scott_huminski | Seven Days | Vermont's Independent Voice

Member since Apr 26, 2014



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Vermont Supreme Court Overturns Windsor County Murder Conviction

Now to look at the sixth amendment right to a speedy trial. The event occurred in 2008, now there will be a new trial in 2014 or 2016. This case may be over.

Criminal defendants have the right to a speedy trial. In Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), the Supreme Court laid down a four-part case-by-case balancing test for determining whether the defendant's speedy trial right has been violated. The four factors are:

Length of delay. A delay of a year or more from the date on which the speedy trial right "attaches" (the date of arrest or indictment, whichever first occurs) was termed "presumptively prejudicial," but the Court has never explicitly ruled that any absolute time limit applies.
Reason for the delay. The prosecution may not excessively delay the trial for its own advantage, but a trial may be delayed to secure the presence of an absent witness or other practical considerations (e.g., change of venue).
Time and manner in which the defendant has asserted his right. If a defendant agrees to the delay when it works to his own benefit, he cannot later claim that he has been unduly delayed.
Degree of prejudice to the defendant which the delay has caused.
In Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434 (1973), the Supreme Court ruled that if the reviewing court finds that a defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated, then the indictment must be dismissed and/or the conviction overturned. The Court held that, since the delayed trial is the state action which violates the defendant's rights, no other remedy would be appropriate. Thus, a reversal or dismissal of a criminal case on speedy trial grounds means that no further prosecution for the alleged offense can take place.

4 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by scott_huminski on 04/27/2014 at 12:49 PM

Re: “Vermont Supreme Court Overturns Windsor County Murder Conviction


Lavoie, the crooked prosecutor in the case evaded service concerning my motion to intervene in the district court.

Zimmerman who i successfully sued in federal court for civil rights charges ruled on my motion to intervene in the district court with a conflict of interest.

Zimmerman is now retired --Justice has prevailed.

I would be very surprised if Lavoie stays on, If he does I will file to intervene again based upon his wholesale violations of attorney ethical precepts. THis Lavoie character must be stopped.

I have no opinion about guilt or innocence, I only can swear to the fact that Lavoie engages in prosecutorial misconduct and any case he is involved in violates Due Process.


3 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by scott_huminski on 04/26/2014 at 1:01 PM

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Keep up with us Seven Days a week!

Sign up for our fun and informative

All content © 2018 Da Capo Publishing, Inc. 255 So. Champlain St. Ste. 5, Burlington, VT 05401
Website powered by Foundation