were caused solely by the defendant and his public defenders," Marthage's petition to the court reads. "Even though the court did not find any fault whatsoever with the prosecution, and the court directed the trial court to vacate the conviction and dismiss the case with prejudice."

Ones criminal records fallows them through life, and I am sure that played a big part in the SUPREME COURTS DESICION TO HEAR THIS CASE

Not to mention the fact that it is very rare for the U.S. Supreme Court to look at a case unless the State Supreme Court erred in some aspect of reviewing how the law was applied in lower court.

Generally, Law Court will review a case, see if a judge erred in applying the law, and if there was an 'abuse of discretion'. The Law Court didn't see it that way, but those judges have cast some doubt upon the case, in the eyes of the U.S. Supreme Court, otherwise, they'd have dismissed a Motion for Reconsideration.

Unfortunately, it may be a few months before we hear an outcome.

So Now what?
Do they arrest him again, put him in jail for something he already served more then enough time for.
You can't be tried for the same crime twice, or does that matter anymore eather?????????/

I'll tell you why the Supreme Court took this caes. It's simple. They are going to overturn the Vermont Supreme Court's decision.

Why? Because it was wrong. They HAVE TO overturn it. Otherwise, there will be lots of defendants stalling their trials, in one way or another, siting the Court's previous ruling about the right to a speedy trial.

I think you may see the law re-written so that if the blame for the delays is clearly due to the defendant's actions, then the right is forfeited, as it SHOULD be.

BBLivesOn wrote:

So Now what?
Do they arrest him again, put him in jail for something he already served more then enough time for.
You can't be tried for the same crime twice, or does that matter anymore eather?????????/

It is not being tried for the same crime twice, It is serving the time you were handed to begin with. You cannot fire threaten to stall the court, It wasn't the courts fault he didn't have a speedy trial. It was minipulating the system, I really have to laugh at this..

BBLivesOn wrote:

So Now what?
Do they arrest him again, put him in jail for something he already served more then enough time for.
You can't be tried for the same crime twice, or does that matter anymore eather?????????/

I'm sure there will be a creative way to re-try him, if this case is overturned by the Supreme Court. Essentially what they're doing is reviewing whether the State Supreme Court's decision was fair under the eyes of the law, and whether the law was applied correctly.

What happened is the guy was on trial, a decision was made. An appeal was filed by the parties who didn't agree with that decision, and it was sent to a higher court (State Supr.). They agreed with the lower court's decision. Another appeal was filed. This appeal goes a level higher. That they accepted says something obviously got their attention.

I just hope that the end result is that justice is indeed served.

A defendant DOES NOT have the right to fire his counsel. That must be done by the appointed judge and only after the defendant proves good cause. The only time a defendant can fire an appointed attorney is when he or she decides to represent them self, or the case in question is civil and not criminal.
My question is why did the judge allow this to happen so many times....

The judge! There ya go! Thats the problem again! When will it end? We getting along today X-Vermonter? ;-)~

Real Vermonter wrote:

The judge! There ya go! Thats the problem again! When will it end? We getting along today X-Vermonter? ;-)~

Shhhhhhhhh.. I have a headache.....

X-Vermonter wrote:

A defendant DOES NOT have the right to fire his counsel. That must be done by the appointed judge and only after the defendant proves good cause. The only time a defendant can fire an appointed attorney is when he or she decides to represent them self, or the case in question is civil and not criminal.
My question is why did the judge allow this to happen so many times....

Maybe I am wrong but I believe that a defendant does have the right to FIRE his attorney even if its a public offender. If what you write is correct than that is a violation of ones civil rights in itself. I believe that everyone is first given the benefit of several rights one being the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, unfortunately the defendant has never in his lifetime been given that benefit in vermont state courts. Another is adequate counsel this being directly connected to the first and the benefit of a speedy trial all of which has not happened. There is much more to this case than what is being written. Personally I am offended as a taxpayer and a vermont state resident that a convicted child molester or murderer gets less of a sentence than what is being sought for this man for "slapping his female companion" it is in quotes because it was never really proven.
Just some food for thought.

maybe wrong wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe I am wrong but I believe that a defendant does have the right to FIRE his attorney even if its a public offender. If what you write is correct than that is a violation of ones civil rights in itself. I believe that everyone is first given the benefit of several rights one being the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, unfortunately the defendant has never in his lifetime been given that benefit in vermont state courts. Another is adequate counsel this being directly connected to the first and the benefit of a speedy trial all of which has not happened. There is much more to this case than what is being written. Personally I am offended as a taxpayer and a vermont state resident that a convicted child molester or murderer gets less of a sentence than what is being sought for this man for "slapping his female companion" it is in quotes because it was never really proven.
Just some food for thought.

You are wrong you and fire any attorny public defender or private because they work for you..

progressive wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm sure there will be a creative way to re-try him, if this case is overturned by the Supreme Court. Essentially what they're doing is reviewing whether the State Supreme Court's decision was fair under the eyes of the law, and whether the law was applied correctly.
What happened is the guy was on trial, a decision was made. An appeal was filed by the parties who didn't agree with that decision, and it was sent to a higher court (State Supr.). They agreed with the lower court's decision. Another appeal was filed. This appeal goes a level higher. That they accepted says something obviously got their attention.
I just hope that the end result is that justice is indeed served.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that, under the sixth amendment, that a defendant in a criminal trial has the right to an attorney and an attorney will be appointed by the trial court if the defendant is unable to pay for one. The defendant does not have the right to fire his or her appointed counsel with out the courts approval. A defendant must show good cause and the court has the discretion to weigh the defendants reasons against other considerations, such as timeliness, in deciding whether to grant the defendants request. A criminal defendant has the right to discharge counsel whether appointed or hired,and elect to defend him self if the court determines that the defendants decision is voluntary and they understand the disadvantages of doing so.

Reply was supposed to go to Maybe Wrong.....

It's ok for the Judge to approve a new lawyer, but the process is still going to take up time. Therefore, it's the defendant's choice, and his fault (in this instance) that it drags on, not the Judge's.

Helloooo wrote:

It's ok for the Judge to approve a new lawyer, but the process is still going to take up time. Therefore, it's the defendant's choice, and his fault (in this instance) that it drags on, not the Judge's.

What part of my comment did you not understand??? This guy played the court system like a fine tuned fiddle and the judge should have picked up on that. 6 lawyers for an assault case???? Give me a break!!!

X-Vermonter wrote:

<quoted text>
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that, under the sixth amendment, that a defendant in a criminal trial has the right to an attorney and an attorney will be appointed by the trial court if the defendant is unable to pay for one. The defendant does not have the right to fire his or her appointed counsel with out the courts approval. A defendant must show good cause and the court has the discretion to weigh the defendants reasons against other considerations, such as timeliness, in deciding whether to grant the defendants request. A criminal defendant has the right to discharge counsel whether appointed or hired,and elect to defend him self if the court determines that the defendants decision is voluntary and they understand the disadvantages of doing so.

And I would say, given he opted for this multiple times, he was granted his right to due process in such a way as to take advantage of the system.

X-Vermonter wrote:

<quoted text>
What part of my comment did you not understand??? This guy played the court system like a fine tuned fiddle and the judge should have picked up on that. 6 lawyers for an assault case???? Give me a break!!!

It still takes up a lot of time. New Counsel has to have a certain period of time to review and prepare. Have you been in a criminal Court lately? They are seriously overloaded with cases. It's a zoo.

It's so bad that a defendant has to file a motion to get a speedy trial. And even that doesn't necessarily get things moving any faster.

The real issue is that this guy should be in jail doing his time no matter what. Wait and see, if he stays out we will hear about him again. Guys like that do not change.

Sorry Logen, that's just the way it is.
I wonder if he's employed right now?

Was Brillon released or is he still incarcerated while the appeal is pending?

Murray Levine wrote:

Was Brillon released or is he still incarcerated while the appeal is pending?

I believe he was released

progressive wrote:

<quoted text>
And I would say, given he opted for this multiple times, he was granted his right to due process in such a way as to take advantage of the system.

With the help of an inept judge, YES........