|
Discendo Vox posted:It appears (again, not my area)that English common law systems generally give their courts much greater latitude regarding hearing cases, and the scope of rulings. This lets the judiciary exhaustively settle issues in one decision that might otherwise require decades of caselaw (or good legislation), but greatly increases their political power and creates potential abuse scenarios. The Canadian and American system are both basically the same as to how they use precedent as far as a know as they're all English common law. Basically all the discussion in that case not directly related to the facts or the law of that case are "just" dicta. I put "just" in scare quotes because that devalues dicta in these cases. No court is going to cite meads v. meads as binding precedent; however, it is both persuasive authority (dicta can be used, it just isn't binding) really justa good primer and resource on sov cit bullshit. It doesn't really create potential abuse or increase political power because the precedent is not binding. Note also that this type of thing tends to be lower court as well. Occasionally you'll seen an appellate court do this, and almost never the highest court -- this limits even appearing to bind because a lower court ruling doesn't really bind anyone. If any judge, higher or lower, thinks it is wrong, they are 100% free to disregard it. If the legislature doesn't like it, they can pass laws to the contrary. Dicta is just like you opinion, man. Re: Cross examination. Don't make to much of defense cross questions, particularly if they are court appointed attorneys. Court appointed attorneys do not have to follow their clients crazy rear end conspiracies (and tend not to because they're crazy rear end stuff). Defense attorneys ask poo poo that seems stupid all the time. Sometimes it is a (bad) joke. Sometimes we expect a "boring" answer but hope for something interesting with the calculation that a "wrong" (i.e. not what I want) answer won't hurt me: this is mostly what the clothes question is. The jury won't remember this question in deliberation if they say no. However, if they say "yes" I can whip it into more than it is in closing. Remember this case has no factual or legal defense, the goal is to throw enough dirt in the air that some juror votes no. A single hung juror means a way better offer -- a few hung jurors might mean a dismissal. If I'm trying this case, I have picked a few "nail" jurors who I think I can get to hang for some reason (likely i think they are contrarian assholes) and I'm just pitching things that just might catch them off guard. (Note that this is still a strategy used in many "innocent" cases as they can be safety valve if something goes wrong. If the rear end in a top hat hangs is 11-1 for NG the judge is probably dismissing that poo poo anyhow). This works particularly well with people who are not "professional witnesses" (aka Cops and expert witnesses -- people who are paid and trained to testify. The other govt employees aren't professionals). Asking a stupid question can have amazing results. I once asked a cop "You didn't really believe the drugs were [my clients]?" And he said "Yes, I thought they were [passenger's]." That is a stupid loving question. What cop is going to say he doubts the dude he arrested possessed the drugs. And yet, this actually happened and if I hadn't asked the question, I'd have never got that answer. Also, in many cases crosses are designed to have some questions that make little sense at the time. These questions are likely useful to my closing -- while I haven't fully prepared my closing yet, I know basically what I want to say and I can't say it if a witness doesn't say it. We try to make these questions as innocuous a possible so we get the answers we want, plus we often don't want the prosecutor or the witnesses to know what we are going to argue. Jury trials aren't about guilt or innocence, even in cases where people are innocent. The goal at the end of the day for a defense attorney is to implant a doubt into the head of a single juror. If we can implant that in 12 jurors, that is just gravy. A hang is a big deal. It reduces the (generally overly confident) prosecutor and witnesses' confidence. This results in better offers and worse testimony. I have seen the prosecutor's entire case and strategy, while I can change mine at my whim. Best of all, I have all the state witnesses locked into on the record testimony in front of a judge. Testimony I promise will change in the 6 months it takes for the retrial to happen. And I can hammer that home. Also, if it goes to trial a second time and the prosecutor hasn't made extraordinary efforts to get rid of the case, something rare may happen: the judge may hate the prosecutor more than me and the defendant. That goes double in a three ring circus like this. If I was trying this case, I'd have picked the craziest, wackiest jury I can. I'd ask crazy rear end poo poo. And I'd probably wrap myself in the flag and conspiracies at the end. I'm not playing to you. I'm not playing to the media. None of those people can control my client's fate. I am playing to that one or two jurors I picked because I thought they might have a molon labe bumper sticker and were able to keep it just quiet enough for the prosecutor to not notice. This isn't a not guilty case. This is hope for a hang case And then hope they made good enough friends with a few followers (admittedly I don't want followers on a jury in this case, I want 12 people who can't stand each other) that I can get a 6-6 hang. Also, if I hang a case, even the craziest client is my new best friend afterwards. edit: I've handled one or two cases differently than this, when I thought it was clear my client should be NG, with very mixed results, so I pretty much have always gone for the hang. I even get NGs out of it. Every single hang I've had as resulted in a dismissal by either the prosecutor or the judge, but I've also never had an 11-1 for guilty. The worst I had was either a 6-6 or a 7-5 for guilty. Judges really don't want to retry stupid cases and "if you couldn't convince at least 10 people the first time Mr. prosecutor what makes you think you will this time?" Even with an 11-1, judges put a lot of pressure on prosecutors to settle, which isn't always something prosecutors are used to (normally they are trying to scare the defense attorney and defendant into pleaing) and if they come back with they same or similar offer to before trial they ask (real quote) "why would [defendant] take that offer?" Prosecutors generally are pretty bad at handling hostile judges. edit 2: My favorite part of this whole fiasco is that the smartest and sanest people in this case are loving arsonists. Arsonists are the loving craziest people on earth. I can pick an arsonist out the minute I walk into a courtroom, and I almost certainly will be declaring a doubt. I think sex offender registries are bullshit, but I think billboards of arsonists should be posted within 20 miles of anywhere they might even drive on a whim once. I have had multiple cases where alleged arsonists have stored buckets of urine and poured it over them when the cops came calling. Also poop. I know these arsonists are "economic" arsonist, who are different, but it is still amusing as poo poo (and somewhat mind blowing) that loving arsonists were the sane and loving reasonable people. nm has issued a correction as of 06:15 on Sep 21, 2016 |
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:43 |
|
|
Lol what did he think the answer would be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
For the record, i wouldn't have asked this one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:You were free to work somewhere else federal scum And this, folks, is why you shouldn't be your own lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:And this, folks, is why you shouldn't be your own lawyer. Seriously. I wouldn't represent myself in anything more serious than a speeding ticket (even then, I got poo poo to do), and I'm like an actual lawyer with many actual jury trials, some of which I even won. Why the gently caress do morons think they can represent themselves? (I guess I answered my own question.) Emotion and your own biases are loving poison. I do know of one lawyer who represented himself and won. He was extremely talented and so deep into meth at the time that he was basically a sociopath (he's sobered up and a real decent guy now). Work real well up until he got charged, convicted, and sentenced to prison (and disbarred) for perjury for that case. Don't loving represent yourselves.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
Bundy: The prosecution claims I am a big dumb idiot fuckman, do you agree? Witness: Yes. Bundy: objection, hearsay . I rest my case.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
jokes on them, he's actually ::bigdumb:of-idiot:fuckman::
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
nm please keep posting that good poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 09:17
|
|
|
Do any of them realize how badly they've hosed up or how serious all those felony charges are? Is it still a trial if the defendant repeatedly admits guilt? If I was him I'd just beg the judge for mercy, because that's the only possible chance he has of not dying in prison.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 09:37
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:And for a change of pace, Here is Blaine Cooper's wife reading out love letters from Blaine Cooper's mistress. Was Blaine the guy who made the 'I'm angry about gummy dicks' and the 'Sorry Daughters, daddy's gotta work' videos?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
DeathSandwich posted:Was Blaine the guy who made the 'I'm angry about gummy dicks' and the 'Sorry Daughters, daddy's gotta work' videos? I think that was John Ritzheimer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
Being a good juror sounds like a difficult job. I enjoy reading about legal stuff in the news but I don't understand how the different parts of law fit together for an actual lawsuit or trial or anything. I think I would need to take notes and have a copy of the transcript with all the objections and stuff struck out, just to keep everything straight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Being a good juror sounds like a difficult job. I enjoy reading about legal stuff in the news but I don't understand how the different parts of law fit together for an actual lawsuit or trial or anything. I think I would need to take notes and have a copy of the transcript with all the objections and stuff struck out, just to keep everything straight. I'm pretty sure the judge gives you instructions on what you should be using to make your decision and what you can't use
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:drunk driving laws were unjust, because you should only be punished after you've hit someone, The only people that ever believe this are the ones that got busted because they considered themselves more important than anyone else. I have zero sympathy or respect for anyone that drinks and drives
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Being a good juror sounds like a difficult job. I enjoy reading about legal stuff in the news but I don't understand how the different parts of law fit together for an actual lawsuit or trial or anything. I think I would need to take notes and have a copy of the transcript with all the objections and stuff struck out, just to keep everything straight. The judge will usually help you with the law->fact->fitting together process. There's a whole process of jury instructions, where the judge will/should lay out, pretty much step-by-step, how the process should word. I.e. "The Defendant has been charged with burglary. The crime of burglary requires illegal entry into a building with intent to commit a crime inside. So you, the jury, need to determine if you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant entered a building, 2) if the Defendant entered a building, they did not have permission, 3) that if the Defendant entered a building, when they did so they had the intent to commit a crime inside." And not to derail, but on last page's civil v. common law point on what gives the judiciary more power, I'm not sure it's fair to characterize common law judges as more powerful. Rather the system admits that they're powerful, and they way they write and produce opinions affects that. If you read, for example, French court decisions, they're very short and terse and unreasoned, which could actually let the judge get away with far more, since they can simply say "x violates the law of 1992 on whatever" without having to produce precedent or authority that that's a proper interpretation of that law.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:If someone says that weren't driving can you take them at their word and book them for not paying due care and attention to the road? I think it'd be hysterical if you found loopholes around their loopholes and the new laws you busted them with in response to their crazy bullshit carried stiffer penalties "Well, if you'd just gone with speeding it'd be a fifty dollar fine and a 'see ya later'. But you insisted you were traveling, so that's not paying due care to the road, so that's a 100 dollar fine and a week in the slammer. Have a nice day"
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 14:16
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Being a good juror sounds like a difficult job. I enjoy reading about legal stuff in the news but I don't understand how the different parts of law fit together for an actual lawsuit or trial or anything. I think I would need to take notes and have a copy of the transcript with all the objections and stuff struck out, just to keep everything straight. If you’ve thought this far ahead, you’ll do better than most of the other jurors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:https://twitter.com/maxoregonian/status/778414214478123008 As someone from Oregon I'm pretty sure that this wasn't a strategy. People in eastern Oregon just wear flannel and jeans literally every day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
DeathSandwich posted:Was Blaine the guy who made the 'I'm angry about gummy dicks' and the 'Sorry Daughters, daddy's gotta work' videos?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Note how the best lawyer is the court appointed one. The problem with retained attorneys is that a: people don't know how to pick attorneys and just pick the one that blows enough smoke up their asses and b: retained attorneys have to care about making the client happy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Does 'discovery at trial' mean he is asking questions that he would already know the answer to if he had reviewed all the evidence properly before the trial? Or something else?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Does 'discovery at trial' mean he is asking questions that he would already know the answer to if he had reviewed all the evidence properly before the trial? Or something else? Asking questions you don't already know the answer to is a dangerous business.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 16:55
|
|
JohnCompany posted:And not to derail, but on last page's civil v. common law point on what gives the judiciary more power, I'm not sure it's fair to characterize common law judges as more powerful. Rather the system admits that they're powerful, and they way they write and produce opinions affects that. If you read, for example, French court decisions, they're very short and terse and unreasoned, which could actually let the judge get away with far more, since they can simply say "x violates the law of 1992 on whatever" without having to produce precedent or authority that that's a proper interpretation of that law. I was referring to specific elements of English common law found in Canadian courts which let judges issue decisions of a sort (several sorts, really) that are categorically barred in the united states.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Joe_Kohlman/status/778592845829644288
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Are we going to get to hear from the thread's greatest hero, Mark the negotiator?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
And when will he be put on trial for his illegal forced joindering? Hmm? Hmmmmm? HMMMMMMMMMMM? And a short recess after for everyone to compose themselves from the fits of laughter as he recites the events that unfolded from the FBI's standpoint I realize they were loving pigs, but jesus christ, even animals are clear than them. loving lazy rear end slobs. I wonder how many are hoarders for the simple act they're too lazy to clean up after themselves SocketWrench has issued a correction as of 17:34 on Sep 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
nm posted:Note how the best lawyer is the court appointed one. Preach. Public Defenders get poo poo on but they are by far the most effective defense attorneys you can find because they do this on the daily. Good private defense attorneys are either former PDs or former prosecutors with drinking and driving problems (and these guys tend to suck at cross because it's not something they get to do often). There is no greater joy than shredding some Ivy-league white-shoe civil scrub who takes thier corporate client's domestic violence case. They tend to be a pain in the rear end with extensive written motion practice ahead of trial, but if you weather that you're golden.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Subterfrugal posted:Preach. Public Defenders get poo poo on but they are by far the most effective defense attorneys you can find because they do this on the daily. Good private defense attorneys are either former PDs or former prosecutors with drinking and driving problems (and these guys tend to suck at cross because it's not something they get to do often). Isn't this only true for states that have salaried public defenders instead of those that contract it out?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Subterfrugal posted:Preach. Public Defenders get poo poo on but they are by far the most effective defense attorneys you can find because they do this on the daily. Good private defense attorneys are either former PDs or former prosecutors with drinking and driving problems (and these guys tend to suck at cross because it's not something they get to do often). What about that whole "people who have to take a public defender confess to the crime 90% of the time before it even gets to trial" thing or the "a lot of times public defenders handle over 1000 cases at once and each client gets an average of 10 minutes total of their time"
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
^My experience with one is when I got busted for no insurance while operating a motor vehicle. He came in, sat down with me, opened my file and said "No insurance, that's it? $100 fine and you're good to go". 5 minutes with him, 4 hours in the courtroom listening to idiots try to explain why they were right and most of whom dressed like they slept behind an abandoned K-mart.hobbesmaster posted:Isn't this only true for states that have salaried public defenders instead of those that contract it out? I'm no expert by any means, but I would think when they contract it's through a firm, not a specific individual, so they just supply the attorneys. If one isn't up to snuff the firm cycles a different one in SocketWrench has issued a correction as of 17:41 on Sep 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Subterfrugal posted:Preach. Public Defenders get poo poo on but they are by far the most effective defense attorneys you can find because they do this on the daily. Good private defense attorneys are either former PDs or former prosecutors with drinking and driving problems (and these guys tend to suck at cross because it's not something they get to do often). What about the private defense attorneys who're on retainer to organized crime? I ask mainly because that's what my uncle was for the longest time and I have no idea what his actual trial stuff was like. He doesn't talk a lot about it. (Great guy. He claims to have been one of the prosecutors during the Serpico investigation before swapping over to criminal defense for some kind of NYC organized crime outfit - I think Gotti, and is now semi-retired and almost exclusively does death penalty cases, because he hates the death penalty.) Mors Rattus has issued a correction as of 17:40 on Sep 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
My only experience is with professional, state-"funded" offices. I'll go to conferences and hear how the judicial process works in places like Mississippi and it is loving terrifying. I feel I would be ethically obligated to spend half my time doing the job that a defense attorney does in my state.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:almost exclusively does death penalty cases, because he hates the death penalty. I would buy this man a beer any time, any where
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Subterfrugal posted:Preach. Public Defenders get poo poo on but they are by far the most effective defense attorneys you can find because they do this on the daily. Good private defense attorneys are either former PDs or former prosecutors with drinking and driving problems (and these guys tend to suck at cross because it's not something they get to do often). I would love to hear more about stuff like this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:What about that whole "people who have to take a public defender confess to the crime 90% of the time before it even gets to trial" thing or the "a lot of times public defenders handle over 1000 cases at once and each client gets an average of 10 minutes total of their time" One would hope that over 90% of the people charged with a crime are in fact guilty.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 17:53
|
|
While I appreciate the important and undervalued role of PDs in society as much as anyone,hobbesmaster posted:One would hope that over 90% of the people charged with a crime are in fact guilty. This is also true. PDs are simultaneously massively overworked and underfunded, and prosecutors (especially federal ones) generally bring charges only when there's not much room for doubt. Anyways, https://twitter.com/conradjwilson/status/778585540782268416 https://twitter.com/maxoregonian/status/778412886074851329 Prosecution is angling to get an interview from the occupation in which the Bundys talked about why they had guns ("to show we're serious"), into evidence. Also, quote:Later, when an FBI agent and pilot Jeffrey Cleveland testified that he flew aerial surveillance during the occupation, and spent about 23 hours flying above the refuge on Jan. 18, Ryan Bundy asked him,"So do you spy on the American people a lot?'' Discendo Vox has issued a correction as of 17:57 on Sep 21, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:What about that whole "people who have to take a public defender confess to the crime 90% of the time before it even gets to trial" thing or the "a lot of times public defenders handle over 1000 cases at once and each client gets an average of 10 minutes total of their time" This is true, but for a good reasons: 1. Almost everyone we charge did the thing that they are charged with. I recognize that sounds incredibly arrogant, but we have a very high burden and our cops are trained pretty well to those standards. If you're charged with DUI, you were probably behind the wheel after you'd been drinking. The only question left is whether we can prove it. 2. Someone reviews the case before they talk with you. The PDs office gets all the reports, records and evidence I do through discovery. I'm ethically required to ensure we can prove everything and it usually takes me about 20 minutes to screen a DUI. I assume that it is faster for a defense attorney because there are only so many places to attack the charge (was the stop good? was the ID good? did the cops follow testing protocol? are the tests internally consistent?). If there's no good issue, then they gotta put the file down to work on a case where there is. 3. the PD you talk to might not be the person who worked on your case. In anything other than the smallest jurisdiction there are going to be multiple PDs working multiple judges. Rather than have all of them go to a cattle-call court day it makes sense to send one guy who can read the notes while everyone else gets desk time. If the State has what they need, no amount of hand holding is going to change that so the dude who doesn't seem to know much about your case telling you that you're hosed and the plea over is reasonable is the practical effect of a system designed for efficiency over what the what we consider to be maxims of customer service.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Subterfrugal posted:Preach. Public Defenders get poo poo on but they are by far the most effective defense attorneys you can find because they do this on the daily. Good private defense attorneys are either former PDs or former prosecutors with drinking and driving problems (and these guys tend to suck at cross because it's not something they get to do often). I must not be thinking of the right thing - why would a corporate client have a DV case? Wouldn't the District attorney be the lawyer?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:43 |
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:I must not be thinking of the right thing - why would a corporate client have a DV case? Wouldn't the District attorney be the lawyer? He defended the corporate client and lost.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 18:17
|
|
