text:
Bennett School News
PTA News
Join Bennett Elementary Parent Teacher Association
Box Tops For Education 2018-19
Box Tops for Bobcats!
How to Register My Child for School
Need information on registering your child in a Broward County Public School? Get all the details now!
Immunization Information
Before attending school in Florida, each child must be immunized. View information on school entry requirements now.
Transportation Information
Important transportation and student bus stop information.
District News
Watch Highlights of 7th Annual Ed Talk Community Forum
Friday, December 7, 2018
Hundreds from across the District attended the seventh annual Ed Talk community forum to engage in conversations focused on educating students to succeed in tomorrow's world.
BCPS Announces Call for Presentations for the 4th Annual National Summit for Principal Supervisors Fort Lauderdale, Florida, April 3 - 5, 2019
Wednesday, December 5, 2018
Broward County Public Schools (BCPS) is pleased to announce its Call for Presentations for the fourth annual National Summit for Principal Supervisors, scheduled to take place at the Westin Fort Lauderdale Beach Resort, Florida, April 3 – 5, 2019.
BCPS Expands Afterschool Supper Program Over 100 Schools Now Offer Nutritious Meals in Aftercare Program
Wednesday, December 5, 2018
Broward County Public Schools (BCPS) has expanded its Afterschool Supper Program to include two additional school sites, for a total of 117 schools serving nutritious meals to students.
Henry D. Perry Educational Center and the Miramar Police Department Present the Second Annual, Ballin' For Unity
Wednesday, December 5, 2018
Second annual, Ballin' For Unity, presented by Henry D. Perry Educational Center and the Miramar Police Department
Northeast High School to Host a Group of Special Athletes to Participate in the Special Olympics
Tuesday, December 4, 2018
Northeast High School partners with Special Olympics Florida to host the Special Olympics games, welcoming student-athletes from 12 elementary, middle and high schools across the District for a morning of competition and teamwork.


text:
Subtotal: $0.00
Cream of Tartar- Controls the pH of egg whites and results in increased volume, stability and more uniform texture of the finished products.
We love to use a little in our Bath Bomb Cupcake Frosting to make sure it doesn't deflate.
Ingredients: Botanical Name: Calcium sulfate, Monocalcium phosphate, Adipic acid, Corn starchCommon Name: Cream of Tartar
We're a friendly group who love social media. See you 'round the web!
Quantity: 1

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Welcome to London - the city that consumes more energy than entire European countries. From above the bright lights of the financial district of the City and Docklands may look pretty, but each year London consumes 150 thousand giga watt hours of energy - more than enough to power Ireland, and equal to the cosumption of nations such as Portugal and Greece.
An aerial photo by Jason Hawkes, looking from The Shard towards North LondonPicture: Jason Hawkes / Barcroft Media


text:
Visit our main website at www.StDavids.com
Editorial Staff and Contributors
Barium is a milky fluid that absorbs
x-rays. Barium is placed into the bowels through the rectum. This is called an enema. Barium coats the lining of the lower intestines. This makes that area easier to see on an x-ray.
Copyright © Nucleus Medical Media, Inc.
You may have a barium enema to look for problems in your lower intestines. Some things your doctor may be looking for include:
Complications are rare. Some may have an allergic reaction to the barium or latex tube used during the test. Talk to your doctor about any allergies you may have.
Tell your doctor if you are allergic to latex or barium.
Your intestines must be empty before this test. Your doctor may ask you to:
A well-lubricated enema tube will be gently inserted into your rectum. You may be given an injection to relax the rectum. Barium will be inserted through the tube. A small balloon at the end of the tube will be inflated. This balloon keeps the barium inside. You will be moved several times to make sure the barium coats the walls of the colon and rectum. A small amount of air will be inserted through the tube. A series of x-rays will be taken. After this, the enema tube will be removed.
After the test, you:
About 1-2 hours
You may feel discomfort when the enema tube is inserted. You may have bloating and severe cramping during the test. You may also feel as if you need to move your bowels.
It may take up to a few days to receive your test results. If the results are abnormal, your doctor will recommend:
After you leave the hospital, call your doctor if any of the following occurs:
If you think you have an emergency, call for emergency medical services right away.
Please be aware that this information is provided to supplement the care provided by your physician. It is neither intended nor implied to be a substitute for professional medical advice. CALL YOUR HEALTHCARE PROVIDER IMMEDIATELY IF YOU THINK YOU MAY HAVE A MEDICAL EMERGENCY. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider prior to starting any new treatment or with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition.
Copyright © EBSCO Publishing. All rights reserved.
Women's Center of Texas12221 N. Mopac Expwy.Austin, TX 78758Telephone: (512) 478-3627Map & Directions


text:
Help me write something about architecture
Budsjett $10-30 USD
I need you to write some articles. I need a little articles about architecture, design, art. I have a blog and I need some articles.
23 frilansere byr i snitt $36 for denne jobben
I try to ensure that my passion for writing comes through in what I write and I am dedicated to being the best writer I can be. I'm always looking to expand my horizons by learning new writing styles and genres and tak Mer
GOOD DAY! We fully understand that you're in need of a dependable freelancer who can write professional, SEO-friendly, and 100% unique articles. Wordchain is a reliable team of experienced writers and editors that a Mer
Hello there, Does your article need to be 100% original and able to pass Copyscape? You came to the right place! All of my articles are well-written, grammatically correct, and are created completely by hand.I don't us Mer
Hello, I am a University educated (native English speaking) Canadian with extensive experience in Canada, USA, UK and Ireland. My level of English is Expert (US Test 98%) and my expertise is in copy-writing, proofre Mer
Hi! I am a very fast, capable and keen young English writer, Editor and Proofreader. My language and spelling are flawless and I also have a strong interest in many of the topics. My goal and mission has always been to Mer
Hello, I just went through your request for the article. I must confess that this is an interesting topic, one in which I am well versed and knowledgeable. I would, based on this knowledge, write a detailed and inter Mer
Greetings! Do you need readable, accurate and specific content for your project? I am here to help you as a writer. I can assure you the high quality work enriched with creativity. My research skills are highly com Mer
Hello, Do you know I will deliver you an impeccable and finished project with a comeback guarantee? Oh yes, I will do that because I'm a strategic, creative and flexible writer with a solid background in constructin Mer
Let's get creative! I am a professional, full-time editor and published writer with a Master's Degree in writing. I love working with the written word, and I own a business that allows me to do just that. More than jus Mer
Hello, i am an Egyptian civil Engineer, all works related to civil and construction engineering fields (concrete building, soil, steel structure, finishing, roads) (Autocad, word, excel) guarantee for 0% plagiarism Mer
I have good Experience in this work I want to do this work I will do this as soon as possible with your full satisfaction I am sure you will 100% satisfy from my work please give me this work, thanks
Hi there, I'd like to be considered for your writing position. I'm a strategic writer with a strong background developing online content, including blog posts, social media posts, articles, press releases and other br Mer


text:
Beyonce's Overnight PR Comeback
WSJ's Christopher Farley joins Lunch Break with a look at how Beyonce came back from her stinging inauguration lip syncing scandal with a deft public relations offensive. Photo: Getty Images.
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.
... I ... oh ... a twenty doubts fiance bouncing back in full force at halftime during last night's Super Bowl ... will this mean for upcoming world tour this from a Attrill director ... of all belongs here to Journal is right here beside me ... first of all what you think of the show in general last night you take a tumble of the football game this is that the snow yet but you know what I'm doing ... less power when all ... of the reboot the game to lead the team competitive so that was good she was so hot seat so she didn't rain all the water ... and added a button to defer performance than ... anything would be better than the sinking the inauguration so stupid she was forced to live ... in a number of great vocal performances Milicia keys of the rate of job cuts with a steady bookings ... these women to raise the demons of vocal performances ... but to compare you to ... buy and trends in sum there and Diana Ross in the great performance and done ... that Super Bowl halftime over the years ... though probably not but it still wasn't very strong point but the odds that no wardrobe malfunctions know what all the functions ... and ... another that was the whole stadium wide open to the power outage ... which probably worse will be the key broader the game and the Contursi forced her to do so ... do you think I mean do you think there was a lot riding on fiance mean she is somebody who really has a stumble doesn't stumbled is generally liked the look is a nice person ... I doesn't have some these issues of the performers do out there ... do you think she had something to prove last letters is just something this is an oval too high to begin with but I in in the years going she is a little audits of companies ... that that sum is very ... he can very easily charmed the media so this was a rare stumble for her but you know I ... I think the although performance was generally well reviewed ... but didn't really ... um pumped for Home ... up on the charts in his new ... release itself of love songs out work even with this nice child ... abuse on the Michael nuclear um ... I just checked before it came under snow still on Amazon ... and is now in the top under it interesting to want him her to one see evidence of the one in five to repackage ... review repackage gets would ... not and not allowing new material on the set and I wonder Finney that can carry over to this upcoming no world tour that they just announced the news is Carter show world tour I believe is the name that would use the into one launch of the goodwill of the world toward you what help we can do a lot that's why we saw that the top performers in a news conference before through ball ... that was helpful considered getting this halftime right ... because you don't wanna tell people we like to be pricey ... moral Korean get all the world in German in America ... you don't know it's in line for Nokia's he can sing keep crude in the past she proved again ... um ... on stage Super Bowl


text:
BALTIMORE, Dec. 28 (UPI) -- Former Baltimore Orioles center fielder Paul Blair died after collapsing at a bowling tournament in Baltimore, his family said. He was 69.
Blair played on four World Series championship teams -- twice with the Orioles and twice with the New York Yankees -- and won eight Gold Gloves for his exceptional defensive play.
Gloria Blair told the Baltimore Sun her husband, who had survived a heart attack in 2009, collapsed during a charity bowling event and died Thursday.
A spokesman for Sinai Hospital in Baltimore confirmed Blair's death but did not list a cause, the New York Times said Saturday.
Blair was a fixture in center field for the Orioles from 1965-1976. His range and keen sense of where the ball was going led Manager Earl Weaver to remark that Blair never made a spectacular catch in center because he never had to -- he was usually in position to make the play look routine.
Blair came off the bench for the Yankees in the 1977 and 1978 World Series seasons. Although never a prolific hitter, his walk-off single in the 12th inning lifted the Yanks to a win in Game One of the 1977 series against the Dodgers.
After retiring in 1980, Blair had stints as the baseball coach at Fordham and Coppin State Universities.


text:
SOFORT Banking (DIRECTebanking) payment gateway
Shopify supports SOFORT Banking (DIRECTebanking) to accept credit card payments in United Kingdom
Start your free 14-day trial today!
SOFORT Banking is an online payment processing solution best known for its competitive fee and rate structure, its focus on customer security, its quick and simple integration and its international multi-currency capabilities.
As a Shopify merchant it's up to you to make the right decision for your online business. If you've weighed all your options and have chosen SOFORT as your preferred payment gateway, Shopify already has a seamless integration process in place to help you sync both accounts. Before you know it, you'll be accepting credit card payments and processing orders for happy shoppers.
Major payment gateways supported in United Kingdom
- Adyen
- Alipay Global
- Amazon Pay
- Authorize.net
- Bancontact via Mollie
- BitPay
- Checkout.com
- Coinbase Commerce
- CyberSource
- Divido
- ePay / Payment Solutions
- eWAY Rapid 3.1
- G2A Pay
- GoCoin
- iDEAL via Mollie
- Laybuy
- Mondido Payments
- Pay Later with Klarna
- Payment Express PxPay
- PaymentExpress
- PayPal Express Checkout
- Paysafe
- PinwheelPay
- QuickPay
- Realex
- Realex Payments (Offsite)
- SagePay
- SagePay Form
- Sezzle
- Shopify Payments
- Skrill
- Slice it. Pay over time with Klarna
- SOFORT Banking (DIRECTebanking)
- WorldPay (Direct)
- WorldPay (Offsite)
Or, use Shopify to accept payments
You can accept payments directly with Shopify without the hassle of a payment gateway.Learn more about Shopify Payments


text:
Easter Quotes – Easter is also known as Pascha or Resurrection Sunday and it celebrates the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. This day celebrates with lots of activities like Church services, festive family meals, Easter egg decoration, and gift-giving. And the date of Easter celebration is not fixed its variable, in 2018 1st April(Eastern) and 8th April (western) will be celebrated as Easter Sunday. And in this post we are sharing with you worlds best collection of Easter Quotes, Happy Easter Quotes, easter quotes funny, easter quotes Shorts, easter quotes and sayings, easter quotes for cards.
Also See –
Happy Easter Quotes
In Easter Sunday we share worlds best collection of Easter images, quotes, messages, greetings and much more for celebration Easter 2018. In this post, we share with you worlds best collection of Happy Easter Quotes. Don't forget to share these with your friends and relatives or anyone on facebook, twitter, Pinterest, Whatsapp by using social share buttons which are given below.


text:
Tech experts tie WikiLeaks soldier to database breach
Computer experts traced a break-in to a secret U.S. government website to Bradley Manning, the U.S. soldier charged with giving information to WikiLeaks.
Computer forensic experts testified on Monday that they traced a break-in to a secret U.S. government website to Bradley Manning, the U.S. soldier charged with the biggest leak of classified files in the nation's history.
The testimony came as the court-martial of the private first class entered its second week. Manning is accused of providing more than 700,000 secret files to anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks while serving in Iraq in 2009 and 2010.
He faces 21 charges, including aiding the enemy, and could face life in prison without parole if convicted in the case, which has raised questions about the limits of openness and secrecy in the digital age.
Government witnesses told the court-martial that they had traced breaches of the U.S. government's secret Intelink intelligence database to Manning's user name and Internet Protocol address, a major step in proving that Manning orchestrated the release of documents including secret diplomatic cables.
Manning, now 25, was a low-level intelligence analyst when he released the documents to WikiLeaks, a move he said was intended to provoke a more robust debate in the United States on the military and foreign policy. U.S. officials said the breach put lives at risk.
In written testimony, National Security Agency contractor Steven Buchanan said that computer "audit logs" showed secret Intelink information "was successfully accessed" by Manning in 2009 and 2010.
David Shaver, another computer expert who worked as a government contractor, also testified that large amounts of classified information were downloaded from Intelink and traced to Manning's computer.
Defense attorney David Coombs tried to cast doubt on whether all of the unauthorized computer use attributed to Manning could have been done by him.
Some of the more than 800 Internet searches from Manning's computer could have resulted from malfunctioning equipment and activity by other persons, Coombs said.
"You don't know who did those searches," Coombs said while questioning Shaver.
"Correct," he answered
Manning was arrested in May 2010. He was charged with downloading intelligence documents, diplomatic cables and combat videos and forwarding them to WikiLeaks.
His trial is ramping up as officials are searching for more details about an ex-CIA employee who leaked details of a top secret U.S. surveillance program in which security services monitored data about Americans' phone calls and internet usage.


text: For New Year's Eve this year, we ran as fast as we could to catch the fireworks in San Francisco. Unfortunately, all we got were the sounds and not the visuals! That's okay though because this video above makes up for it. Filmmaker Julian Tay shot this video of the fireworks in Melbourne, Australia over New Year's Eve, reversed it and put some pretty music behind it. How can you not love this?


text:
Follow RFF News on your cell phone. Text follow rff to 40404 you will receive txt messages with RFF News
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Dawn Meehan is not usually the type of person to end up in a controversy. But the bread-baking Mormon mother of six adopted children created a firestorm when she voted off buddy Brenda Lowe on Survivor: Caramoan after Brenda had found her missing fake teeth and tried to bring Dawn with her on a loved ones reward challenge. A revenge-seeking Brenda fired back at last nights final Tribal Council, as she sought to humiliate her former friend by making her remove her teeth in front of the entire jury (and country watching at home.) We caught up with Dawn to get her take on fans volatile reaction to her move as well as Brendas retaliation, while also asking her if the positive of making it all the way to the end of the game outweighs the negative of not getting a single jury vote. [NOTE: You can also read our interview with winner John Cochran right here, as well as and our chat with Erik Reichenbach, who slams the "farce" of a reunion show.]ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: Ummm, I hate to bring this up, but you promised me no crying this season!DAWN MEEHAN: I know! What is that all about? I promised no crying this season. What did you call me? Liar, Liar Pants on Fire?EW: Thats the one.DAWN: Well, this was my deceptive season, so I just started out with you. I wish that I could understand that better but for me personally I connect with people in my daily life pretty quickly. The game is very, very, very intense for me. It is such a difficult game.EW: Oh, Dawn, just say Im a big crybaby and be done with it!DAWN: Okay. Im a big cry baby. Thats how I express my difficulty through tears.GET MORE EW: Subscribe to the magazine for only 33¢ an issue!EW: How hard was it this week dealing with all the hateful things people were saying about you and tweeting you in the wake of your decision to vote off Brenda?DAWN: It was horrible. To me the reason it was difficult is not because people disagreed with my decision because before I came out to the island I made the promise to myself that I would vote off anybody that did not have my last name, regardless. It was very, very personal. It become threatening. I shut down my Twitter account, I shut down my Facebook account, and even this morning I got a message that said something to the effect of Youd probably skin your children for a million dollars and youre an ugly person and youre going to hell. So theyre very vindictive, pretty harsh things. It still hurts, even if you know who you are and have given yourself permission to play the game. It was shocking and a little bit frightening. It was super disappointing to read so much hate. But for every unkind thing I received, there were probably two positives.EW: You know my take on your move. I didnt like it strategically, but had no problems with it on any sort of personal level because it was not a personal move, it was a game move. But what Brenda did to you at Tribal Council in pressuring you to remove your teeth was strictly personal in that she just wanted to humiliate you for humiliations sake. Do you regret letting her do that to you?DAWN: No. I was playing the game for the million dollars and the most painful thing I did was voting people out. Im not kidding you, Dalton. I mean, I looooove Corinne and
EW: Did you ever think you would be saying those words: I love Corinne?DAWN: I even think you asked me about her in our pre-game interview and I was scared.EW: But why let Brenda do that you?DAWN: By that point I was beat. I lost 27 pounds this season, so that day I felt the way Erik did the day he left the game dizzy, not well, and I just needed the whole experience to be over. I know people probably dont agree with this but I like to think that Im a fairly compassionate person and I felt like if this is what its going to take for Brenda to move on so she can put me in my place, its not going to hurt me to take out my teeth. All the hurt was playing this game and voting people out. That was where you see the tears. So taking out my teeth didnt hurt me. My kids told me, You looked strong. You smiled. I didnt watch it.. I was backstage. It was pretty painful and at the time I felt like wow, that was someone with just pure emotion needing to hurt me. But thats how she felt. I cant control how other people feel about the game.EW: You all kind of talked at the Reunion, although it was via satellite and with Jeff Probst running interference so it was more like talking at each other than to each other. Do you think you two will ever have that clearing-the-air conversation?DAWN: I did actually reconcile with her at Ponderosa. I had probably four hours with her, so I was under the impression I was on good terms with her when I left the game. I think she came home and probably processed a lot and it was still painful and she changed her mind about how she felt. So I pretty consistently reached out and wrote heartfelt messages. I had hoped she might say, Im sorry I humiliated you. But that never really came about. It was more you hurt me, Dawn. Do I wish it didnt hurt her like I did and do I wish she didnt want me to suffer? Yes, but I couldnt control that. So I wish her well. Ive extended myself. I really, really have, and I know that. Last night was awkward. I had no idea that her satellite would be centered around me. I thought it would be centered around her pregnancy. I didnt know that he was facilitating an apology. I love Brenda, but I do kind of feel Jeff was like, Dawn, say youre sorry. And I said I was sorry and he was like, No, mean it!EW: And not only that, but it was a one-sided apology. He didnt ask her at all about what she did to you at Tribal Council.DAWN: Just so people know, at Ponderosa, she did apologize. She did say, I was just hurt. I felt like my boyfriend had broken up with me. I loved you so much. And in her defense, she only had a few days out of the game before we went to Tribal Council. So I thought last night was awkward.EW: You make it all the way to the end and then get the goose egg against Cochran, with him getting all eight votes. So where did you go wrong in terms of not getting a single vote?DAWN: You had written that maybe I played too much like Coach where you make these personal connections with people and then theyre hurt by that. Its just so personal. Someone on the jury said, We couldnt reward that. Cochran and I made the same decisions, we made all of the votes together, we would get up every morning at 4am so that nobody would see us getting together.EW: Thats smart!DAWN: So in one way it hurts because youre like, I made all those decisions with him! But the thing that he did was establish relationships that were maybe more in the context of the game. And theres probably a little gender bias in terms of a mother is emotional and not stabbing you in the back but stabbing you in the front.EW: So since you and Sherri both tied with zero votes, do you both get $100,000 second place money?DAWN: What they do is take second and third and then divide us.EW: So you each get, like $92,500?DAWN: Yep. Im a teacher, so I wasnt joking when I said, I can get new teeth!EW: Lets use my handy dandy Survivor time machine to go back to exactly a year ago today when we spoke as you were about to leave for Survivor: Caramoan. And I tell you, Look, Dawn, you are going to make it all the way to the very end, all 39 days. But heres whats going to happen: Youre going to have this whole situation with Brenda. Youre going to get horrible death threats and messages sent to you, and shes going to try her best to humiliate you at the final Tribal Council. So do you want to go do this or not?DAWN: I have more scars than I did emotional scars. And I wont lie to you at the end of that Tribal Council I turned to Cochran and I said, Im concerned for my own mental safety right now. But yes, I would do it again knowing what I know about how it ended.
Dawn Meehan went from being one of "Survivor's" most likable players to a villain in the eyes of the jury by season's end. She tells Zap2it she was not prepared for the animosity of the jury.Are you glad you went back to "Survivor"? "Oh yeah. I absolutely love the game. I auditioned for Season 2, it's a miracle that I even played [eventually]. I watched it forever and somehow casting dug through old tapes and started a conversation with me. It's remarkable that I'm here. I was cast for Season 21 and cut two weeks before we left, then I made it to Season 23, so basically for the last three summers I've had nothing but 'Survivor' experiences and preparation. I'm very grateful for it. Not that it's not painful, but it's definitely been positive, so I'm grateful." Were you surprised at how much animosity you received from the jury in the wake of Brenda's blindside?"Wow, yeah. I wasn't prepared at all ... maybe I wasn't as perceptive as I should have been. I did sense the last two votes prior to Brenda's that the jury seemed kind of snarky towards me ... but I was floored at the final Tribal Council."Did you think you had a solid chance of winning going into the final Tribal Council? "I think that once Brenda was voted out and, I think, in a weird way with Erik leaving the way that he did, he was very close with Brenda, which I'm not sure we got that sense of, as close as Cochran and I were, I think that that was definitely damaging to me. If Erik had remained in the game, it might have been different. I thought I had a chance and that people knew I was genuine and that I was virtually hurting myself for the way I played. It was so contradictory to be so duplicitous. I was expecting people to be like, 'Wow, how are you willing to do that 'cause that's not who you are?' But it didn't work that way. My husband pointed out, because we talked about it a lot -- Cochran and I made every decision together from day one on, but my husband said to me that Cochran stabbed people in the back and you stabbed them in the front. So it was harder for people to forgive me and see the game. It didn't feel like game play to them, I think." Was it surprising not to receive any votes? Or did you think Cochran really had it sewn up after the final Tribal Council?"No, it wasn't surprising. The final Tribal was so brutal. I've seen almost every episode of 'Survivor,' but I would have to say that from my experience ... I feel like we probably had the most bitter jury I've ever seen. Truthfully."How did you feel when Brenda asked you to take out your teeth at Tribal Council?"I think I was stunned, initially. ... I think I was so done with the game, so depleted, just so sleep-deprived. I did feel for her and I guess my initial thought was that I'm afraid to do this, I don't want to be humiliated, but I made the decision to face it and do it anyway ... At the time, I was like, 'You need a pound of flesh, here you go.'"Would you go back on "Survivor" if asked?"I would go, but I would have my tear ducts removed. [laughs] And I would get new teeth. Then people would be like, 'That's a completely different Dawn.'"
Page created in 0.094 seconds with 32 queries.


text:
Michael Vick went back to Leavenworth.
After the press conference, and the cameras and the handshakes and hugs, Vick sat down in a quiet office, leaned back in a chair and reflected on where he was and where he is now. Three years ago, he was in a federal prison. Today the quarterback signed a six-year contract with the Eagles worth $100 million -- his second nine-figure deal.
"I used to sit in my prison bunker and be like, '100 million -- I'll never see that again,'" Vick said to The Inquirer. "You know, because you're getting up there in age. I was 29 when I got out and I thought if I could just get a fraction of that -- maybe 25 ... 30. That would be good. That would be good. I just got it to where I know I'm going to have to work.
"So just mentally what I put myself through and how it just seem like in the blink of an eye I'm sitting right here right now. But even over the duration of those two years it was a long time. But it was all worth it, man. It was a lot of hard work, sacrifice."
Vick, of course, lost nearly everything he had when he was charged and convicted of running a dogfighting operation in 2007 -- football, freedom and much of the ten-year, $130 million contract he signed with the Falcons in 2004.
But he got it all back and is now the first NFL player ever to ink two nine-figure deals. There have been eight nine-figure contracts in the history of the league. Vick has two. The Eagles have handed out two, the other going to Donovan McNabb.
"Breaking barriers," Vick said. "I'm always breaking barriers."
While Vick could theoretically earn $100 million from the deal, it is unlikely. The sixth year voids if he participates in more than 35 percent of the snaps in any year of the deal, a league source said. There would be no way the Eagles keep Vick around for a sixth season if he played less than 35 percent of the snaps for five years.
The Eagles and Vick agreed to the deal on Monday afternoon, but Vick said he did not go out and celebrate. Instead he stayed home with his fiance, Kijafa Frink, and his children and watched the movie "Diary of a Wimpy Kid."
"I just chilled in the house with the kids and the family," Vick said. "That's just me -- conservative."
Vick was extra conservative driving to the NovaCare Complex Tuesday morning for practice and then to put his signature on the future.
"I made sure I put my seat belt on," Vick said. "I made sure I did that. Extra precaution."


text:
Joint Committee of the Judicial Council
and the State Bar Association
for the Adoption of Rules of Criminal Procedure
July 10, 1969
The Joint Committee of the Judicial Council and the State Bar Association for the Adoption of Rules of Criminal Procedure met at 9:15 a.m., July 10, 1969, in the hearing room of the Supreme Court.
Present were:
Supreme Court Judge Ralph Erickstad, Chairman;
District Judge Eugene A. Burdick;
District Judge Roy A. Ilvedson;
District Judge Norbert J. Muggli;
County Judge Kirk Smith;
First Assistant Attorney General Paul M. Sand;
Mr. John A. Graham.
Absent were:
Retired Supreme Court Judge James Morris;
Former Supreme Court Judge William S. Murray;
Mr. Gerald Glaser;
Mr. John Shaft;
Mr. Roger Persinger;
Mr. Robert L. Vogel.
Also present was Mrs. Rebecca Quanrud, secretary.
The chairman welcomed those present.
Arrangements were made to create a coffee fund.
The secretary distributed new copies of the first page of the minutes of May 15, made necessary by the omission of a line of the text of Rule 32(c)(2), and read a list of corrections, as follows: (1) p. 2, line 3 - revoking, not invoking; (2) p. 5, paragraph 3 line 11 -- insert the word not after the word does; (3) p. 5, paragraph 3, line 12 -- grade, not grate, (4) p. 11, line 3 of text of Rule 43 - stage, not state; (5) p. 20, halfway down page - insert the word read after Judge Smith's name.
Judge Smith moved that the minutes of the meeting of May 15-16 be approved as corrected. Mr. Graham seconded the motion. The motion carried.
The chairman called on Judge Ilvedson for his reports on Rule 32(f), regarding revocation of probation, and on the reason for Rule 43 not permitting sentencing in absentia. Judge Ilvedson asked that these reports be deferred, and it was so agreed.
The chairman called on Judge Smith for a report on his and Mr. Glaser's work on the question of whether North Dakota should adopt a Rule 40 [Commitment to Another District; Removal] or whether Rule 5 [Proceedings Before the Magistrate] should be amended to cover that field. Judge Smith read letters from Mr. Glaser and Mr. John Shaft, as follows:
[Letter of Mr. Glaser to Judge Smith and Mr. Shaft dated May 20, 1969 - heading omitted]
I decided to explore the above matter further while the subject matter was still fresh in my mind. Before attempting to draft a proposed rule, I thought it would be best to get your thoughts on what the procedure should be.
Our present statutes provide that if a warrant has been issued, the accused is taken to the issuing county (29-05-11 and 29-05-15) except that [if] it is a gross misdemeanor he is taken before a local magistrate (29-05-12). The reason for this particular distinction escapes me at the moment but perhaps one of you may know what the philosophy is.
If arrest is made without a warrant, (whether felony or misdemeanor) the accused is taken before a local magistrate (29-06-25). None of these statutes contemplate warrants issued by municipal judges inasmuch as they historically have not been considered crimes.
If a warrant is issued in a county other than where the offense occurred, 29-05-17 requires that the accused be taken before the magistrate in the county where the offense occurred, apparently without regard to the nature of the offense.
Thus, there are four situations in which the defendant is taken to the county where the crime was committed and three situations in which he is taken before a local magistrate. This seems to me to be unduly complicated and it also seems to me that the distinctions made are not completely consistent.
Rule 5(a) deals with this subject but not completely and should cover all of the situations. When so drawn, there would be no need for a rule 40. Also, our tentative rules contemplate that they would include municipal warrants so we must keep this situation in mind.
My personal thought is that we should distinguish between felonies and misdemeanors, permitting the misdemeanor case to be taken before a local magistrate and the felony case to be taken before the magistrate in the county where the crime was committed. We might also make an exception in the case of an arrest without a warrant for a felony. Perhaps in this case also the person should be taken before a local magistrate for the purpose of being admitted to bail.
If you would give me your thoughts on the matter, I will undertake preparing a rule which, hopefully, will cover all of these situations.
[Letter of Mr. Shaft to Judge Smith and Mr. Glaser dated July 9, 1969 - heading omitted]
I have finally had a change to go over Gerry's letter of May 20, along with the statutes pertaining to this procedure, the Federal Rules, and our proposed Rule 5 and our proposed Rule 40. My conclusion on this matter is that these procedures are so confusing because of the variations based on whether or not there is or is not a warrant, whether or not it is a felony or a misdemeanor, where the alleged crime took place, where the warrant was issued, etc., that something should be done to consolidate it all and we believe that Gerry's suggestion of forgetting Rule 40 and putting it in Rule 5(a) has considerable merit.
We would also agree with Gerry that there should be a distinction between felonies and misdemeanors and it would be my suggestion that misdemeanor cases be taken before a local magistrate whether or not there is a warrant issued and regardless of where the alleged misdemeanor took place and that in felony cases the defendant be taken before the magistrate that either issued the warrant or the magistrate of the county where the crime was committed. Necessary provisions should also be made to provide for a substitute magistrate when the other one is not available.
We also feel that, insofar as possible, municipal ordinance procedures should be included within the provisions.
Judge Erickstad read from Fournier v. Roed, 161 N.W.2d 458 (N.D. 1968).
Judge Smith said he thought Rule 40 should be incorporated in Rule 5.
Judge Smith said he would suggest that every time we think about a rule we should be most concerned with the effect in the case rather than in harmonizing language, that we should search for the reason for the rule, that the basic idea is fairness to the individual.
Judge Smith read N.D.C.C. § 29-05-17, Requirements of warrant for accused from other county--Complaint to accompany.
Judge Murray arrived at 9:55.
Judge Burdick said we should establish policy that when any arrest is made outside of the county in which the offense is triable, the defendant may request that he be taken to the county where the office is triable.
Judge Erickstad suggested that the writer research the development of the law in this state and the various states. Are present county line restrictions necessary in this day?
Mr. Sand said that idea appeals to him.
There followed a discussion of the problem of where to take an arrested person after his arrest.
Judge Muggli asked: In continuing offenses, are we confusing things by talking about the county where the offense is triable?
Judge Smith said we should try to keep it simple.
Judge Smith read Rule 5(a) as adopted [Proceedings Before the Magistrate, Appearance Before the Magistrate.] Discussion followed.
The chairman said he would like to have Judge Smith, Mr. Shaft, and Mr. Glaser research what is being done in this field in other states and make a report.
Judge Burdick suggested inclusion of the following in Rule 5(a)
A person arrested without a warrant shall be presented before a magistrate or the county in which he is arrested, unless the person arrested demands that he be taken before a magistrate in the county in which the offense was allegedly committed, if different.
Mr. Sand asked: Must he be taken before a magistrate in the county in which he is arrested?
Judge Erickstad discussed the problems raised in Fournier, supra.
It was agreed that the question is one of policy.
There followed an interval of discussion of Judge Burdick's new boat, terminated by Judge Burdick's statement that he would like to have the minutes show that, subject to the usual assumption of risk, the committee and staff are invited to come to Williston next year during the Bar Association convention and have a ride on his boat Liza Jane.
Judge Smith moved that the committee accept the invitation. Judge Murray seconded the motion. The motion carried.
Mr. Glaser arrived at 10:30.
Discussion of the problem of Rules 40 and 5 was resumed.
The chairman requested Judge Smith to work with Mr. Glaser and Mr. Shaft and to have a report ready for the next meeting.
Judge Smith noted that Alaska has no Rule 40 regarding this problem but uses Rule 40 for making computation of time.
Mr. Glaser referred to Rule 4(b), Warrant or Summons Upon Complaint, Form, and 4(d), Warrant or Summons Upon Complaint, Return, as matters to be kept in mind when drafting Rule 40 or amending Rule 5.
Judge Smith suggested that the form of the warrant might set out the magistrate before whom the defendant must be brought.
Mr. Sand said he thinks the committee should consider proposed Rule 37 as submitted by Judge Burdick.
Judge Burdick read his draft of Rule 37 as follows:
Rule 37. Appeals.
(a) How an Appeal is taken; Notice of Appeal. Whenever permitted by law, an appeal shall be taken within the time specified in subdivision (b) by serving a copy of a notice of appeal upon the attorney for the adverse party, or upon the adverse party if no attorney appeared of record for him, and filing the notice, with proof of service, with the court from which the appeal is taken. The notice of appeal shall specify the party or parties taking the appeal, designate the verdict, judgment, or order or part thereof from which the appeal is taken, and the court to which the appeal is taken.
(b) Time for Taking Appeal. An appeal shall be taken within thirty days after reception of the verdict, rendition of the judgment, or the making of the order from which the appeal is taken, except that if a motion for a new trial is made within the thirty-day period an appeal from the verdict or judgment may be taken within thirty days after the making of the order denying the motion.
(c) Transmittal to Appellate Court. Within five days after the notice of appeal is filed with the court from which the appeal is taken, the clerk of the court, or the judge if there is no clerk, shall transmit to the clerk of the court to which the appeal is taken the notice of appeal, the verdict, the judgment, or any order of the court from which the appeal is taken, the complaint or information, the undertaking on appeal and certificate of probable cause, if any, and all other documents and papers filed in the action, which shall be docketed by the clerk of the appellate court without charge to the appellant.
(d) Designation of Parties on Appeal. A party appealing shall be known as appellant and an adverse party shall be known as appellee but the title of the action shall not be changed in consequence of the appeal.
(e) Effect and Scope of Appeal. An appeal to the Supreme Court, when perfected, transfers the action to such court for review under specifications of errors of law. An appeal to the district court or to the county court of increased jurisdiction, when perfected, transfers the action to such court for trial anew. An appeal from a judgment of conviction constitutes an appeal from any verdict of guilty upon which the judgment is rendered.
Mr. Sand said the draft was in line with what he had first submitted, that there are areas which require construction, areas which do not apply in certain courts. It was agreed that the words permitted by law make it acceptable.
Judge Smith said the question is: Do we want to expand the scope of this rule? Who is to pay the court costs on appeal from the city court to the county court? It does not apply in appeal from county justice court to the district court because the costs are the county's anyway, but what about appeal from a city court to a county court?
Mr. Glaser asked: Do we have the authority to make the decision?
The chairman asked if anyone wished to move adoption of the draft. Mr. Sand said he would like to consider certain provisions of the new draft before making a motion.
There followed a discussion of the time for appeal.
Mr. Sand asked: Should anything be said in this rule about § 33-12-41, Appeal not dismissed--When judgment affirmed? He read the section:
33-12-41. Appeal not dismissed--When judgment affirmed.--No appeal from the judgment of a county justice in a criminal action shall be dismissed. If the appeal is not take in time or if the defendant fails to appear in the district court when his presence is required, the judgment of the justice shall be affirmed summarily and entered as the judgment of the district court and carried into effect as such.
Mr. Sand asked: By adopting the rule are we abrogating this section?
Judge Muggli asked: Should another subsection be added to the rule providing for abandonment of appeal?
Judge Burdick said he would favor marking § 33-12-41 for revision but basically to be retained.
Judge Muggli said he would like to have a similar section that would apply.
Judge Ilvedson read § 29-28-08, Time for appeals in criminal cases.
Mr. Glaser said the committee is talking about two different things, whether there is a valid appeal or not. He said he thinks that probably they have to be treated similarly.
Mr. Sand moved that the committee reconsider its action taken on Rule 37 and all its components. Judge Burdick seconded the motion. The motion carried.
Judge Burdick moved the adoption of Rule 37 as submitted by him (draft of Eugene A. Burdick dated 16 May 1969 [with subdivision (c) changed by deleting the word ten and inserting the word five in lieu thereof and by deleting the bracketed words a certified copy of]). Mr. Sand seconded the motion.
Judge Muggli said he has had two thoughts on time, that perhaps the committee should go back to ten days to allow the defendant to make a request for a stay of execution.
The question being on Judge Burdick's motion. The motion carried. [For text of Rule 37 as adopted, see p. 4 of these minutes.]
Judge Smith moved that the committee reconsider its action in adopting Rule 37 in order to reconsider the number of days allowed. Mr. Glaser seconded the motion.
Judge Smith says he thinks it should be ten days because of the burden on the clerks.
Judge Burdick said the Williston City Attorney says the bulk of the appeals taken in municipal court are to delay certification to the Highway Department on some of the convictions, that he says if we could get them into district court right away, fewer appeals would be taken, and the faster it will be heard the fewer appeals there will be.
Mr. Glaser asked: As of July 1 isn't conviction in justice court considered final for purposes of lifting the license?
Mr. Sand said some defendant will ask the court to enjoin them and then this will clear up the matter.
Judge Burdick read § 29-28-20, Irregularity in substantial particulars-Notice.
Mrs. Luella Dunn, Clerk of the Supreme Court, was invited into the meeting, and Judge Smith asked her opinion on the question, should transmittal of record to any appellate court be within ten days or five days after notice of appeal. He said he thinks it should be ten days for the benefit of the clerks. Others are of the opinion that five days or immediately are necessary. If the transmittal is not made in the allotted time, who is penalized?
Judge Erickstad asked Mrs. Dunn to tell them how long it actually takes to get the record up from the lower court.
Mrs. Dunn said the Supreme Court clerk usually gets the partial record inside the time limit but that it may take much longer to get the whole record.
Judge Ilvedson said he thinks it is a good thing to get it up as rapidly as possible so the trial judge will be aware that he no longer has jurisdiction.
Mrs. Dunn discussed her experience in receiving records on appeal.
Judge Ilvedson read § 28-27-06, Clerk to transmit papers.
Judge Smith withdrew his motion, and Mr. Glaser withdrew his second.
Judge Muggli moved that the secretary be instructed to add a comment on the blue sheet to this effect: Would it be advisable to consider adding another subsection to this rule setting forth the actions that the court should take when appeals are long delayed, abandoned, or otherwise not completed, bearing in mind that we want to avoid delay?
Judge Burdick asked that before doing that, the committee consider Rule 39, Supervision of Appeal.
Judge Murray seconded the motion.
Judge Burdick mentioned Rules 47 and 48 of the draft of the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 47 dealing with stay of execution, and 48, with supervision of appeal. He said Rule 37 is not intended to be all-embracing in regard to appeals, that other rules, 38 and 39 of the federal rules, also relate to appeals.
Mr. Graham stated that Federal Rule 39 has been abrogated, but that if the committee does adopt a provision dealing with delayed or abandoned appeals, it should be in Rule 39.
Judge Smith suggested that notice should be filed both in the trial court and in the appellate court, so that a supervision would be exerted over the clerks.
Mr. Sand read Mr. Vogel's draft of Rule 39.
Judge Muggli withdrew his motion, and Judge Murray withdrew his second.
At 12:10 p.m. Judge Ilvedson moved that the committee be in recess until 1:30. The motion carried.
At 1:50 the meeting was reconvened, with the same persons present as at the time of recess except for Messrs. Sand and Graham.
Judge Muggli read his revised draft of Rule 38(a)(3) as follows:
Rule 38. Stay of Execution and Relief Pending Review.
(a) Stay of Execution.
(3) Fine. A sentence to pay a fine or a fine and costs, if an appeal is taken, may be stayed by the trial court upon such terms as the court deems proper. The court may require the defendant pending appeal to deposit the whole or any part of the fine and costs with the clerk, or to give bond for the payment thereof, or to submit to an examination of assets, and it may make any appropriate order to restrain the defendant from dissipating his assets.
Judge Muggli commented that he had tried to draft it in such a way that it would be workable in justice and municipal courts as well as in district courts and county courts of increased jurisdiction. He moved that his revised draft of Rule 38(a)(3) dated July 10, 1969, be adopted. Judge Murray seconded the motion.
Discussion followed.
Judge Burdick moved to amend the draft by adding the word trial after the first word in the second sentence. Judge Muggli seconded the motion. The motion carried.
Mr. Graham arrived at 2:15 p.m.
The question being on the adoption of Rule 38(a)(3) as amended, the motion carried. Rule 38(a)(3) as adopted reads:
Rule 38. Stay of Execution and Relief Pending Review.
(a) Stay of Execution.
(3) Fine. A sentence to pay a fine or a fine and costs, if an appeal is taken, may be stayed by the trial court upon such terms as the court deems proper. The trial court may require the defendant pending appeal to deposit the whole or any part of the fine and costs with the clerk, or to give bond for the payment thereof, or to submit to an examination of assets, and it may make any appropriate order to restrain the defendant from dissipating his assets.
The chairman called on Judge Ilvedson to make his report on Rule 32(f) regarding revocation of probation. Judge Ilvedson read his report as follows:
The minutes of the last meeting show that on May 15 there was a discussion on Rule 32(f) which was adopted by the Committee on February 21. This is the rule which states that the Court may revoke probation after a hearing at which the defendant is present. At our last meeting, Judge Erickstad raised an inquiry: "What happens when the defendant is in hiding and can't be found?" Attorney Glaser asked, "What is the sense of invoking probation if the defendant is not around?" I pointed out that our present North Dakota law gives authority to any Peace Office to pick up a probationer who has violated the terms of his probation. Judge Erickstad suggested that I check into this and bring in a recommendation.
Chapter 12-53 pertains to suspended sentences. Section 12-53-01 gives authority to the Court to suspend a sentence for
[Judge Ilvedson's report on Rule 32(f)]
either a felony or a misdemeanor. Section 12-53-10 states:
"ARREST OF PERSON UNDER SUSPENDED SENTENCE FOR BREACH OF PROBATION CONDITIONS. Any person who has been placed upon probation under the provisions of this chapter after having been convicted of a felony and who has violated the conditions of his probation shall be subject to arrest upon the order of the board of pardons in the same manner as in the case of an escaped convict. When such person does not conduct himself in accordance with the rules and regulations of the board of pardons, the
parole officer or any peace officer designated by the board may arrest such persons without a warrant or other process and convey him to the penitentiary.
Section 12-53-11 states:
"BOARD OF PARDONS MAY REVOKE SUSPENSION AND TERMINATE PROBATION AFTER HEARING. The board of pardons, after a full investigation and a personal hearing, may revoke the suspension of the sentence of a person convicted of a felony and placed on probation and may terminate the probation and cause said person to suffer the penalty of the sentence previously imposed upon him, if the board shall determine at such hearing that the probationer has violated any of the rules and regulations prescribed for the conduct of probations. When the probation has been terminated, the original sentence shall be considered as beginning upon the first day of imprisonment in the penitentiary."
Section 12-53-15 states:
"WHEN PROBATION MAY BE TERMINATED. Whenever the board of pardons, the court, or the state's attorney, shall have reason to believe such defendant is violating the terms of his probation, such probationer shall be brought before the court wherein the probation was granted. For this purpose any peace officer or state parole officer may re-arrest the probationer without warrant or other process. The court may thereupon, in its discretion, without notice revoke and terminate such probation, pronounce judgment, and deliver defendant to the sheriff to be transferred to the penitentiary or other state institution in accordance with the sentence imposed."
It is interesting to note that Section 12-53-11 came into existence through the enactment of Chapter 174 of the 1909 Session Laws, and at that time a "hearing" was required before the probation was terminated! Section 12-53-15 was first enacted through Chapter 134 of the 1947 Session Laws, and there are no provisions made for any kind of a "hearing," but instead the Court was given specific authority to revoke without notice.
In brief, when a court sentences a defendant to the penitentiary but suspends the sentence upon good behavior, the defendant is placed under the control of the board of pardons.
[Judge Ilvedson's report on Rule 32(f)].
Section 12-53-10 gives authority in such a case for any peace officer to arrest without a warrant any probationer violating his probation rules. And when a court defers or suspends the imposition of sentence, section 12-53-15 gives authority to any peace officer to arrest the defendant without a warrant for the purpose of bringing him before the court for sentencing. But there is no provision under our present law for the arrest of a defendant who was placed on probation for a misdemeanor (sentence to county jail being suspended). I believe the usual procedure, in such event, has been for the court to issue a bench warrant.
I did some research in regard to the right of the court to issue a bench warrant but did not find much material. It appears to be a right inherent in the courts. 22 C.J.S. section 404. The only provisions I could find in our code pertaining to bench warrants are sections 29-26-06 to 29-26-08 which provide that if defendant does not appear for judgment and sentence, the court may direct the clerk to issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the defendant.
In regard to Rule 32(f) I believe the court has the authority to issue a bench warrant for the arrest of probation violators. But I am inclined to recommend that we insert into the rule specific authority for this. We know that Rule 32(f) REQUIRES the personal appearance of the defendant at such a hearing. Therefore, the hearing cannot be conducted without the defendant. If the defendant absconds to another state and extradition proceedings are required, I think it would be well to have our rule clearly state that the court has the right to issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the defendant. In any event, I suggest that the following sentence be added to 32(f):
"A bench warrant may be issued by the court to require the presence of the defendant."
Discussion followed. Judge Ilvedson moved that Rule 32(f) be amended by adding the following words: A bench warrant may be issued by the court to require the presence of the defendant.
Judge Erickstad suggested that the amendment should require that an affidavit be filed disclosing that the probationer has violated his probation.
Judge Burdick suggested the following wording; If the defendant absconds or fails to appear for the hearing after receiving reasonable notice, the court may direct the issuance of a bench warrant to require his appearance before the court.
Judge Ilvedson withdrew his motion and moved that Rule 32(f) be amended by adding the following words: If an affidavit or sworn testimony is submitted to the court stating facts showing that the defendant has violated the conditions of his probation, a bench warrant may be issued by the court to require the presence of the defendant. Judge Smith seconded the motion.
Mr. Glaser asked: Suppose the sheriff sees a probationer drinking--can he pick him up?
Judge Burdick suggested that perhaps the change should read something like, The court, having probable cause to believe that the conditions of
probation have been violated by the defendant may issue an order to show
cause directed to the defendant and requiring his presence before the court, and if the defendant fails to appear or cannot be found then the court may issue a bench warrant.
Judge Erickstad asked: Why is it necessary to show cause?
Mr. Glaser said that Judge Burdick is concerned because you are taking a man into custody and should have some basis for doing it.
There followed a discussion of what should be necessary in order to bring in a man suspected of violating his probation.
The chairman asked Judges Ilvedson and Burdick to work on a report during the coffee break.
Following the coffee break Judge Burdick read the following proposed amendment to Rule 32(f), to follow the present wording [this draft was later designated by Judge Burdick as the "a" draft]:
The defendant is subject to arrest by any law enforcement officer or state parole officer having probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed a violation of conditions of his probation in the presence of the officer, in which event the defendant shall be brought forthwith before the court for a hearing on the claimed violation. Also, the court upon showing of probable cause based upon testimony or an affidavit of a person having knowledge of the facts that the defendant has committed a violation of a condition of his probation, may issue an order to show cause directed to the defendant and requiring his presence before the court, or may issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the defendant for the purpose of bringing forthwith the defendant before the court, for a hearing on the alleged violation.
Judge Burdick made the substitute motion that the foregoing language be used as a preface to the existing adoption rather than an addendum to it. Judge Ilvedson seconded the motion.
Judge Murray said he was speculating on the advisability of letting any person do it.
Judge Burdick said there have been many times in the past when it was desirable.
Judge Ilvedson suggested as an example an employer, to whom a man has been made responsible, catching the man violating his probation.
Mr. Graham commented that he hates to think of private persons trying to guess what the conditions of probation are.
Judge Smith asked: What if one of the conditions is that he take a job? He mentioned the man's wife and neighbors.
Mr. Sand read from John v. State, 160 N.W.2d 37 (N.D. 1968).
Judge Ilvedson read § 12-53-01, When sentence for misdemeanor or felony may be suspended.
There followed a discussion of difference in treatment between felonies and misdemeanors and between suspended sentences and deferred imposition of sentences.
Mr. Glaser commented that the committee was still talking about bench warrants. He said they were only mentioned in § 29-26-06. He thinks we should use the term writ of attachment.
Judge Burdick said he thinks the trial judge rather than the parole board should make the determination of whether the defendant should go to the penitentiary.
Judge Ilvedson said that he and Judge Muggli think that unless there is something to show that the present system is not working, why change it?
Judge Ilvedson moved that the present Rule 32(f) be left as it is but that the committee consider the addition that Judge Burdick has drawn.
Judge Smith asked: Why not use a summons?
Further discussion of whether there should be hearing to show cause followed.
On Judge Muggli's motion, the committee went into recess at 4:37 p.m. until July 11, 1969.
The committee was called to order at 9:13 a.m., July 11, 1969, with the following persons present: Judge Erickstad, Judge Muggli, Judge Ilvedson, Judge Burdick, Judge Smith, Mr. Graham, Mr. Sand, Judge Murray, Mrs. Quanrud.
The chairman called on Judge Burdick to resume discussion of Rule 32(f).
Judge Burdick said he wished to withdraw his proposed amendment of Rule 32(f), which he would designate "a," and substitute in lieu thereof a revised proposed amendment, which he would designate "b." Mr. Graham seconded the motion. Judge Burdick read "b" as follows:
Any law enforcement officer or state parole officer having probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed in his presence a violation of conditions of his probation may take the defendant into custody and shall thereupon bring the defendant forthwith before the appropriate authority for a hearing on the claimed violation. Also, subject to limitations imposed by law, the court, having jurisdiction upon a showing of probable cause based upon testimony or an affidavit of a person having knowledge of the facts that the defendant has violated a condition of his probation, may issue an order to show cause directed to the defendant and requiring his presence before the court, or may issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the defendant for the purpose of bringing the defendant forthwith before the court, for a hearing on the alleged violation.
Judge Ilvedson said he thinks "in his presence" is not necessary, that probation is a privilege.
Judge Burdick said he thinks it is necessary to give protection to the defendant.
Judge Muggli said the man isn't really a defendant, he is a convicted person.
Mr. Graham said that if you take out "in his presence," you are letting the sheriff pick him up; you would take the determination of probable cause away from the judge.
Judge Smith said that the second sentence would require an affidavit of a person other than a law enforcement officer or parole officer--somebody who had knowledge.
Mr. Sand asked: Can a judge issue a bench warrant upon information and belief?
Judge Ilvedson said that he doesn't want to cause trouble, that the present law has been in effect thirty years without trouble.
Mr. Sand said the present law has worked well, that now we propose to tighten the activities of law enforcement officers. He said that as far as he knows, they haven't abused the law. He said he doesn't think a constitutional problem is involved.
Judge Burdick said he thinks the law has been abused.
Judge Muggli said that he would agree with Judge Burdick if the defendant was just an accused person, but that he is no longer that--he is a convicted person.
Judge Murray said he thinks the requirements here are stricter than necessary.
Judge Ilvedson moved that the draft be amended by deleting the words in his presence. Mr. Sand seconded the motion.
Judge Burdick said he agreed with Mr. Graham that it would be unfortunate to take out that phrase, that the provision would be emasculated then.
Mr. Graham said he had to agree with Judge Burdick. He said he is in sympathy with Judge Ilvedson's thinking, but that if somebody is going to determine probable cause, he believes it should be a judicial officer.
Mr. Sand said that it would be requiring more of a law enforcement officer than it does now of an ordinary citizen on drunken driving.
Judge Smith read subsections 1 and 6 of § 29-06-15, Arrest without warrant.
Judge Erickstad read from his dissent in Colling v. Hjelle, 125 N.W.2d 453 (N.D. 1963) as follows:
Our general law of arrest, as it relates to a misdemeanor, permits a police officer, without a warrant, to arrest a person for a public offense committed in the officer's presence. Whether the arrest is legal should depend upon whether the officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the offense had been committed in his presence by the person arrested and should not depend upon whether the person was subsequently convicted or acquitted of the charge for which he was arrested. "The reasonable grounds" or, as stated by some courts, "the probable cause" which will justify an arrest for a misdemeanor without a warrant must be a judgment based upon the officer's personal knowledge acquired at the time through the senses or inferences properly to be drawn from the testimony of the senses.
Colling v. Hjelle, supra, (dissent) p. 467.
Judge Smith moved the previous question.
The question being on Judge Ilvedson's motion, the motion carried. Voting aye were Judge Ilvedson, Judge Muggli, Judge Murray, Judge Smith, and Mr. Sand. Voting nay were Mr. Graham and Judge Burdick.
Judge Muggli moved to substitute the word information for the word knowledge in the second sentence of draft "b." Mr. Sand seconded the motion.
Judge Murray asked: Are we distinguishing between a man on probation and the average person in being arrested?
Mr. Sand said he thinks there is a difference.
Judge Erickstad said this was a policy question: Should the treatment you give a parolee be different from that given an ordinary citizen?
Mr. Graham read a part of the introductory paragraph of Aguilar v. Texas, 278 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), as follows:
On certiorari granted, the United States Supreme Court . . . held that affidavit for search warrant may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect direct personal observations of affiant but magistrate must be informed of some of underlying circumstances on which informant based his conclusions and some of underlying circumstances from which officer concluded that informant, whose identity need not be disclosed, was "credible" or that his information was reliable.
Judge Erickstad read from Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480, 78 S. Ct. 1245, 1250, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1503 (1958) as follows:
The protection afforded by these Rules, when they are viewed against their constitutional background, is that the inferences from the facts which lead to the complaint "* * * be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime." Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14, 68 S. Ct. 367, 369, 92 L. Ed. 436. The purpose of the complaint, then, is to enable the appropriate magistrate, here a Commissioner, to determine whether the "probable cause" required to support a warrant exists. The Commissioner must judge for himself the persuasiveness of the facts relied on by a complaining officer to show probable cause. He should not accept without question the complainant's mere conclusion that the person whose arrest in sought has committed a crime.
Judge Muggli withdrew his motion and made a substitute motion to delete the following language: based upon testimony or an affidavit of a person having knowledge of the facts. Mr. Sand seconded the motion. The motion carried, Judge Burdick voting nay.
Judge Burdick said he thinks that in both these instances the apprehension of the defendant is being authorized without a sufficient basis of information. He said the thinks the test is the same whether the man is being arrested for the crime in the first instance or whether he is being arrested for alleged violation of the conditions of his probation.
Judge Burdick moved that the following language be substituted for the language contained in Rule 32(f) as previously adopted, and that it follow the language contained in draft "b": Upon the hearing, the court, subject to limitations imposed by law, may revoke an order suspending a sentence or an order deferring the imposition of sentence, but only if the defendant is present and apprised of the grounds on which such action is proposed. Judge Muggli seconded the motion. The motion carried.
Judge Ilvedson moved that Rule 32(f) be adopted as amended. Judge Muggli seconded the motion.
Judge Burdick made a substitute motion to amend Rule 32(f) in the following manner: In the first sentence delete the word committed and insert in lieu thereof the word violated, delete the words violation of conditions and insert in lieu thereof the word condition, and after the word of insert the word his; in the second sentence delete the words jurisdiction upon showing of, and after the word cause where it first appears insert the words to believe. Mr. Sand seconded the motion. The motion carried.
Judge Ilvedson moved that Rule 32(f) be adopted as amended. Judge Muggli seconded the motion. The motion carried. Rule 32(f) as adopted reads:
Rule 32. Sentence and Judgment.
(f) Revocation of Probation. Any law enforcement officer or state parole officer having probable cause to believe that the defendant has violated a condition of his probation may take the defendant into custody and shall thereupon bring the defendant forthwith before the appropriate authority for a hearing on the claimed violation. Also, subject to limitations imposed by law, the court, having probable cause to believe that the defendant has violated a condition of his probation, may issue an order to show cause directed to the defendant and requiring his presence before the court, or may issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the defendant for the purpose of bringing the defendant forthwith before the court, for a hearing on the alleged violation. Upon the hearing, the court, subject to limitations imposed by law, may revoke an order suspending a sentence or an order deferring the imposition of sentence, but only if the defendant is present and apprised of the grounds on which such action is proposed.
Mr. Glaser arrived at 10:40.
Judge Ilvedson read his report on why Rule 43 does not permit sentencing in absentia. [The report is appended to and is hereby made a part of these minutes.] He also distributed copies of the opinion in State ex rel. Shetsky v. Utecht, 36 N.W.2d 126 (Minn. 1949).
Judge Burdick said he would use Mr. Sand's argument that since we have had no trouble with the existing law, we should retain it.
Mr. Sand said there was a recent case in Wisconsin, not more than four months age, involving more than one state, in which prosecution was started, the defendant absconded, and extradition failed. The court went ahead, had trial, and sentenced. Upon review, the appellate court said that was all right.
Judge Smith asked: What difference does it make? If he runs, you can get him back and then give him his sentence that not only fits the crime but also the running away.
Judge Ilvedson read from Shetsky as follows:
In State v. Cherry, 154 N.C. 624, 627, 70 S.E. 294, 295, resentencing was ordered where the original sentence had been imposed in the absence of the defendants. The court, citing State v. Kelly, 97 N.C. 404, 2 S.E. 185, 2 Am.St.Rep. 299, quoted with approval its previous language in that case as follows:
" * * * 'A party charged with a felony less than capital has the right to give bail and be at large unless at the trial the court shall order him into close custody. In such case, if defendant flee, pending the trial, the court is not bound to stop the trial, and discharge the jury and then give the defendant a new trial. To do so would compromise the dignity of the court, trifle with the administration of justice, and
encourage guilty parties to escape,' etc. While our decisions have established that in case of waiver the presence of the accused is not necessary to a valid trial and conviction, all of the authorities here and elsewhere, so far as we have examined, are to the effect that when a sentence, either in felonies less than capital or in misdemeanors, involves and includes corporal punishment, the presence of the accused is essential. (emphasis by the Court in Shetsky)
State ex rel. Shetsky v. Utecht, supra, 130-131.
Judge Ilvedson said he thinks that from the viewpoint of the public it would be well to go ahead with sentence, but he doubts it is good from a judicial standpoint.
Judge Burdick asked: What has the Supreme Court said?
Judge Ilvedson said there had been no Supreme Court decisions since Shetsky.
Judge Burdick said there are two different situations--one, that the man is not willfully absent, and the other, that he willfully fails to report.
Judge Ilvedson said that as far as he knows, there are no United States Supreme Court decisions on that point.
Judge Smith read from State ex rel. Poul v. McLain, 13 N.D. 368, 371, 102 N.W. 407, 408 (1905), as follows:
The petitioner is not in a position to complain because the examination of the witnesses took place in his absence. Section 7960, Rev. Codes 1899, provides that upon a preliminary examination, where the party is charged with the commission of an offense, "witnesses must be examined in the presence of the defendant and may be cross-examined in his behalf." It is contended in behalf of the petitioner that by reason of this provision the magistrate had no jurisdiction whatsoever to hear any evidence in support of the complaint after the defendant had been arrested unless the defendant was personally present during the examination of the witnesses. Section 8503, Rev. Codes 1899, directs that the provisions of the code of Criminal Procedure, of which section 7960 is a part, shall be "liberally construed with a view to promote its objects, and in furtherance of justice." The question is, must the court adhere to the literal wording of the statute, however absurd the results may be, or shall the court consider the object sought to be attained by the statute, and give the statute such construction as will accomplish that object and promote justice? It is very plain that the object of this statute is to give the defendant the right to see, hear, and cross- examine the witnesses produced against him by the state. If the defendant is in custody, he must be brought into the presence of the magistrate, and the latter shall hear no evidence in support of the charge except such as is produced while the defendant has the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses, and cross-examine them, either by himself or his counsel. If the defendant has secured his freedom from restraint by giving bail, he has expressly agreed to be present in court at such time
and place as the hearing is to be had, where the witnesses against him will be present. If he does not keep his promise and appear, it is his own fault, and he has not been deprived of any right; and, if he has lost any opportunity or advantage which the law accords, he ought not to be heard to urge his own default to thwart the ends of justice.
It is familiar law that in a case of felony all proceedings after indictment must be had in the presence of the accused. It has become well-settled law by the great weight of modern authority that one who voluntarily absents himself from the court during the progress of the trial cannot urge his absence to set aside a verdict of guilty. . . .
Judge Burdick said that if you don't impose sentence, you may have a different judge.
Judge Ilvedson said that he had run across that situation in his research--if the judge is dead, his successor is in his place.
Judge Erickstad said, yes, but he would not be familiar with the case, and he could grant a new trial.
It was agreed to close the discussion of Rule 43 and to take it up again at a future meeting.
Judge Ilvedson read his report on Rule 44(a) dated July 9, 1969 as follows:
[heading omitted)
In State v. Starratt, 153 N.W.2d 311, the opinion was written by our honorable Chairman, Judge Erickstad. The Supreme Court held that petitioner's lack of counsel before the committing magistrate did not prejudice the petitioner in that particular case.
However, the opinion quoted with approval two cases of the United States Court of Appeals which held (1) that there is no arbitrary point at which the right to counsel attaches in pretrial proceedings, but that the critical point is to be determined both from the nature of the proceedings and from that which occurs in each case; (2) an accused has a constitutional right to be represented by a court-appointed counsel at a preliminary hearing or at any other stage prior to arraignment, if, under the facts of the particular case, those stages are "critical" in the criminal proceedings.
The Minnesota Supreme Court in the case of State v. Borst, 154 N.W.2d 888, issued an opinion just a month following the State v. Starratt decision. In the Minnesota case the defendant claimed he had a right to a lawyer but could not afford one. The trial court believed that a defendant in a "misdemeanor" case was not entitled to appointment of counsel. The case was remanded to afford the defendant an opportunity to present evidence as to his financial inability to procure counsel. In discussing the question whether defendant is entitled to have counsel appointed for him in a misdemeanor case, the Minnesota Court stated in the opinion beginning at page 889:
"The question is a troublesome one and has caused much difficulty through out the country. The Supreme Court of the United States on three recent occasions has declined to review cases involving this question... In Winters v. Beck, Mr. Justice Stewart said (385 U.S. 908, 87 S.Ct. 208, 17 L.Ed.2d 138):
'This decision of the Supreme Court of Arkansas is in conflict with decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which has held that indigent defendants have a constitutional right to counsel in misdemeanor cases ... This conflict must be resolved, unless the Constitution of the United States is going to mean one thing in Arkansas and something else in Mississippi."
"... Any consideration of this question today must start with Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 344, 83 S.Ct. 792, 796, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, 805."
The Minnesota Court concluded that the language of Gideon appears to say that the right to counsel extends to prosecutions for any crime regardless of whether it is a misdemeanor or felony but that the Court's reluctance to review cases involving misdemeanors casts much doubt on the meaning of Gideon and how far its mandate extends. Other decisions are discussed and the Minnesota court finally arrived at this conclusion:
"Until we have a definite decision by the Supreme Court of the United States as to whether Gideon requires appointment of counsel for an indigent charged with a misdemeanor as defined by our laws, as a Sixth-Amendment right, we choose not to guess at which it may eventually hold by basing our decision on the Federal Constitution or even on our State Constitution. In the exercise of our supervisory power to insure the fair administration of justice, we decide that counsel should be provided in any case, whether it be a misdemeanor or not, which may lead to incarceration in a penal institution. In other words, if the court is to impose a jail sentence, counsel should be furnished.
Although our Supreme Court in the Starratt case, supra, held the lack of counsel before the committing magistrate was not prejudicial in that particular case, the court recognizes the fact that lack of counsel at the committing magistrate stage could be prejudicial if it constituted a "critical" state of the proceedings against him.
[Judge Ilvedson's report on Rule 44(a) - continued)
There is a very recent annotation "Accused's Right to Counsel under the Federal Constitution--Supreme court cases" in 18 L. Ed.2d 1420. It states at page 1424:
"Although the Supreme Court has not yet indicated to what extent the right to counsel applies to cases involving minor offenses, for example, traffic violations, the court has indicated that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies to state and federal felony cases, to criminal contempt proceedings, and to juvenile court proceedings of a quasi-criminal nature."
The case of United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, 87 S.Ct. 1926, was decided in June 1967 about the time that the Starratt case, supra, was decided by our North Dakota Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court reaffirms the view that the Sixth Amendment guaranty of the assistance of counsel applies to critical stages of the proceedings and not just to the period of arraignment to trial.
Chapter 259 of the 1967 S.L. (29-07-01 NDCC) states that it is the duty of the magistrate to inform the defendant "of his right to the aid of counsel before answering any questions and until such time as he is released or finally convicted" and "of his right to have his legal services provided for at public expense to the extent he is unable to pay for his own defense without undue hardship."
Chapter 259 of the 1967 S.L. also gives the magistrate authority to appoint counsel:
"The magistrate before whom a defendant charged with the violation of state criminal law is brought may appoint counsel from a list prepared under the direction of the senior district judge in his district and in the manner prescribed by him..."
I have made some extra photocopies of Chapter 259 for the convenience of the committee. It would appear that at the present time, magistrates in North Dakota can appoint counsel for defendants in any case that is before them as committing magistrate regardless of the type of crime or punishment that may be imposed. That is, any case which the magistrate is without authority to try and determine.
But there are no rules except court decisions that can guide the magistrate in determining whether counsel should be appoint for an indigent defendant. In our state the magistrate must determine whether a "critical" point has been reached when a demand or request is made by the defendant for a court-appointed lawyer. Certainly in any felony the magistrate would appoint counsel. I am also inclined to believe counsel must be appointed in all misdemeanor cases too. Petit larceny, for example, is a crime for which the punishment is not more than 30 days in jail. I do not see why counsel should not be appointed for a defendant charged with the offense if he is an indigent. The Minnesota Supreme Court hold that if a jail sentence can be imposed, counsel must be furnished. It seems to me that it may be pretty difficult for a magistrate to determine whether the case has reached a "critical" stage when the defendant asks for counsel immediately before any decision is made as to whether a preliminary examination should be demanded. I think in such case he should appoint counsel regardless of the length of jail sentence that possibly can be imposed under the law for the particular crime.
[Judge Ilvedson's report on Rule 44(a) - continued]
If we retain Rule 44(a) as we have already adopted it, the magistrate knows he must make an appointment of counsel in a case before him as a committing magistrate, provided, of course, that he is satisfied that the defendant is "unable to obtain counsel."
Chapter 259 of the 1967 S.L., supra, repealed sections 29-01-27 and 27-08-31 NDCC. The first section repealed gave the court in any criminal action "when it is satisfactorily shown to the court that the defendant has no means" the right to appoint and assign counsel for the defendant with a limitation of $25.00 for any one day. Section 27-08-31 gave courts of increased jurisdiction the authority to appoint counsel for indigent defendants in all criminal cases, but limited the compensation to $50 in any one case.
Chapter 259 states:
"The appropriate judge may appoint counsel for a needy person at any time or for any proceeding arising out of a criminal case if reasonable."
The above sentence would appear to give all courts in this state the right to appoint counsel for any defendant. But if it is superseded we need something to take its place.
Undoubtedly there are offenses for which the punishment is only a fine. There should be a limitation of some kind in our rules so that counsel will not be appointed at public expense for such offenses.
The present rule 44(a) as adopted does not define or set forth any guide or rule to state when or under what circumstances counsel can be appointed. It states "every defendant who is entitled to assigned counsel shall have such counsel at public expense."
I recommend that we clarify this by changing rule 44(a) to read:
Every defendant who is charged with a public offense for which the punishment imposed by law includes or is possible confinement in a jail, the state prison farm, or the state penitentiary, is entitled to assigned counsel at public expense if he is unable to obtain counsel and he is entitled to have such counsel assigned to him at every stage of the proceedings from his initial appearance before the committing magistrate or the court and through appeal, unless he waives such appointment or is represented by a public defender."
Mr. Graham read from a presentation of the Supreme Court law clerks regarding trial by jury. He described Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 88 Sup.Ct. 1444 (1968); Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 88 Sup.Ct. 1477 (1968); and Dyke v. Taylor Implement Co., 391 U.S. 216, 88 Sup.Ct. 1472 (1968).
Discussion followed.
Judge Smith said he was afraid minor traffic offenders would be demanding counsel. He said that since the statute came out he had stopped appointing counsel and that he had been criticized for not appointing. He said the problem in appointing on all misdemeanors is the cost factor-- also, the whole district court procedure that has been imposed. He said it takes twenty minutes to go through the procedure and that he wants to be divorced from that procedure--that if he had to go through it in every misdemeanor case there aren't enough hours in the day or days in the week.
At 11:30 Judge Muggli left the meeting.
In answer to a question regarding the procedure he had mentioned, Judge Smith said it included recitation of rights, request for acknowledgment of waiver or exercise of certain rights, filling in blanks, signing papers, handing over copies, then if the defendant wants a lawyer, appointing one. He said he does it religiously in felonies but that he doesn't want to have to follow it in misdemeanors. He said he kept a record in his minute book.
Judge Ilvedson asked: Regardless of Minnesota, shouldn't we draw a line somewhere in the rule on time up to 30 days?
Judge Burdick asked if he was willing to draw a line.
Judge Ilvedson said yes.
Mr. Graham asked: Is a prosecution for violation of a municipal ordinance a criminal matter?
Judge Erickstad said our court has said it is a civil matter but is treated like a criminal matter and that the committee is trying to make our criminal rules applicable to violations of municipal ordinances.
Mr. Graham said that § 13 of our state constitution requires that the party accused shall have the right to "appear and defend in person and with counsel" and that he thinks "with counsel" means with assigned counsel if you are not able to pay.
Judge Burdick said the Supreme Court has said that prosecution of municipal ordinances are quasi-criminal--they are civil but are governed by rules of criminal procedure.
Judge Smith said the United States Supreme Court has not chosen to apply Article 6 of the Constitution to the states below the grade of felony. If the North Dakota Supreme Court were to extend the right to court-appointed counsel to all cases, they would be holding a concept that has not been accepted but has been inferentially rejected in the refusal of petitions for certiorari in the U. S. Supreme Court.
Judge Burdick said he shares Judge Smith's view.
There followed a discussion of whether the United States Supreme Court has ruled on this question.
Judge Burdick said he does not think § 13 of the state constitution requires the appointment of assigned counsel even in felonies--that this is a right in criminal cases in North Dakota but the Constitution is silent as to whether he must be paid from public funds.
Mr. Graham said he believes the constitution, as construed by our Supreme Court, requires that a defendant who lacks funds shall not be denied counsel just because of his financial standing.
Judge Burdick said that this was an early provision, from long before there was any conception of appointed counsel, and that this concept of having to give him counsel appointed by the court has come to the states by the United States Supreme Court's applying article 6 through the application of the 14th amendment.
Mr. Graham said that the Sixth Amendment preceded § 13.
Mr. Glaser said that the point is, we know what is required in some cases, and we are trying to guess what is required in other cases--that there is a difference of opinion that we can't resolve. He said the issue is, what do we want in this rule--a 30 day limitation? If we do that because they have municipal law to make them maximum we automatically wipe out the provision of appointed counsel. He said he doesn't think we should have a distinction--that he thinks every man subject to imprisonment any place for any length of time should have the right to assigned counsel.
Judge Burdick said that there had been a conference held in Washington, D.C., on the Public Defender; and that as a result the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws is considering reactivating its committee to consider its Public Defender Act. He said he is confident that a new committee will be formed in August to review it.
Mr. Sand said he would like to see some guidelines.
Judge Smith read ch. 7 of the 1879 Session Laws as follows:
Be it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Dakota:
§ 1. County to employ counsel for indigent defendant.]
That in all criminal cases triable in the Territory of Dakota, where it is satisfactorily shown to the court that the defendant has no means, and is unable to employ counsel, the court shall in all such cases, where counsel is appointed and assigned for defense, allow and direct to be paid by the county in which such trial is had, a reasonable and just compensation to the attorney or attorneys so assigned for such services as they may render: Provided, however, that such attorney or attorneys shall not be paid a sum to exceed twenty-five dollars in any one case.
§ 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and approval.
Approved, February 22, 1879.
Judge Smith commented that the principle of court appointed counsel must have been known and recognized by the writers of the state constitution.
Mr. Graham said that he feels that if you can go to jail for 30 days, regardless of what it is called, he must consider it a criminal case.
Judge Smith asked: Could we, in creating rule, say that counsel shall be appointed for an indigent if the misdemeanor charge carries with it a maximum penalty of not less than $500 fine or 6 months in jail or that the trial judge in his discretion may appoint counsel?
Judge Burdick read § 40-11-12, Commitment of guilty person, and § 40-18-12, Commitment for violation of city ordinance--Limitation--Labor in lieu of fine.
Judge Ilvedson read § 12-01-06, Definition of crime.
The secretary was instructed to make note of Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 88 Sup.Ct. 1477 (1968), relative to appointment of counsel in contempt proceedings.
Judge Erickstad asked Judge Ilvedson to bring in a written motion at the next meeting.
Judge Erickstad said there is a policy question here: Do we want any limit written into the rule?
The chairman announced that the next meeting of the committee would be held on Thursday and Friday, November 20 and 21, 1969, commencing at 9:00 a.m.
The meeting adjourned at 11:53 a.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Rebecca Quanrud, Secretary
Addendum: Report on Rule 43 by Judge Ilvedson--dated July 8, 1969--heading omitted
At our meeting of May 15th Judge Erickstad asked me to do some research on why Rule 43 does not permit sentencing in absential. The rule we have adopted does not permit sentencing without the defendant being present except in misdemeanor cases if the defendant consents to it in writing. This is in accord with the present Federal Rule.
24 C.J.S. p. 515 states:
"In the absence of statute to the contrary, and apart from or without reference to any statute, it is generally held that where the sentence imposed involves imprisonment or the infliction of other corporal punishment, accused must be present in court when sentence is pronounced, whether the conviction is for a felony or misdemeanor."
And at page 517:
"It has been held that accused may waive his right to be present when he is sentenced, and that he may do so by voluntarily and willfully absenting himself. Other authorities, however, take the view that accused cannot waive his right to be present when judgment is rendered or sentence is pronounced, at least in the case of a felony, or when a sentence, either in the case of a felony or misdemeanor, involves and includes corporal punishment; and hold that accused's voluntary or willful absence does not affect his rights."
The case of State ex rel. Shetsky v. Utecht, 36 N.W.2d 126 (Minn. 1949) is an excellent treatise on the subject. Shetsky absented himself from the state of Minnesota during the trial. The judge resumed the trial a few weeks later in the absence of the accused (although counsel was present). The jury returned a verdict of guilty and the court sentenced Shetsky to state prison for life. Two years later Shetsky was apprehended in California. He petitioned the court for a writ of habeas corpus after he was brought back to Minnesota. The question presented to the Minnesota Supreme Court was whether the accused, by his voluntary absence, waived his statutory right to be present at all stages of the trial, including the imposition of the sentence.
I have photocopied this case and attached the copies hereto. The discussion of the above point begins at page 128. The Minnesota case discusses the federal rule, too. The syllabus No. 7 states:
"That Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure in prescribing the scope of waiver effected by accused's voluntary absence from trial omits
[Report of Judge Ilvedson on Rule 43]
reference to waiver of presence at pronouncement of judgment and imposition of sentence IMPLIES THAT IMPOSITION IN ABSENCE OF ACCUSED, WHETHER VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY, IS ILLEGAL AND LACKS DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 43, 18 U.S.C.A."
The Minnesota Court held Shetsky, by voluntarily absenting himself from the court and state, waived his right to be present at further proceedings up to and including the rendition of the verdict, but that imposition of sentence in his absence was illegal and without due process of law, requiring his discharge from imprisonment under such sentence, and his return to district court for resentence.
Section 29-26-11 NDCC states that when a defendant appears for judgment, he must be asked whether he has any legal cause to show why judgment should not be pronounced against him.
My research indicates that we should require the presence of the defendant at the time of sentencing even though the offense committed is a misdemeanor. I say this even though our present law in North Dakota permits the pronouncement of judgment in the absence of a defendant if the conviction is for a misdemeanor. See Section 29-26-04. Our proposed Rule 43 permits this if the defendant consents in writing.


text:
If you've never tried Theatre Gym masterclasses before -
this amazing £5 offer is for you!
"When I leave I feel like I'm buzzing with fresh ideas and energy"
/ Chandni (Theatre Gym student)
Theatre Gym has been listed twice as a Quirky and Alternative experience in the Londonist!
Come and see why....
Join Tal for one of her weekly sessions discovering Theatre Gym.
Theatre Gym focuses on finding freedom through acting and creativity as well as connecting with others in the group and outside of it.
Theatre Gym is open to all levels
In this unique acting class you will:
- Develop your acting skills in a safe and supportive space
- Find new ways to express yourself
- Unlock your creativity
- Grow your confidence
- Connect with others in a creative (non-chit-chat) environment
So join a class today - dedicated to keeping your creative instincts in shape,
boosting your energy and learning/practising professional performance skills.
It's a lot of fun.
Who is Theatre Gym For?
• Creatives who want to keep creative
• People who want to learn performance skills
• People who want to connect & make friends through performance art
• Performers who want to be audition-ready
• Performers who want to network without "networking"
Who runs Theatre Gym?
Tal Jakubowiczova, the artistic director of Hide and Seek Theatre company, and the founder of Theatre Gym. Tal has trained as a professional actress and still perform her own work alongside directing and teaching theatre.
What students say ...
"Great way to release all that accumulated stress from life and work.
Amazing energy-diffusing sessions, allowing you to express that inner child that you have locked away for so long!"
Mike (City boy)
"The atmosphere was inspiring and safe to play,and after every session I felt soooooooooo goooooood!"
Reetta (Theatre student)


text:
Flashlight Theme
1Flashlight is an elegant and flexible WordPress Portfolio and Photography Theme, suited for users with no coding knowledge as well as deverlopers.
Easy as can be
2The gallery managment is super convenient. Just upload your images, select a gallery type and hit publish. Want to build a gallery in less than 2 minutes? Do it!