Those opposing impeachment do not have seem to have even the slightest understanding of due process, are pretending they don’t know or know it will not work in their favor.
An easy to understand example:
Officer smells marijuana from a house this gives him a reasonable suspicion that an illegal controlled substance is present. That is probable cause. He also has experience that the house has been involved in other illegal activity. * He contacts a judge to ask for a warrant to enter the house and seize the drugs, and other drug related materials that might be present. The judge may or may not issue a warrant depending on the officer’s credibility. * If the officer has a reasonable suspicion of a serious crime in progress, say screams, noises typical of a fight, like breaking furnishings or gunshots he may enter without a warrant. In either situation he usually requests assistance. * This is to protect the officer, any innocent people who may be involved and even the rights of those who may be arrested.
Investigation begins with lawful entry and hopefully no violence. * The arrested, if any are entitled to an arraignment, a court proceeding at which a criminal defendant is formally advised of the charges against him and is asked to enter a plea to the charges. The court may also decide at arraignment whether the defendant will be released pending trial. *
One possibility is a grand jury hearing. In a grand jury hearing the prosecution tries to convince the court that there is sufficient evidence to proceed with a trial. There is no defense presence, it is just one more step law enforcement has to complete to get to the trial. The hearings are private, for many reasons one of which is to protect witnesses from intimidation or even threats. * The impeachment hearings in progress are the equivalent of grand jury hearings. The accusers have to convince a panel that the probable cause was just and sufficient to justify further action. If the panel agrees they may hand down an indictment, or impeachment that may lead to a trial. *
After an indictment is handed down the defense may take depositions of all witnesses who may have anything useful to the defendant. This is the step, before trial where the defendant gets to confront his accusers. * The prosecution may also depose witnesses to determine if they are in fact credible.
Trial, the subject of many novels and movies is the part we all feel familiar with. The reality is usually less dramatic, and sometimes painfully boring. Prosecution must present a well-managed, credible case to the trier of fact, a jury or possibly just a judge (at the defendant’s option). Prosecution’s case must fit together like well-made furniture with no humps or gaps. Defense will do anything they can to prevent an unfavorable verdict. They are given a lot of leeway short of violence. The one thing they are strictly not allowed is to withhold exculpatory evidence, that is evidence that would damage their case or help the defendant. If defense can convince the trier of fact, they might win. The other tactics is to confuse, or confound the jury so that they cannot come to a verdict. * This looks like the White House strategy, way too early in the process and the basis for claim of obstructing justice.
Each asterisk* is a point in due process where a case can be dismissed. The officer, his superiors, a judge, a prosecutor, or a grand jury may decide it is not in the public interest to proceed.
In criminal cases the person who is convicted has a right to appeal, not true of impeachment, but impeachment is limited upon conviction by the Senate to removal from office without prejudice. In other words, those aggrieved may pursue criminal or civil action against the deposed official.
Ken Obesnki is a forensic engineer, now safety and freedom advocate in South Kona who writes a biweekly column for West Hawaii Today. Send feedback to obenski@gmail.com
