Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 19, 2021, 10:25:34 PM
1. He'd be charged and a public defender would be appointed for him.
2. The Government would ask for leave to prosecute him in absentia, which it would certainly get (since it's pretty easy to show that he can't be at the trial).
3. The initial hearing would be held, in which the Government would supply the US documentation and show how US courts are credible. Hard to see how they would lose at this stage -- probably just checking the box.
4. The trial would occur, in which the Government would file a brief arguing that the conviction met the statutory definition. Again, hard to see how they would lose.
5. Sentencing would occur.
Okay. I don't have any objections in principle to this process; but explain to me how the two stages offer extra protection for the defendant. As opposed to a single trial where the prosecution would have to supply the documentation; show how the foreign court is credible; AND show how the crime meets the stat definition, and if it fails on any of those, the prosecution is lost.
Okay, different approach, for all felonies and serious misdemeanours we require a preliminary hearing of some kind?
BTW, forget about that other thing I asked for, it's not worth it.