Agree about the point concerning accused versus defendant.
"full age" is the proper phrase from Blackstone to assert having
attained the age of full legal capacity, as is "sound mind".
It seems to me these have to be asserted because the person withdrawing
plea has been heretofore represented by an attorney.
In Illinois the standard for arrest is reasonable grounds and the
standard to hold for trial is probable cause and complaints are attacked
There cannot be, according to the due course of the process of the law,
an arraignment until after a judge has verified there is probable cause
to hold the accused over for trial.
There is nothing in Illinois statutes guaranteeing counsel to a person
charged. But, Constitution SECTION 8. RIGHTS AFTER INDICTMENT
In criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the
right to appear and defend in person and by counsel;
Could this be construed to mean only accused persons which have been
indicted have the rights in this section ?
SECTION 24. RIGHTS RETAINED
The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained
by the individual citizens of the State.
At common law, natural persons of full age and sound mind could not
appear by attorney in a criminal case. So, the courts are licensing
attorneys to do something which the law forbids. All licenses allow the
licensee to do what the law would not allow without the license. So,
attorneys don't have licenses; they are, however, granted license by
the courts to act unlawfully in criminal proceedings in the court in
representing natural persons not having legal disabilities. This is
similar to the license granted banks in 1933, except I think the
Secretary of the Treasury does a license application procedure and
issues a bank license document. But to allow an officer of the court to
act unlawfully is judicial corruption in depth.
The accused's brother put up $100 for bail. The accused never had a
probable cause hearing or a bail hearing or signed anything.