Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2024 February 4
| Miscellaneous desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < February 3 | << Jan | February | Mar >> | Current desk > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
February 4
editIs an IMSI-catcher able to take over an incomming call?
editI already red the article but still am not sure: Could a bad-intentioned person use a device like an IMSI-catcher to make a caller believe, the called cellphone is willingly not answering? And the intenionally called cellphone does not notice anything about that incomming call? --176.7.132.36 (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- When a call goes unanswered, the reason might be that the owner of the phone is incapacitated, or cannot find the ringing phone, or it is on silent and they don't notice there is a call. So the caller cannot know whether the call not being answered is intentional. A device capable of "impersonating" a legitimate network cell (that is, presenting itself to another cell or a mobile phone in a way that is indistinguishable from a regular cell) can imitate an incoming or outgoing call remaining unanswered, and also it being answered but then immediately being hung up on. Such spoofing attacks can be prevented if the devices involved require connections to be authenticated using a secure protocol. --Lambiam 13:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Indefinitely postponed trial
editAfter a criminal case has been filed in a US district court, can the assigned judge keep postponing the trial date indefinitely (with the concurrence of the defendants), or is there some limit to their freedom to do so? --Lambiam 21:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Assuming we are talking about United States law, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial. If someone feels this right has been violated in his case,
he should consult a lawyer to appeal...strike that, we do not offer legal advice here. 85.76.128.241 (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)- The amendment does not give the prosecution the right to a speedy trial. So this does not restrict a corrupt judge colluding with defendants who do not want a speedy trial, which was part of the premise ("with the concurrence of the defendants"). --Lambiam 14:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- I am not aware of any specific judicial remedy for this situation, but you might start with interlocutory appeal and see what you can find.
- In egregious cases, I suppose the House could decide that the judge's behavior is a "high crime or misdemeanor" and impeach him/her. Conviction in the Senate requires a 2/3 vote so this is a heavy lift. --Trovatore (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Doesn't interlocutory appeal to civil cases? The issue here concerns criminal cases. Also, as long as the judge avoids issuing an order, there is nothing to appeal to. --Lambiam 11:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Postings by banned user removed. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Cool stories, bros, but not of obvious direct relevance to the American system , in which, in particular, you would call that a "home run". --Trovatore (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- In a truly extreme case I suppose the prosecution could seek mandamus from the court of appeals, but this would pretty much never happen: lower courts are given a lot of discretion to handle their dockets as they see fit. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Postings by banned user removed. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Doesn't interlocutory appeal to civil cases? The issue here concerns criminal cases. Also, as long as the judge avoids issuing an order, there is nothing to appeal to. --Lambiam 11:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- The amendment does not give the prosecution the right to a speedy trial. So this does not restrict a corrupt judge colluding with defendants who do not want a speedy trial, which was part of the premise ("with the concurrence of the defendants"). --Lambiam 14:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Time limits are provided in the Speedy Trial Act. John M Baker (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- In case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC, Southern District of Florida, the main defendant was arraigned on June 13, 2023, now 244 days ago. A trial date has been set for May 20, 2024, but experts think it unlikely that it will commence before November,[1][2] possibly being pushed even to after January 2025 and then perhaps dropped after having languished for 600 days. The 70-day limit is apparently rather soft, allowing the judge to order unlimited extension. --Lambiam 12:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)