Gamesmanship

Today was the day set for J.G.'s robbery trial. A couple of weeks ago, the Deputy District Attorney on the case, my nemesis Mr. N., had offered a reduced charge of 487(c) ("grand theft person") if J.G. were willing to plead that day without having any information about the alleged victim. Suspecting that the victim might be out of state and unavailable to testify at a trial, I turned down the offer and set a trial date without a time waiver. (See earlier post.)

Had the victim shown up today, J.G. would likely have been convicted (or, as they say in juvenile court, the petition would have been "found true") and he would have faced at least a couple of months in juvenile hall and he would have had a "strike" offense on his record.

But let's not forget, J.G. is alleged to have committed a robbery, and to have actively avoided the court for two years before being hauled into juvenile hall three weeks ago to wait while the dice rolled.

The dice stopped rolling this afternoon when J.G. and I listened to some of my favorite words: "People's motion to continue is denied. Petition dismissed."

So, was justice done? Or was a game played? Or are they the same thing?