McLaughlin: CA2 Rules that courts DO have jurisdiction over TPs in criminal cases

[daddy]

This is how the courts view/interpret personal jurisdiction:

1. Being physically in the courtroom, or physically in front of the judge.
2. The defendant being before the court.

1 and 2 are not the same. 2 is relevant, 1 is not.

O boy, some people here are really going to be dumbfounded by that statement.

[Pottapaug1938]

This is how the courts view/interpret personal jurisdiction:

1. Being physically in the courtroom, or physically in front of the judge.
2. The defendant being before the court.

1 and 2 are not the same. 2 is relevant, 1 is not.

O boy, some people here are really going to be dumbfounded by that statement.

We are, because it's evidence of your being unable to comprehend what has been said to you, about jurisdiction, by people who actually know what the law is and what it says about jurisdiction. You offer nothing to show otherwise; so if you wish to do so, please cite the relevant cases.

[Dark Optimist]

Or show up in person and tell us what it means. I'm sure someone on this board could make arrangements to be near the Denny's near you.

[daddy]

Personal jurisdiction: a court has the ability (or power) to try all persons within a certain physical boundary. How the courts then choose to exercise that ability is a whole other matter. Courts generally choose to invoke personal jurisdiction for defendants properly before the court. Just who might those be?

[Dr. Caligari]

This is how the courts view/interpret personal jurisdiction:

1. Being physically in the courtroom, or physically in front of the judge.
2. The defendant being before the court.

1 and 2 are not the same. 2 is relevant, 1 is not.

We're talking about criminal cases here, not civil cases, where the rules are very different. With that caveat, 1 and 2 are the same, at least for natural persons. (Corporations can be criminally prosecuted, but aren't physically present in the courtroom.)

O boy, some people here are really going to be dumbfounded by that statement.

Yes, I am dumbfounded by your trollishness. If you have a point, please make it in clear language, and cite some supporting authority.

[daddy]

This is how the courts view/interpret personal jurisdiction:

1. Being physically in the courtroom, or physically in front of the judge.
2. The defendant being before the court.

1 and 2 are not the same. 2 is relevant, 1 is not.

We're talking about criminal cases here, not civil cases, where the rules are very different. With that caveat, 1 and 2 are the same, at least for natural persons.

Oh really now! You won't ever be able to prove that.
And yes, for future reference, we're talking criminal cases against humans.

[Dr. Caligari]

This is how the courts view/interpret personal jurisdiction:

1. Being physically in the courtroom, or physically in front of the judge.
2. The defendant being before the court.

1 and 2 are not the same. 2 is relevant, 1 is not.

We're talking about criminal cases here, not civil cases, where the rules are very different. With that caveat, 1 and 2 are the same, at least for natural persons.

Oh really now! You won't ever be able to prove that.
And yes, for future reference, we're talking criminal cases against humans.

I don't have to "prove" anything. As I said above, if you have a point, please make it in clear language, and cite some supporting authority. Specifically, why don't you explain how a defendant can be physically present in the courtroom without being "before the court"? And what authority supports your assertion?

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Specifically, why don't you explain how a defendant can be physically present in the courtroom without being "before the court"? And what authority supports your assertion?

Well... there was the case reported by Leonard French where the defendant, Christopher G Hook, was sitting in the first row of the public gallery and didn't make himself known until 10 minutes into the hearing when it was clear that the judge was going to continue without him.

https://youtu.be/f9SjMNOFMtM

[notorial dissent]

Sigh! YAWN!!!! As I said previously, prey, elucidate. Also not holding my breath.