MadamRaven & AMGibson Arrested

**Adam-12** · January 26th, 2010, 08:10 AM

We've heard GunLawyer's comments about magistrates before, but I'd be interested in his take on the recording.

My opinion, I heard some serious reversible error--most importantly, when he clearly gave weight to the Sheriff's "restrictions" on the LTCF in violation of preemption under the UFA.

On the other hand, I heard some statements that would have been extremely hard to attack on appeal, if it weren't for the magistrate doing such a lousy job of expressing himself. The witnesses testified (falsely, I believe on MadameRaven's word) that they asked her to leave repeatedly, and she didn't do so. As the trier of fact, the judge can believe or disbelieve their testimony; the appeals court generally can't, IIUC, second-guess his findings of fact. So if he had clearly and articulately cited their testimony, stated his belief of the testimony, and pointed out that this fits the definition of defiant trespass, it would be extremely hard to overturn on appeal. (I'd ask why nobody was charged with trespass, but maybe lawyers know something we don't.)

If this were a court of record, then his irrelevant comments about designated drivers would also come back to haunt. If, and I'm guessing here, MadameRaven testified that she was the designated driver, and also testified that she drank, a court transcript of the judge spinning that just right would be pretty useful to a Sheriff trying to argue that her "character and reputation" indicates bad judgment. The drunk driving laws are pretty arbitrary, and you really can be a perfectly safe driver if you simply pace yourself drinking, but said just right, by a judge, on the record, it can sound pretty bad.

Luckily, the magisterial district court isn't a court of record, and the appeal is actually a de novo trial. So there's a solid chance to take this "practice run" and win on appeal.