|
BigHead posted:I've never prosecuted an innocent man. One or two may have been not guilty, but none were innocent. prosecutor.txt
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 04:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:55 |
|
|
Really, who amongst us is truly innocent in the eyes of god? I put it to you. *tosses homeless people into jail*
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 05:10
|
|
|
BigHead posted:I've never prosecuted an innocent man. One or two may have been not guilty, but none were innocent. Boy, that takes me back to my time in the Innocence Project. Last APA I knew that said that shredded exculpatory evidence but didn't shred the memo that told his staff to shred the exculpatory evidence. He went on to get elected prosecutor in a different county! The system works.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 05:17
|
|
|
Instead of jumping on BigHead's totally rad paradigmatic shift in what the judicial system is all about, here's a Tell Me: Tell me how to direct my career to become involved mostly with (civil) appellate litigation. I want to do litigation. And depositions, witnesses prep, discovery, negotiations, settlement, and the occasional trial are all neat and everything (well not discovery but whatever), but that's not what really draws me to litigation. I want to Argue The Law (tm). Like, hunker down in a back room somewhere and spend hours upon hours looking at cold records and drafting briefs about minute points of law, with the occasional oral argument at the end of the tunnel. Is this something only superstars at superstar boutique firms do? I am not one and I don't have any delusions of working at such a place, so that's cool if that's the case. Do mid-to-large sized firms usually let associates (not baby lawyers) run the case all the way up the appeals process, or are there usually dedicated persons who handle the large majority of the firm's appeals -- even if only in an advisory capacity?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 05:19
|
|
|
DuWay posted:Partial success story! Michigan and Chicago are both in the "this is a bad idea put perhaps not a terrible one" tier. That said, the relatively small amount of debt from Michigan makes the overall bad-decision-ometer lean towards "a risk that probably wont ruin me completely and forever" versus Chicago, where the meter stays steady at "this is a bad idea but not a terrible one." Adding to this, however, is the fact that you want to stay in Michigan. Soothing Vapors and I both have firm jobs in Michigan and he went there. I went to Columbia and it was a triplebitch trying to convince people that I wanted to be in Michigan even though I'm from here because I journeyed out of state for law school. This will probably be mitigated lightly by staying in the midwest at Chicago, but I guess I'd like to emphasize that Michigan is the right choice here provided that you won't be totally miserable in Ann Arbor (and there's no objective reason you should). One final word - Michigan midlaw firms make for good lives.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:Boy, that takes me back to my time in the Innocence Project. Last APA I knew that said that shredded exculpatory evidence but didn't shred the memo that told his staff to shred the exculpatory evidence. You misunderstand me. They all did it, some evidence just got suppressed so I couldn't quite prove it. We are not texas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 05:57
|
|
|
BigHead posted:You misunderstand me. They all did it, some evidence just got suppressed so I couldn't quite prove it. We are not texas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 06:02
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:Boy, that takes me back to my time in the Innocence Project. Last APA I knew that said that shredded exculpatory evidence but didn't shred the memo that told his staff to shred the exculpatory evidence. Today I had a DA convince a judge that police officer misconduct (stealing and planting evidence, perjury in a suppression motion, falsifying search warrant affidavits and police reports) has to result in a conviction before it can constitute Brady/Giglio material.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 06:11
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Today I had a DA convince a judge that police officer misconduct (stealing and planting evidence, perjury in a suppression motion, falsifying search warrant affidavits and police reports) has to result in a conviction before it can constitute Brady/Giglio material. You should see what kind of hosed up process we have to go through for any police officer misconduct records. Check out the "pitchess process." Frequently denied and when granted we rarely get anything but old witness contact info. I'm certain it violates the Brady line of cases, but no one has taken up to the Supreme Court. People think California is liberal, but our criminal justice system basically is as "tough on crime" as anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 06:40
|
|
|
Feces Starship posted:Michigan and Chicago are both in the "this is a bad idea put perhaps not a terrible one" tier. Gotta disagree assuming the debt load he mentioned includes living expenses. I'd probably go Mich if it did, and definitely if it didn't. Hate to part with the general negativity here, but Mich at 40k TOTAL is not a bad idea. In my opinion, it's a way better idea than Harvard at 150k.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 07:08
|
|
|
Omerta posted:Gotta disagree assuming the debt load he mentioned includes living expenses. I'd probably go Mich if it did, and definitely if it didn't. Michigan football is gonna be solid as hell next year. Go to Michigan. Big, fun, good public schools are tits.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 07:42
|
|
|
I have had an unusually happy life but my four happiest years were at u of m
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 07:59
|
|
|
Three happiest years here. U of M owns. Furthermore, if you get into Phid House, the experience (and dirt cheap rent) takes it from 'bad idea' to 'would pay another 100K to go again'. Downside: you're still going to law school.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 09:36
|
|
|
nm posted:Con: Putting people in jail is terrible. Also, prosecutors who brag about wins are really annoying because you're supposed to win. No jail, so no worries  More than anything, I'm just relieved to find out that doing trials is something I can do comfortably.nm posted:People think California is liberal, but our criminal justice system basically is as "tough on crime" as anywhere Agree with this 100%, California's criminal justice system is brutal in ways a lot of more culturally right-wing states aren't (although huge swathes of California are also extremely right-wing politically, which a lot of people don't realize.) New York's criminal justice system is pretty "liberal" though in my experience, at least in comparison to most other states.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 12:27
|
|
|
Crazy-rear end clients aren't just the problem of small-law attorneys, it seems: Email from partner this morning: [Paralegal], please print all of [Client's] emails from last night and give to entris. entris, I ask you to briefly summarize these emails. Me: Herp derp okie dokie. (I get the hardcopies.) First email: Client: THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS ARE REDACTED AND FRAUDULENT! I SPOKE WITH A COURT CLERK, WHO READ THEM TO ME OVER THE PHONE WHILE I TAPED THE CALL, AND THE ACTUAL AGREEMENTS ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. The Key Issue here is whether this Agreement has any Force of Law, and is it or is it not a Valid, Enforceable Agreement. The answer is no. No Settlement that contains a Dismissal "With Prejudice", can be revived on a whim. The Provisions of this Agreement are COMPLETELY OUTRAGEOUS, and represent an Alleged Agreement between [Client] and [Opposing Party]. Never, ever, would [Spouse] and I have agreed to this Agreement. Just as the "Mandate" in Obamacare is the "Heart" of the Health Care Plan, approved by both the House and Senate Democratic Majority, without reading of same (Obamacare Documents as Revised delivered to the House and Senate fifteen minutes before the Vote); this Agreement is also the "Heart" of the Consolidation of the prior Settlements and Agreements, which has no Force of Law. Even if this were a Valid Settlement, is a commonly known Fact under [State] Law that ANY SETTLEMENT OF A LAWSUIT IS A NON TAXABLE EVENT. I do know Personally extremely respected Constitutional Lawyers. The "Mandate" fails, at the Supreme Court, barring Political Affiliations, as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It is not a Tax according to Obama and HOlder, but, instead, it is some sort of mutated violation of Multiple Provisions of Our US Constitution. Under [State] Law, both in Equity, and by Statute, the Agreement Fails to Conform to Multiple LAws and Statutes, both in [State] and [Other State] (Which, in the [Year] Agreement, Retains Jurisdiction literally for Perpetuity, yet, States within its four corners, that For Future, Options are open for [Opposing Party] to bring another Action.)  There are like fifteen of these emails, all sent from 5:00 PM through 1:30 AM of last night. It's going to be a long morning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 14:49
|
|
|
Whoa . Somebody took the red pill.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 14:53
|
|
|
DON'T YOU SEE, THE FOUR CORNERS OF OUR STATE REPRESENT THE FOUR CORNERS OF AMERICA'S FOUNDING PRINCIPLES (LIFE, LIBERTY, PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, NO TAXES). Random capitalization always gets me in these crazy person emails. Good thing he knows Personally extremely respected Constitutional Lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 14:54
|
|
|
The only thing I consistently hear about from my friends who went to Michigan is how good the weed is. Which might say more about my social circle than the campus itself, but
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 15:10
|
|
|
Baruch! Look into leasing shared office space today. DO IT!
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 15:17
|
|
|
nm posted:prosecutors who brag about wins are really annoying because you're supposed to win. Braggarts are annoying in general, but lmao at the idea that we're supposed to win. I don't know how it is in California, but here we do have tough cases and limited resources.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 15:43
|
|
|
Omerta posted:Gotta disagree assuming the debt load he mentioned includes living expenses. I'd probably go Mich if it did, and definitely if it didn't. Yeah, I had kind of a late edit, but those debt totals include tuition, food, rent, books, and fees. Excludes personal expenses (booze)/tuition increases. For U of M I used a rent total of about ~$1000/mo to be safe (I haven't looked too much into housing, yet) and $250/mo for food (I currently get by on $200/mo, but that's on the west side of the state - I don't know how much more expensive AA is for this kinda stuff). Unfortunately, it looks like I missed the Phid application because I have been trying to decide where to flush my money by April 15th (Chicago's deposit deadline). I think I'd be happy at either place during my time there. My trouble in deciding, I guess, is coming from whether Chicago is worth 35k as a safety net (i.e. I am assuming I will be median across the board because I am not that special of a snowflake). Also, I am a fan of Chicago's smaller classes... but it really doesn't seem like U of M would be much bigger even though it is a bigger school in absolute terms. I feel like I'm overlooking stuff in making my decision, so thanks for offering the no-bullshit input! DuWay fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Apr 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 17:36
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:Braggarts are annoying in general, but lmao at the idea that we're supposed to win. I don't know how it is in California, but here we do have tough cases and limited resources. Civil litigators have a preponderance standard, so we win some, lose some. but the noble prosecutor isn't supposed to charge unless he has the evidence to carry his case beyond a reasonable doubt. So unless you are running a 90%+ conviction rate, you are piss poor at either (a) screening or (b) prosecuting cases. Or your cops are garbage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Or your cops are garbage. You forgot that they can always give sweetheart deals or dismiss a weak case. I can't force a client to plea on a poo poo case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 19:23
|
|
|
So, uh, bad news. I'm going to Boston University law. The good news is that I got $15k per year off the cost, worked out a deal to avoid room and board costs, and so I'll end up with about $80k debt, all federal loans, which considering that I'm leaving undergrad with no debt whatsoever isn't the end of the world. If I do public service/public interest like I've been looking at, I'll use IBR and loan forgiveness and try to get that down more, but I think I'll be able to swing it. I do wanna thank the thread for teaching me how dumb an idea this is and getting me to get a lot more serious and a lot more critical about it. I still want to be a lawyer-- I really can't imagine doing anything else-- but I've done as much as I can to minimize the entry costs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 19:42
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:worked out a deal to avoid room and board costs Just out of pure curiosity, how do you work out a deal for this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
You don't see this every day...An actual, elected, currently-serving DA posted:Prosecutors must be different than any type of attorney. We are not simply advocates, but are charged with a ministerial duty within the criminal justice system. We are duty-bound to seek justice, period. That duty includes protecting the constitutional and substantive rights of criminal suspects and criminal defendants. We must never abrogate that duty to the justice system we are privileged to serve. Though perhaps he had little choice after the trial judge sent a letter to the jurors, apologizing to them. quote:A failure to disclose evidence of this nature is inexcusable, and is completely abhorrent to the system of justice to which I have devoted my career...The insult to you, and the time, effort and anguish you put into reaching a verdict in this matter, is equally intolerable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 20:27
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:Could be worse. Good luck. Thanks, trying to see if they can come up on that in light of another offer I got from Hastings. That's not with the school, sorry. Should have clarified that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 20:45
|
|
|
joat mon posted:You don't see this every day... Holy shitballs. I've been following this for a while, and I've never seen anything like this before.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 20:52
|
|
|
Omerta posted:DON'T YOU SEE, THE FOUR CORNERS OF OUR STATE REPRESENT THE FOUR CORNERS OF AMERICA'S FOUNDING PRINCIPLES lawcube
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 20:55
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Civil litigators have a preponderance standard, so we win some, lose some. but the noble prosecutor isn't supposed to charge unless he has the evidence to carry his case beyond a reasonable doubt. So unless you are running a 90%+ conviction rate, you are piss poor at either (a) screening or (b) prosecuting cases. Or your cops are garbage. That doesn't even make sense, you can have plenty of close cases involving the ” beyond a reasonable doubt” trial standard. At any rate, good luck remaining employed if you just throw out every case that looks difficult, whether evidence-wise or in terms of arguing about the law itself. Prosecutors and judges (mostly bench trials here) can have different opinions about what constitutes a particular offense, and what is sufficient to establish it. My appeals record is definitely over 90%, but I don't know about trials. There are too many to count and I don't remember the majority of the smaller trials I've done. Agesilaus fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Apr 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 21:02
|
|
|
nm posted:Well, he is in Chicago. No, we aren't necessarily able to dismiss a weak case. We can make an offer but we can't force you to take it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 21:09
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:That doesn't even make sense, you can have plenty of close cases involving the ” beyond a reasonable doubt” trial standard. At any rate, good luck remaining employed if you just throw out every case that looks difficult, whether evidence-wise or in terms of arguing about the law itself. Prosecutors and judges (mostly bench trials here) can have different opinions about what constitutes a particular offense, and what is sufficient to establish it. 1. Bench trials are the airsoft guns of litigation. They. don't. count. e: 1a. Bench trials are the Agesilaus II of kings. OK, yeah, a king, but a LAAAME king. 2. If a state's attorney's appeals record is under 98%, something is seriously wrong. All you have to do is not accidentally concede something and the appellate court will handle the rest. joat mon fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Apr 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 21:18
|
|
|
joat mon posted:1. Bench trials are the airsoft guns of litigation. They. don't. count. Don't count for what? Last time I checked, a murder conviction puts a person away regardless of whether it was a bench or a jury trial. Your comment also has nothing to do with my response to the louisiana sunglasses guy. quote:If a state's attorney's appeals record is under 98%, something is seriously wrong. All you have to do is not accidentally concede something and the appellate court will handle the rest. I agree most appeals are a waste of time, but there was a big difference in the complexity of cases I did when I first started in appeals, and those I did a couple of years later.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 21:24
|
|
|
Feces Starship posted:Adding to this, however, is the fact that you want to stay in Michigan. Soothing Vapors and I both have firm jobs in Michigan and he went there. I went to Columbia and it was a triplebitch trying to convince people that I wanted to be in Michigan even though I'm from here because I journeyed out of state for law school. Feces Starship posted:One final word - Michigan midlaw firms make for good lives.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 21:47
|
|
|
Also, I discovered Drawception this week and my hours are loving tankingHiddenReplaced posted:Got relocated to a new office today. Soothing Vapors fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Apr 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 21:49
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:God this is so true. Michigan firms take a bizarrely parochial and xenophobic view of people who went out of state for school. If you have dare to leave this rancid pisspot of a state to pursue a good education, you will be viewed suspiciously, at best. You accidentally used the term ”good education” in regards to law school.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:God this is so true. Michigan firms take a bizarrely parochial and xenophobic view of people who went out of state for school. If you have dare to leave this rancid pisspot of a state to pursue a good education, you will be viewed suspiciously, at best. Magna/summa at Wayne/MSU seem to do way better in this market than out-of-state lower-T14 medians, or even U Mich kids who had the good fortune to be born somewhere else They're right to be suspicious of anyone that voluntarily wants to stay in that shithole of a state. Either they're losers that can't find a job out of state or they're not right the head.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 21:57
|
|
|
Twenty minutes later and I'm still mad about HiddenReplaced's new office. Im finally starting to understand Patrick BatemanAgesilaus posted:You accidentally used the term ”good education” in regards to law school. A... a good grumblepost?  gret posted:They're right to be suspicious of anyone that voluntarily wants to stay in that shithole of a state. Either they're losers that can't find a job out of state or they're not right the head.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 22:11
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:Twenty minutes later and I'm still mad about HiddenReplaced's new office. Im finally starting to understand Patrick Bateman I only got it because the managing partner, who is also the head of my practice group, decided he wanted to consolidate our group together. The result of his desire was several unaligned partners / of counsel that occupied offices close to him being banished to empty offices on other floors. While the office is larger, I am now within shouting distance of all the partners in my group. Oh well...
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:55 |
|
|
Agesilaus posted:That doesn't even make sense, you can have plenty of close cases involving the ” beyond a reasonable doubt” trial standard. At any rate, good luck remaining employed if you just throw out every case that looks difficult, whether evidence-wise or in terms of arguing about the law itself. Prosecutors and judges (mostly bench trials here) can have different opinions about what constitutes a particular offense, and what is sufficient to establish it. Prosecutors are supposed to win, because a true prosecutor--note how I don't refer to you personally--isn't supposed to charge people on gut feelings or novel interpretations of the law. It's also the nature of the criminal justice system. The majority of your cases come to you because the guy did it. Congratulations, you are very competent at winning trials against poverty-stricken knuckleheads who are in fact guilty. If a case is "close" it's because there is a reasonable doubt, but some poor excuse for a prosecutor has ignored that fact and abused his discretion, wasting the resources of the state in bringing the case to trial.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 23:25
|
|