Hit and run in Marin

[BobO]

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

Long story short: PD doing his job and providing something that IS a fundamental right (criminal defense). Give him a break - he doesn’t have much to go off of here.

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.

[FlashUNC]

Originally Posted by BobO

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.

Or giving him what is a Constitutionally protected right: a vigorous defense against charges.

The guys doing his job. Doesn't mean anyone has to believe it. The judge clearly didn't buy it.

[Vientomas]

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.

[rwsaunders]

Originally Posted by ultraman6970

Sorry for what im going to say because there most be a few lawyers reading this thread, but if your profession is to defend bad people, is your job to lie and twist the most obvious life rights at your convenience to get your client off the hook, even if there are pictures, videos and even a confession signed about the crime.

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.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by rwsaunders

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.

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?

[tuscanyswe]

Im with Ultra, i wouldn't be able to do it. Sure its their job, i just couldent do what they do.

[Jaybee]

Originally Posted by ultraman6970

Sorry for what im going to say because there most be a few lawyers reading this thread, but if your profession is to defend bad people, is your job to lie and twist the most obvious life rights at your convenience to get your client off the hook, even if there are pictures, videos and even a confession signed about the crime. And honestly it sucks, it is their job i do get that and thats why the good ones are darn expensive and probably thats why im not a lawyer and im not a millionaire either... my basic moral values are way up there to be able to be a defender lawyer, i simply coundlt do it.

How what the lawyer was saying?? that he doesnt think his client is a danger for everybody?? W T H?

If this guy doesnt go to the bucket the cycling community will be really disappointed. Wouldnt surprise me to see all this kid's data posted somewhere really soon...

The American justice system is founded on the idea that even the worst, the most obviously guilty, and the least able to fend for themselves are entitled to a defense before a jury of their peers. Justice is only justice if it applies to all. You can argue how effective the PD system is for that, but the right to representation is a bedrock of our society.

[joosttx]

Originally Posted by Jaybee

The American justice system is founded on the idea that even the worst, the most obviously guilty, and the least able to fend for themselves are entitled to a defense before a jury of their peers. Justice is only justice if it applies to all. You can argue how effective the PD system is for that, but the right to representation is a bedrock of our society.

This is why I love our Country

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by Jaybee

The American justice system is founded on the idea that even the worst, the most obviously guilty, and the least able to fend for themselves are entitled to a defense before a jury of their peers. Justice is only justice if it applies to all. You can argue how effective the PD system is for that, but the right to representation is a bedrock of our society.

Yes, representation but not lying for the defendant. How many defense lawyers view this as ‘notches on their gun’, even tho they know their client is guilty?

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

Yes, representation but not lying for the defendant. How many defense lawyers view this as ‘notches on their gun’, even tho they know their client is guilty?

Whether their client is guilt is not for the defense counsel to decide. As far as "lying": The defense counsel's job is to put their client in the best possible light; its the jury's job to decide what is true or not.

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.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

Whether their client is guilt is not for the defense counsel to decide. As far as "lying": The defense counsel's job is to put their client in the best possible light; its the jury's job to decide what is true or not.

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.

I get that but more than a few defendants admit guilt to their attorney but still the attorney attempts to ‘earn’ that not guilty decision. If I was an attorney, I couldn’t with any conscience announce ‘not guilty’ if I knew my client was guilty.
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....

[572cv]

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.

[m4rk540]

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

[rwsaunders]

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

Originally Posted by Mark McM

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?

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.