Woman Tries To Plead “No Comment” In Court
In this morning’s [Aug 20] Plea Court, Ms Tomika Taylor, 36, finally entered a plea of not guilty to a single charge of unlawfully assaulting another woman and causing her actual bodily harm. The alleged offence is said to have taken place in St George’s on 9th July 2012.
After she had elected for the matter to be heard in the lower Court, Senior magistrate Archie Warner read out the charge and asked for her plea. Instead of answering with a plea of Guilty or Not Guilty, Ms Taylor answered: “No comment.”
More than once, the Magistrate sought to explain to Ms Taylor that the process required that she give an unequivocal answer. However Ms Taylor became more heated saying that she would only answer “no comment” because she was not aware of any of the details of the charge and that until she had more details she would continue to answer “no comment.”
The Magistrate adjourned the matter, but not before telling Ms Taylor that if she continued with her behaviour, he would be obliged to have her put in the police holding cells and would continue the matter later.
The Magistrate asked Duty Counsel Susan Moore-Williams if, during this temporary adjournment, she would use the time to explain the proceedings to Ms Taylor so that this initial phase could continue.
About twenty minutes later, after disposing of several other matters Ms Taylor, with Duty Counsel Ms Moore-Williams standing with her, returned to face the Magistrate. The charge was read out again and Ms Taylor was asked to plead. This time she pleaded Not Guilty.
Magistrate Warner set trial for 25th September and bail at $2,000 with a like surety.
Read More About
Category: All, Court Reports, Crime, News
Gone are the days where people showed respect for the courts and had respect for the magistrate sitting on the bench. He should of just thrown her tail in jail for a week and see then how quickly she understood the process. 36 years old and behaving like a clown then we ask why the youth behave the way they do.
hahahaha LOL you shud read ace-gurls FB comments then you’ll know why she ended up in court geeeeeez Tomika, yur getting too old for that shti gurl
that’s not funny…it is REAL!
A week in jail for not understanding and saying no comment? Really!
No comment
What a moron. Sounds like a scene from Joe Pesci in “My Cousin Vinny”..
Why is this woman in court for alleged offences that are usually committed by teenagers and punks? Grow up woman. The problem with Bda…
If you read her comment she stated that she did not know what her charges where, and how about this was probably her first time in trouble so instead of pleading to somehting that is cost her injustice she stated no comment until the Duty Counsel assisted her she then proceeded with her plea. So just think how many innoncent people have being in trouble for just not knowing their rights, so before you comment with your rude remarks stop and think first.
Typical Bermudian always got something to say, By the way are you perfect? And does all magistrates respect the public at times, because they also can become rude at times as well because they are educated and I guess the rest are just out right uneducated to them I suppose.
So you mean to tell me that she did not understand why she was in court? HUH? I cannot belive that!
Here we go… blame everyone else… blah blah blah blah blah..
@Your Comment: I agree you should never be afraid to question authority to many judges throw their weight around with threats of intimidation and incarceration to many folks do not know their rights. If some one is making claims against you. You have the legal right to know what they are. To many people in Bermuda are so afraid of the authority’s if they came knocking on their door and said we have to take your children these folks would say “Ok take them, I don’t wanna get in trouble”
@Your comments,
Im almost certain this clown did,nt just drop out of the sky and appear in court. Instead of standing there looking and acting stupid just perhaps she should of simply asked to have her charges explained from the beginning. At 36 years old if by now she does,nt know how to act like a lady she never will there again thats what landed her tail in court. I truely beleive there maybe a handful of people in our systm who were truely innconent, then you have those like your talking about are only innocent because people like you defend thier bullshti.Unfortunately thats part of what happens when you do dumb stuff to be put in front of a magistrate. The magistrate did,nt put you there remember that…….
Big UP to you.
She had from 9th July to understand what she was being charged with. Silly is as silly does!!!!!!
The judge appears to be quite forbearing. After the second or third time, I would have thought he would have called it ‘contempt’ and that charge would have been added, plus automatic jail.
On the other hand, it seems she wasn’t fully briefed as to her charges, which is not entirely her fault. Who is supposed to do that if you are the defendent and not a witness?
Was gonna say the same thing about contempt.
She had no counsel per sey.
Good thing duty councel was there.
If she didn’t fully understand the charge and needed it to be fully explained then good for her also it’s good that the judge gave her the opportunity to have it clarified
She should have changed her plea to “Guilty wif an explanation!”
Really how STUPID can you be !!! I have NO COMMENT !!!!
Looks like you did just comment though.
I fully expect for her to plead ‘ NO CONTEST ‘ at the next hearing .
I have been told that “no contest” is not an option in our courts.
I’m almost certain they read out the offences the defendant is being charged with immediately prior to asking how they plea.
Another as$hole.
Comprehension is a b#tch.
Were not all as good as you “.am”
Good thing your not ‘.pm’.
So is grammar, apparently — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32p8d6OudgU
You always seem to turn to grammar when debating on here. Some people didn’t learn it as well as you seem to think you have, and others just don’t care. That doesn’t make the content of their arguments any less valid – if you wish to refute them you will have to find a real point to make. When you focus on their grammatical errors it just looks like you have no properly thought out idea or counter-point to offer, probably because you don’t. If thinking that you are intellectually superior to others gets you off, so be it – but it won’t win you any debates, or make you look like less of a muppet.
Information is only as valid as the source it comes from – that’s why ‘expert testimony’ carries more weight than one man’s opinion in court, no?[*]
The ‘content’ of his argument is:
- I’m an a–hole.
- Comprehension is a b!tch.
- My apparent superiority.
- Race card.
There was nothing even remotely a–hole-ish about my original post – I was simply stating my understanding of court proceedings from countless hours of TV and from the handful of juries I’ve had to sit in on.
The reason I pulled grammar into it is because – the way I see it – if you’re old enough to call me an a$$hole AND to pull the race card, then you’re certainly old enough to be able to know when to use ‘your/you’re’ and ‘were/we’re’. If you are simply too stupid not to be able to differentiate between ‘your’ and ‘you are’, then why the hell should your opinion carry any weight whatsoever? CHILDREN are taught this stuff. CHILDREN **GET** this stuff – and he doesn’t know better? An ignorant a– running his mouth for the hell of it, clearly.
See [*]
In any case – if you can find a single ‘point’ (can we even call them that?) of his worth countering, I’d be more than happy to do so.
But it really is incredibly difficult to argue with stupid – so why should I waste my breath?
From my experience in traffic court, this particular judge does NOT speak clearly enough. He tends to not speak into the mike provided as well as mumbles with the added accent of his heritage. I can understand how she may not have been clear on what the judge was saying, but a better response was needed.
She should have a job in government making at least $40 an hour, or at the very least, CEO of an exempt company.
The judge actually asked her what she thought the bloggers on bernews should post about the story…
HAHAHA!!!! This comment goes dwn in history as THE best comment made on here!
She is alleged to have committed an assault then claims she does not know what the charges what a dumb person. If you don’t know what you are being charged with maybe you should learn to keep you hands to yourself.she is an idiot,you don’t end up in court for nothing. She should have been charged with Contempt.
so bernews considers this article news….
That was the best thing that she could have done…NO COMMENT!!!
More people should try this, seriously..The whole court system is a joke…
Look up Admirlty Law, Look up Common Law…right now this whole system(s) operate under civil Law.
Man should be governed by Admirlty Law. Law of a vessel…you are a vessel…like a ship..Just look it up and you will understand…
To plean guilty or not guilty is to agree to be prosecuted under the civil law. You give up rights…
Check this video out…there are links in the discription to the aforementioned laws.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex1Me5soPUU
Peace.
The cursing in the grammar video is ridiculous. I know how to use homonyms correctly but was curious about the video. I thought it could me helpful to children! A warning about the cursing should have been given. Other than th cursing, it is entertaining.