|
Skunkduster posted:I understand the importance of due process and making sure that everybody gets a fair trial. If were talking about an adult that kidnapped and literally butt hosed an 8 year old child many times, is there a point where defense attorneys will draw the line between "this is a good career move for me" and "I'm not touching this with a 10 foot pole"? Until there's a trial you don't know that dude did anything. For all you know this weirdo vigilante cop, who apparently made recorded statements that he was a pedophile, raped this kid then tried to frame some other random dude for it. That said even if the dude did it if he doesn't have competent representation defending him his conviction will get thrown out on appeal and he will be back on the street. If you want to lock him up, you have to give him a fair trial. A competent defense attorney is part of a fair trial. If you want to put people behind bars you have to make sure they have competent defense attorneys.
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:42 |
|
|
I know there was a big issue here in the Lower mainland recently regarding defense lawyers and how they defended their client. Summary: Child A is raped and murdered in a local park while walking with headphones in her ears. Suspect is arrested later and charged with murder. DNA on the victim was matched to the suspect. Defense used the “she wasn’t that innocent” defense, suggesting it was consensual sex and someone else murdered the victim. Suspect was convicted. This ended with the Child’s father bringing a loaded gun to the courtroom and multiple threats against the defense lawyers and their families. So… I know defense lawyers have a duty to defend. But that defense is just hard to comprehend as a lay person when something so heinous as that happens. They didn’t even deny the DNA evidence. So it came across a lot like victim blaming, and idk, how often does that actually work these days?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 20:29
|
|
|
ChickenDoodle posted:I know there was a big issue here in the Lower mainland recently regarding defense lawyers and how they defended their client. Forcing the state to comprehensively prove that there was no consent (neither possibly nor factually) and the defendant was in fact the murderer. I mean, is that a pretty stupid line of defence? Absolutely, I would never try that poo poo and in fact it would in my case be borderline an ethics issue to bring up irrelevant arguments (if they argue the impossible) that are offensive (and therefore may bring the profession in to disrepute). That said defence attorneys even if they are poo poo at their job are given A LOT of leeway because they are in fact the state's evidence of the defendant having received a proper defence. Seriously, none of these examples you are bringing up are these terrifying mind shattering revelations that stoke our indignant rage. I've barely done defence work compared to some law goons and I have seen some poo poo and had ugly upsets. Terrible things happen all the time and child sexual abuse isn't at all uncommon in the criminal courts. If you can't handle getting real close to horrifying poo poo and still doing a good job, you need to switch fields. You cannot as a defence attorney be part of the reason someone is convicted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 20:42
|
|
|
ChickenDoodle posted:I know there was a big issue here in the Lower mainland recently regarding defense lawyers and how they defended their client. From a forensics point of view known samples would have to be taken from both the victim (K1) and the suspect (K2). Getting the sample from the suspect usually requires a warrant but sometimes they willingly cooperate or police bully them into it. Then you compare those samples from the unknown samples taken from the victim (U1 -> U#). If for example K1 matches U1 and K2 is also seen then that mixture would match both individuals. That match would prompt you run the probabilities and figure out the likelihood that the unknown sample could have been anyone else. Usually this is in the duodecillions so it almost certainly couldn't be anyone else. This is pretty hard to attack from what I've personally witnessed. Usually I get called to quibble with their experts over signal thresholds, noise in the data, instrument calibration, protocols, instrument maintenance, proficiency testing of the person performing the analysis. Mixtures are also pretty complicated because once you go more than 3 people involved the data becomes difficult to interpret in the first place. The funniest thing I've seen is an attorney in fayette county PA dance around the term "in-breeding coefficient" because the jurors might be a bit sensitive to the idea of in-breeding.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 20:51
|
|
|
Very early in my career I thought I wanted to do criminal defense. Then my firm represented a guy charged with possession and distribution of CSAM. I investigated whether there was some way what the client claimed was true, that his computer (ie Kazaa) accidentally downloaded the CSAM without his knowledge. I had to look at the evidence (at the DA’s office) to “test the validity” of the charges, ie that this was in fact CSAM. I’ve never done criminal defense since. So you see, some lawyers do in fact have a moral compass. (He ended up pleading no contest) Phil Moscowitz fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Jan 9, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 20:51
|
|
|
Sometimes you go to trial with the arguments you have not the arguments you want. That said, I will say i personally have never had to defend cases where victims were juveniles. A family member works in an office that helps prosecute specifically those cases so I was conflicted out of all of them. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Jan 9, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 20:51
|
|
|
joat mon posted:
Christ, gently caress those interviews. Over here we handle them in a special safe house thing controlled by the police and it's a therapy service building basically. Judge, prosecutor and defence counsel is in a seperate room viewing on cameras and a specially trained child psychologist who is also a police officer conducts the interview. Both sides submit their questions to the judge who controls the process, and nixes any off questions. The police interviewer also advises on probable avenues and gauges how well the child is handling questions, and can also refuse certain questions. It's an ok system that is minimally traumatic, but it's no kind of real cross. That said in the vast majority of cases it's just stony silence, the police interviewer needs (and sometimes gets) days to build a relationship up to the point where they start answering. poo poo is depressing to remember. Glad I work for the real bad guys now (the government).
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 20:53
|
|
|
Skunkduster posted:I understand the importance of due process and making sure that everybody gets a fair trial. If were talking about an adult that kidnapped and literally butt hosed an 8 year old child many times, is there a point where defense attorneys will draw the line between "this is a good career move for me" and "I'm not touching this with a 10 foot pole"? Why are these the points that need a line drawn between them? You make it sound like you think lawyers believing everyone deserves a defense is some kind of fig leaf nobody really takes seriously.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 21:10
|
|
|
SANE nurses get it pretty bad too when it comes to cases involving children. I don't know how people do that job long-term.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 21:13
|
|
|
What if Hitler actually had a trial and needed a lawyer 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 21:15
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:What if Hitler actually had a trial and needed a lawyer ... I thought that was what Nuremberg was for?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 21:19
|
|
|
I believe everyone deserves a defense but a vigorous defense shouldn't involve an insurance company shill saying poo poo that's literally false and distorting facts to the point of them becoming lies in order to defend his client. But it seems like you probably have to do that since the upside is sometimes getting your client off or at least reducing damages and the downside is apparently maybe a little pride when the judge tells you to quit being a stupid piece of poo poo but no real repercussions. Like the consequences for violating motions in limine and poo poo shouldn't be the judge saying "loving quit it" they should be fines payable to the opposition or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 21:45
|
|
|
Skunkduster posted:I understand the importance of due process and making sure that everybody gets a fair trial. If were talking about an adult that kidnapped and literally butt hosed an 8 year old child many times, is there a point where defense attorneys will draw the line between "this is a good career move for me" and "I'm not touching this with a 10 foot pole"? I was going to list the crimes of the 25 offenders within 3 miles in my parents’ rural town, but it’s too depressing. But eye-opening if you haven’t done it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 23:00
|
|
i like nice words
|
I think you guys are thinking of defense attorneys as people whose only job it is is to keep defendants from being convicted. That's not really their job. The overwhelming majority of defendants are definitely absolutely guilty and their lawyer knows it. Part of the job is to make the State do their job, not just to protect the Rights of this particular defendant, but all the innocent ones who's rights will keep them from being wrongfully convicted in the future. It's so that we never start summarily deciding who gets a defense and who doesn't, because if we get there, then nobody will get one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 23:23
|
|
|
Also if you don't have defence lawyers then you don't need a trial, and that means you don't need prosecutors, and if you don't need defence lawyers or prosecutors then that's a lot of lawyers out of a job.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 23:35
|
|
|
Thank you all for the very well thought out answers. To a layperson like me, it has been a very informative read.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 00:05
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Also if you don't have defence lawyers then you don't need a trial, and that means you don't need prosecutors, and if you don't need defence lawyers or prosecutors then that's a lot of lawyers out of a job. Truly the most righteous of reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 00:27
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:What if Hitler actually had a trial and needed a lawyer He would have gotten a much better lawyer than a lot of people currently on death row or life sentences in the US did. His successor, Admiral Doenitz, got a good enough lawyer that he was able to win against most of the charges against him and got only a ten year sentence. Notably, the Allies tried to prosecute him for engaging in unrestricted submarine warfare, and his lawyer was able to argue essentially 'that's also what the US Navy did, how can you charge me for it?".
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 00:58
|
|
|
Skunkduster posted:Thank you all for the very well thought out answers. To a layperson like me, it has been a very informative read. Same, thank you all. Just to add, the general consensus on the situation was “we understand why the victim’s family feels that way, but holy poo poo how did he get a loaded gun into a courtroom?!” They’re installing metal detectors now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 02:38
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Part of the job is to make the State do their job, not just to protect the Rights of this particular defendant, but all the innocent ones who's rights will keep them from being wrongfully convicted in the future. It's so that we never start summarily deciding who gets a defense and who doesn't, because if we get there, then nobody will get one. I have some very bad news for you about the correlation of someone's wealth with the effectiveness of their defense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 03:12
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Why are these the points that need a line drawn between them? You make it sound like you think lawyers believing everyone deserves a defense is some kind of fig leaf nobody really takes seriously. Reminds me of the deeply stupid The Escape Artist miniseries which is about a lawyer getting a murderer declared innocent, but then the murderer thinks that his lawyer thought he did it, so stalks him and murders his wife. So the lawyer's rival takes on the case and wins it, but doesn't think he's innocent either and is just doing that to gently caress with the lawyer, so the murderer then starts stalking and trying to kill her as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 04:11
|
|
|
Quick backstory: my dad was sick, I quit my job and came back home to take care of him, he died two months later. Now I'm stuck in his house with mounting bills and utility shutoffs looming. I just received a letter from the probate attorney to name me as administrator. I am very confused about the surety bond. Do I purchase it personally; does the attorney set it up? I've been reading for a few hours now and I am thoroughly confused. I have zero dollars to my name.This is in CA if that helps. Thanks in advance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 11:16
|
|
|
Skunkduster posted:Thank you all for the very well thought out answers. To a layperson like me, it has been a very informative read. To add in an answer from another perspective, we help the public perception problem by having what's called the cab-rank rule. The rule is that if you are a barrister and some approaches you to represent them, you can only say no if you genuinely can't do it because you're too busy or don't have the right expertise. You can't say no just because you don't like the person or their case. This means that everyone (who can pay) can obtain representation and also no one can think badly of the barrister for taking on the case (although in practice people are stupid so it still happens).
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 11:59
|
|
|
VplDyln posted:Quick backstory: my dad was sick, I quit my job and came back home to take care of him, he died two months later. Now I'm stuck in his house with mounting bills and utility shutoffs looming. Ask your attorney if they can advance costs and get reimbursed at closing for the real estate sale. If they can't, ask if they can administer the estate instead. If you call the local probate court, they can provide you a list of bondsmen who provide surety in your area.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 13:57
|
|
|
What's a good gift for a defense attorney who did a good job for you? (besides paying him his fee)
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 14:54
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:What's a good gift for a defense attorney who did a good job for you? (besides paying him his fee) Not a defense attorney, but I still have the only three "Thank you" cards I've ever received from hundreds of clients that I got a good result from. Just knowing that you appreciate them is enough. Also we're all a bunch of drunks so booze usually hits the spot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 15:04
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:
We take it a step further in that in very nearly every single case, a licensed attorney is expected to be able to perform as a defender, and if chosen by the defendant is obligated to do so paid for by the state (fixed rate which sucks), unless the case is so complex it threatens the quality of the defence in which case they may bring on extra defence counsel. Only very rarely might the judge let them off this duty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 15:17
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:What's a good gift for a defense attorney who did a good job for you? (besides paying him his fee) Commit another crime so you can give them the gift of job security
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 17:04
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:What's a good gift for a defense attorney who did a good job for you? (besides paying him his fee) If it's a pd, the best present is not getting arrested again (and if you do, the best present is not talking to cops) If he was a private atty alcohol is good and referrals are better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 17:09
|
|
|
Seasonal baked goods Let them write their own google review for you to post. "This attorney is the John Wick of defense counsel!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 17:12
|
|
|
Card and booze. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 19:24
|
|
|
This is obviously baloney, right? The idea of a tree owning itself is ludicrous because in the eyes of the court, trees have no agency. So this is all just wishful thinking, or some sort of tall tale that townies spread?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 19:38
|
|
|
null_pointer posted:This is obviously baloney, right? The idea of a tree owning itself is ludicrous because in the eyes of the court, trees have no agency. So this is all just wishful thinking, or some sort of tall tale that townies spread? Yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 19:56
|
|
|
null_pointer posted:This is obviously baloney, right? The idea of a tree owning itself is ludicrous because in the eyes of the court, trees have no agency. So this is all just wishful thinking, or some sort of tall tale that townies spread? https://www.visitathensga.com/things-to-do/attractions/the-tree-that-owns-itself/ It is true that the tree is deeded to itself. Technically the legality of the tree owning that 64 sq ft plot of land has never been challenged, so as of now, that tree owns itself. I can't see the tree necessarily winning in litigation, but you'll also piss off the entirety of Athens, GA if you sued to claim that land. It's legally binding as long as the city of Athens collectively agree that it is, which will probably continue as long as there is an Athens, GA. I could see any successful challenge of ownership of the land stymied by city action such as designating it as a historical landmark if it is not already legally protected in such a way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 20:05
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 20:44
|
|
|
You set up a tree trust (treest)
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 21:07
|
|
|
Gotta trust the tree trust to win in court though. If you cut it down who's going to sue you? Some stupid squirrel? I could beat a squirrel in any contest including in court.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 21:25
|
|
|
BigHead posted:I could beat a squirrel in any contest Says person who has never encountered an angry squirrel in a confined space
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 21:45
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:It's legally binding as long as the city of Athens collectively agree that it is... which, in a way, is all laws everywhere
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:42 |
|
|
It also helps to think of laws/rights/duties like "schroedinger's cat" where they don't exist until observed, or in this case, adjudicated in some fashion. It may be illegal for me to poke my neighbor with a stick in the same way the tree owns the land, but until there is some state action related to that right, like a civil suit, its all prospective. Laws are transactional, they exist as the fulcrum for competing interests, and only exist when those competing claims meet. Sometimes clients or potential clients will say something like, "but they can't do that, its illegal." and my response is "they just did, though." So, yes, the tree "owns itself" in every sense until some entity with the power to challenge that concept actually does so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 22:00
|
|