Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

Flyer “Processed” (Arrested?) in NM After Declining to Show ID

Flyer “Processed” (Arrested?) in NM After Declining to Show ID

Old Dec 9, 10, 9:53 am
  #1036  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 1,438
Related news? Search Google News or set up an alert.

Originally Posted by TXagogo View Post
Will there be news media coverage of this?
Check here:

http://www.google.com/search?tbs=nws...ek+albuquerque

Or do it automatically:

http://www.google.com/alerts?t=1&q=mocek+albuquerque
pmocek is offline  
Old Dec 9, 10, 3:45 pm
  #1037  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: Fallen Plats, ex-WN CP, DYKWIW; still a Hilton Diamond & Club Cholula™ Super Plats
Posts: 25,247
Trial Postponed Indefinitely ...

TSA trial postponed indefinitely

Phil Mocek was arrested by local police after refusing to show his ID to Transportation Security Administration agents at the Sunport. He drove down from Seattle for the trial that was scheduled to begin Tuesday.... But the judge was slated to do military reserve duty for a couple of weeks starting Monday,
Sucks ... this is really looking like they're all just jerking Phil around until he gets fed up w/ it & caves in.
MikeMpls is offline  
Old Dec 9, 10, 6:02 pm
  #1038  
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: VNY | BUR | LAX
Programs: AAdvantage | MileagePlus
Posts: 12,298
Originally Posted by jkhuggins View Post
I'm not Phil, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know New Mexico law. (Heck, I didn't even stay in a Holiday Express last night.) But this is the Internet, so I'll comment anyways.

The problem with the "right to a speedy trial" is that it cuts both ways. Sure, Phil could've insisted that the trial proceed on Thursday. But that probably would've required being reassigned to a new judge (recall, the judge was heading out of town for military reserve duty). Also, it might've meant getting a new legal team; I'm sure that Phil's lawyers have other clients, and his lawyers might have to appear in court for those clients in that time frame as well. Phil also mentioned that the defense plans to call two witnesses; not knowing who those witnesses are, they may have scheduling problems, too.

Good, fast, cheap: choose any two.
OK, here are the speedy trial rules for New Mexico:

Speedy Trial Rights in New Mexico
The trial of a criminal case must start within six months after whichever of the following events occurs latest:

  • The date of arraignment or waiver of arraignment
  • If the proceedings have been stayed to determine your competency to stand trial, the date an order is filed finding you competent to stand trial
  • If a mistrial is declared or a new trial is ordered by the trial court, the date such order is filed
  • In the event of an appeal, including interlocutory appeals, the date the mandate or order is filed in the district court disposing of the appeal
  • If you are arrested or you surrender in New Mexico for failure to appear, the date of arrest or surrender
  • If you are arrested or surrender in another state or country for failure to appear, the date you are returned to New Mexico
  • If you have been placed in a preprosecution diversion program, the date of the filing with the clerk of the district court of a notice of termination of a preprosecution diversion program for failure to comply with the terms, conditions or requirements of the program
  • The date the court allows the withdrawal of a plea or the rejection of a plea

A trial judge may extend the time for commencement of your trial for good cause but the total period of all extensions may not be more than three months. The Supreme Court may also extend your time for trial for good cause. If a trial in not commenced within the required time limits or within the period of any extension, the information or indictment filed against you will be dismissed.
TWA884 is offline  
Old Dec 9, 10, 7:45 pm
  #1039  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 1,438
Pressure yields stent

Originally Posted by MikeMpls View Post
Sucks ... this is really looking like they're all just jerking Phil around until he gets fed up w/ it & caves in.
Mike, it's unclear from your statement what you think sucks: your suspicion that I'm being jerked around or your suspicion that such is likely to occur to the point of me doing something that would be considered "caving in." If the former, I thank you for your concern. If the latter, please take heart in the fact that jerking me around tends to result in me tightening my grip.
pmocek is offline  
Old Dec 9, 10, 7:55 pm
  #1040  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Denton County, TX
Programs: AA Executive Platinum, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 737
Originally Posted by pmocek View Post
Mike, it's unclear from your statement what you think sucks: your suspicion that I'm being jerked around or your suspicion that such is likely to occur to the point of me doing something that would be considered "caving in." If the former, I thank you for your concern. If the latter, please take heart in the fact that jerking me around tends to result in me tightening my grip.
^
TXagogo is offline  
Old Dec 9, 10, 8:35 pm
  #1041  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
Originally Posted by TWA884 View Post
OK, here are the speedy trial rules for New Mexico:

Speedy Trial Rights in New Mexico
You must dig deeper than that. There was a NM State Supreme Court ruling that effectively changed that rule.

State v. Garza (NM 2009).

The way I have read this thread so far. The defense provided the prosecution a video the day before the trial was to begin. Do you believe that any lawyer be it a defense lawyer or a prosecutor is going to not ask for more time to evaluate the relevance of a video that was held to the day before the trial. No lawyer likes to be blindsided. People here would be screaming bloody murder and conspiracy if the prosecutor did that. Hell, folks here are thinking conspiracy and it was the defense that did it but that part is being overlooked.

The prosecution got two days to review it then the defense asked for a continuance. It doesn't sound like to me that the prosecution is playing games. It appears the defense had quite a bit to do with this.

FB
Firebug4 is offline  
Old Dec 9, 10, 8:56 pm
  #1042  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,945
Originally Posted by Firebug4 View Post
The way I have read this thread so far. The defense provided the prosecution a video the day before the trial was to begin. Do you believe that any lawyer be it a defense lawyer or a prosecutor is going to not ask for more time to evaluate the relevance of a video that was held to the day before the trial. No lawyer likes to be blindsided. People here would be screaming bloody murder and conspiracy if the prosecutor did that. Hell, folks here are thinking conspiracy and it was the defense that did it but that part is being overlooked.

The prosecution got two days to review it then the defense asked for a continuance. It doesn't sound like to me that the prosecution is playing games. It appears the defense had quite a bit to do with this.

FB
How long to evaluate a three minute video that just shows the incident? Only after defense interviewed the prosecution witnesses was the video determined to be relevant. What did the prosecution witnesses say such that the video was necessary? Perhaps something that is in conflict with the tape? If so, then yes the prosecution certainly needed that continuance.

Originally Posted by pmocek View Post
Around 10am, "State of New Mexico v. Phillip Mossack" was addressed. The prosecutor immediately requested a continuance, claiming that he needed time to review a video that was provided to him by the defense attorney yesterday. The defense attorney said the video is only three minutes long, and just shows what happened during the incident. The judge said it's been over a year and asked why this only came up yesterday. Defense attorney said she only received the video this weekend, and it wasn't known to be needed until after conducting interviews of the prosecution witnesses.
ND Sol is offline  
Old Dec 9, 10, 9:00 pm
  #1043  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Benicia CA
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA 3.8MM, UA 1.1MM, enjoying the retired life
Posts: 31,288
KOB TV news video
tom911 is offline  
Old Dec 9, 10, 9:08 pm
  #1044  
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: VNY | BUR | LAX
Programs: AAdvantage | MileagePlus
Posts: 12,298
Originally Posted by Firebug4 View Post
You must dig deeper than that. There was a NM State Supreme Court ruling that effectively changed that rule.

State v. Garza (NM 2009).
Thanks for the case. Here is link to the court's opinion.

The rule promulgated by the New Mexico Supreme Court is as follows:
{48} Consistent with the 2007 amendment to Rule 5-604 and the consensus of our sister states and the federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, we adopt one year as a benchmark for determining when a simple case may become presumptively prejudicial. Accordingly, we also shift the guidelines for cases of greater complexity: Fifteen months may be presumptively prejudicial for intermediate cases and eighteen months may be presumptively prejudicial for complex cases.

{49} We emphasize that these guidelines should not be construed as bright-line tests. Rather, they are meant to guide the district courts determination of "presumptively prejudicial" delay. The situation may arise where a defendant alerts the district court to the possibility of prejudice to his defense and the need for increased speed in bringing the case to trial, i.e., the impending death of a key witness. Where that possibility is realized and the defendant suffers actual prejudice as a result of delay, these guidelines will not preclude the defendant from bringing a motion for a speedy trial violation though the delay may be less than one year. However, it will then be up to the district court to decide whether the delay was sufficient to require further inquiry into the speedy trial analysis.
In addition the court held that "overcrowded courts should be weighted less heavily but nevertheless should be considered since the ultimate responsibility for such circumstances must rest with the government rather than with the defendant."

This is a rather simple case. It has been going on for longer than a year.

The way I have read this thread so far. The defense provided the prosecution a video the day before the trial was to begin. Do you believe that any lawyer be it a defense lawyer or a prosecutor is going to not ask for more time to evaluate the relevance of a video that was held to the day before the trial. No lawyer likes to be blindsided. People here would be screaming bloody murder and conspiracy if the prosecutor did that. Hell, folks here are thinking conspiracy and it was the defense that did it but that part is being overlooked.

The prosecution got two days to review it then the defense asked for a continuance. It doesn't sound like to me that the prosecution is playing games. It appears the defense had quite a bit to do with this.
That was the reason cited for the latest delay. It does not explain or excuse numerous prior continuances.

In the jurisdiction where I practice, the simple solution would have been denial of the request to continue and exclusion of that evidence because the reciprocal pre-trial discovery obligation was violated by the party asking to use it.
TWA884 is offline  
Old Dec 9, 10, 9:10 pm
  #1045  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
Originally Posted by ND Sol View Post
How long to evaluate a three minute video that just shows the incident? Only after defense interviewed the prosecution witnesses was the video determined to be relevant. What did the prosecution witnesses say such that the video was necessary? Perhaps something that is in conflict with the tape? If so, then yes the prosecution certainly needed that continuance.
It doesn't matter if it was a three minute video or a there hour video. It wasn't given to the prosecution to the day before the trial. Where did the video come form? Was the prosecution witness available to talk with the prosecution witness concerning the video in the time before the trial? What time of day before the trial was it given? This is not the only case that prosecutor is dealing with. It doesn't matter if the prosecution need the continuance or not the prosecution is entitled to time to examine evidence that will be presented just as the defense is. The defense lawyer would have done the exact same thing. That is how the process works.

FB
Firebug4 is offline  
Old Dec 9, 10, 9:44 pm
  #1046  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Programs: WN A++, Marriott Plat, Avis 1
Posts: 217
Originally Posted by tom911 View Post
1 min 15 seconds: Ouch, right in the sack.
VegasCableGuy is offline  
Old Dec 9, 10, 9:56 pm
  #1047  
Moderator: Marriott Bonvoy & Travel with Children
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,728
The TV story gives January 20 as the new trial date.

Bruce
bdschobel is offline  
Old Dec 9, 10, 10:02 pm
  #1048  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Denton County, TX
Programs: AA Executive Platinum, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 737
Originally Posted by VegasCableGuy View Post
1 min 15 seconds: Ouch, right in the sack.
That is appalling. Not to get off topic but I just can't believe that anyone would watch the video at 1:15 and think that this is OK. HOW is that OK with anyone?
TXagogo is offline  
Old Dec 9, 10, 10:15 pm
  #1049  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: Fallen Plats, ex-WN CP, DYKWIW; still a Hilton Diamond & Club Cholula™ Super Plats
Posts: 25,247
Originally Posted by pmocek View Post
Mike, it's unclear from your statement what you think sucks: your suspicion that I'm being jerked around or your suspicion that such is likely to occur to the point of me doing something that would be considered "caving in." If the former, I thank you for your concern. If the latter, please take heart in the fact that jerking me around tends to result in me tightening my grip.
Both but I'm glad to hear that you're resolved to stick it out. ^
MikeMpls is offline  
Old Dec 9, 10, 10:41 pm
  #1050  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Programs: SSSSS
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by Firebug4 View Post
You must dig deeper than that. There was a NM State Supreme Court ruling that effectively changed that rule.

State v. Garza (NM 2009).

The way I have read this thread so far. The defense provided the prosecution a video the day before the trial was to begin. Do you believe that any lawyer be it a defense lawyer or a prosecutor is going to not ask for more time to evaluate the relevance of a video that was held to the day before the trial. No lawyer likes to be blindsided. People here would be screaming bloody murder and conspiracy if the prosecutor did that. Hell, folks here are thinking conspiracy and it was the defense that did it but that part is being overlooked.

The prosecution got two days to review it then the defense asked for a continuance. It doesn't sound like to me that the prosecution is playing games. It appears the defense had quite a bit to do with this.

FB
Well, sometimes the prosecutors in an apparent quest for fame and glory wait until midway through a trial before they turn over exculpatory evidence. Sometimes, they even wait until after they've selectively asked their police witness in open court questions to mislead a jury and then slip the report to the defense attorney while the cross examination is underway. In this case, the Ingham County prosecutor got a murder conviction by providing the defense counsel a report of an exculpatory surveillance tape while he was cross-examining the witness and sent an innocent man to prison.

Took years to get the innocent man sprung, but hey, ya know if they charged him he musta done somthin' wrong.
greentips is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: