#61
|
||||
|
||||
Exactly, the defense is grasping at straws and trying to distract from the actual issue at hand, which is that his client attempted to kill people and succeeded in injuring them. He's using lawyering trickery.
__________________
Old'n'Slow |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The guys doing his job. Doesn't mean anyone has to believe it. The judge clearly didn't buy it. |
#63
|
||||
|
||||
California Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 5-200 Trial Conduct In presenting a matter to a tribunal, a member: (B) Shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law; Yep, PD has a job to do, no doubt about it. Been there, done that. But, it never helps your client's case to make a blatant misstatement of law to the Court.
__________________
Member? Oh, I member. |
#64
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Many, many defense attorneys have proclaimed that their client is innocent. Does anyone think they have all been right? Or that anything should ever stop them from making this proclamation?
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Im with Ultra, i wouldn't be able to do it. Sure its their job, i just couldent do what they do.
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#68
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
***IG: mttamgrams*** |
#69
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Chisholm's Custom Wheels Qui Si Parla Campagnolo |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
That's how the system works, and how it is set up to work. In the US criminal justice system, everybody has their own job to do, and as long as they stick to doing their job (and only their job), it works. Last edited by Mark McM; 10-27-2017 at 02:41 PM. |
#71
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I understand the accused right to a vigorous defense but....guess that’s why I didn’t go to law school...assuming I’d get thru....
__________________
Chisholm's Custom Wheels Qui Si Parla Campagnolo |
#72
|
||||
|
||||
Interesting discussion about what a lawyer should and should not do in our system. Interesting, because it illustrates some of the inherent compromises in the system that make it so difficult to adjudicate the situation at hand, a driver willfully striking cyclists.
It IS the defense lawyer's job to provide a vigorous and thoughtful defense. What if the perp was improperly arrested? What if rights were violated? That can and does happen.The big picture is important. The PD might, and probably should, get an innocent verdict in those cases, even if the accused in fact did the deed. It seems to me that it is the Prosecutor's job to make the best case for conviction, to shoot down PD arguments that are not germane, or correct. It is the Judge's job to manage a trial, to rule on points of law, to make sure a jury (if there is one) has heard a fair and accurate presentation, and to render judgement and sentence in the case. Our laws are layered over centuries, and have subtle nuance in their application. It is difficult to keep it all straight and do a proper job, and to be even close to prompt about doing so. The length of time involved also leads to one of the really clear abuses of our legal system. Because it can take considerable time to resolve an action, settlement can be the economical way out of a dispute. Hence, people do bring actions looking to settle for cash. If the trial went its course, they would quite likely lose. But in that case, the entity/person against whom the action was brought would also lose more than the settlement cost. It is a cruel calculation, and a lousy outcome. And that is just one example. It does appear that the PD has been overzealous and also a little lazy in this case. If he wished to argue a point of law, he had better have it right. Part of the job is making those arguments correctly. Doesn't look like he did so. One other note about other kinds of law, particularly, Napoleanic, as exists in France, and its relationship to cycling on the road. Not only does France have a warm fuzzy feeling about cycling (the US and France are different here, eh?), its system can establish hierarchy of fault. In the case of driving and road use, if you are a driver, and you hit a more vulnerable user of that road (runner, walker, cyclist, equestrian, tractor driver, whatever) , you are assumed to be guilty, unless you can prove otherwise. The effect of this is stunning on the road, as any one of us might imagine. Every driver is looking out for you, and knows there are dire consequences for screwing up. The defendant in this case should get jail, and a huge civil penalty. But our system, as currently set up, won't make it any easier to nail the next guy. And in another jurisdiction, he might even get off. I don't think that drivers are even properly trained about the laws and the rights of all users. I'd like to see nationwide legislation requiring that training for every driver's license applicant. If it takes double the amount of time to get a license, so be it. The rules of the road are extensive, and the training should match that. That would be a start, at least, to a better situation for all. Sorry for the rant. And, No, I am not a lawyer. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
I'd rather be subject to a system where a public defender may use the tools of language than to a system where a public defender can be placed in the position to allow his client to rot in solitary confinement for 3 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalief_Browder |
#74
|
||||
|
||||
A criminal defense attorney's job is to plant the seed of doubt and for a small fee, they help you harvest it. Not my quote by I always liked this...think Johnny Cochran
I'm not sure where you're going with this as i really don't care if they're right, wrong or indifferent...I simply stated that it's part of a criminal defense attorney's job to plant the seed of doubt as in reasonable doubt and that is how they earn their fee. |
|
|