There are reasons to require state to provide speedy trials

There are reasons to require state to provide speedy trials

EDITOR:

An 80-year-old robbery victim was reported in The Vindicator as complaining that dismissal of his suspected assailant under the Ohio “speedy trial” statute is “not justice.” With the benefit of years, octogenarians usually see through to the heart of things. His outcry deserves further comment, as follows:

1. Simply put, the “speedy trail” law can have no other purpose than to prevent persons accused of crime from languishing under some form of restraint for an unreasonable period without a trial.

2. The intent of the law should be to give the accused the opportunity to prove his innocence at the earliest time; but nevertheless, to allow him time he may need to prepare his case; or to bring an early resolution to his compromised status.

3. In any case, the accused (and counsel in his behalf) ought to be seeking compliance with the law (unless, by maintaining taciturnity, there is hope that the statutory time will elapse unnoticed by the authorities and therefore will allow the accused to go free.)

Questions of morality are of little concern when “sandbagging” on the golf course or in the poolroom. But in the courtroom they assume a more serious proportion; lying in the eel-grass — is it ever justifiable, necessary and proper to win your case? It poses moral issues that are difficult enough to resolve without adding a new twist, the use of the tactic by counsel the state itself has given to the accused to defend the charge.

That elderly victim, his family, and most of us, I’m sure, have trouble finding a solution to the dilemma posed by this turn of events. Maybe there isn’t one.

Atty. NORMAN A. RHEUBAN

Canfield

Keep an eye on where board decides to build new school

EDITOR:

At a recent Brookfield school board meeting, Joe Pasquerilla again showed his total contempt not only for the residents of Brookfield but also the New School Committee. Attending the meeting was school board members Joe Pasquerilla, Steve Varga and Ron Brennan.

School board member Ron Brennan made the following resolution:

“I hereby make a motion for the Brookfield Board of Education to make a joint decision with the New Schools Facilities Committee concerning the design and location of the new school and to bring that decision before the full board for formal approval.”

This motion died for lack of a second. It became apparent to this writer and the rest of the audience that Pasquerilla, who seemingly controls both Fisher and Varga, again failed to be forthcoming. Joe Pasquerilla’s total failure to act on this motion only means that the new school will be built at only one location that is favored by Pasquerilla and that is the Kirila property on Bedford Road. Why? To enrich his friend at the taxpayer’s expense?

Steve Varga openly admitted that the cost for the new school would be the same whether it was one story or two stories. Varga was then informed that a two story school can be built on the present school property with the least disruption of either school.

Pasquerilla is using the New School Facility Committee to get the bond levy passed and then when it is passed in November, Pasquerilla will go ahead, with the help of his two puppets, and approve the building of the new school on Kirila’s property.

JOHN M. KURILLA

Hermitage