|
Frankly I think ending the war on drugs would decrease my gang related homicide caseload, so I'm all for it.
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I'm curious as to what the opinions are of the drug war from inside the system. It seems like the public faces of the system like police chiefs and police union bosses are always staunch drug warriors, I get the feeling that opinions are more diverse among the rank and file. What are your experiences? This is more a question about your co-workers than any people actually posting in here, since obviously drug war support and owning a Something Awful forums account don't typically go together. Everyone thinks it is stupid except for a few select cops, DAs, and judges. But none of the people with authority have the stones to do anything about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
Whats the difference between a plea of guilty and a plea of no contest? Also, when looking for potential jurors do you generally want someone who has knowledge of the justice system, or someone who is clueless? I once read a poll that said most Americans assume anyone taking the fifth amendment is guilty and just the fact that they're on trial proves they're guilty. How do you defense attorneys deal with that without wanting to stab people in the face?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
Titan posted:Whats the difference between a plea of guilty and a plea of no contest? Also, when looking for potential jurors do you generally want someone who has knowledge of the justice system, or someone who is clueless? I once read a poll that said most Americans assume anyone taking the fifth amendment is guilty and just the fact that they're on trial proves they're guilty. How do you defense attorneys deal with that without wanting to stab people in the face? No contest just lets someone plead guilty without admitting they did it, which is a thing mostly because people don't like to think of themselves as bad people or admit it out loud even if they recognize no one is gonna buy that they didn't do it. I've always figured that if you have a weak case you want a gullible jury and if you have a strong case you want someone logical. But it depends what you mean by knowledge of the justice system because the jury is gonna get plenty of instructions from the court so if they just follow the instructions and consider the evidence like they are supposed to that is how it is supposed to work. If knowledge is  "I know from selling bail bonds/my cousin who is a cop/watching Bones" that is the type of person who is a terrible juror (and personality) objectively but one side or the other will definitely benefit from their terrible opinion being in the jury box so it's up to the side they would hurt to figure that out and strike them.A lawyer will almost always get removed by a peremptory, especially if one side thinks their practice area biases them, but this is because most trial attorneys are insecure divas who are afraid another lawyer will not be wowed by their magic tricks. I'm of the opinion that a lawyer in the jury is gold unless there is something about them that otherwise reveals bias. I definitely would not burn a peremptory on someone for being a lawyer unless I know my case is weak. If my side of the case is decent there is definitely going to be someone else it's better for me to remove. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
Guilty means "Judge, it was me, I did it.", no contest means "Judge, I don't want to fight the charges."
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
On the defense stuff, not a defense attorney but there are lots of instructions that tell juries not to assume someone's guilty, to be impartial, and all the rest. Not everyone is going to pay a lot of attention but hopefully through removals (both for cause and peremptory) you get a group that is okay. If you are in a jurisdiction that allows the lawyers to ask the prospective jurors questions directly during selection, the common strategy is to try to engage them. "Has anyone heard the phrase innocent until proven guilty? What does that mean to you?" Then during closing some people bust out a shaggy dog story about how a they thought their neighbor's shaggy dog was knocking down their garbage can but it turned out to be a bear/raccoon/snake depending on your geography and that's what happens when you jump to conclusions. There are a million different variations but it's the same basic tactic to get the jury thinking about the instructions they receive in way that helps the defense. This is how a system works when you select a jury more or less as a sample of the population. The judge and lawyers are going to go through certain motions for the benefit of the lay people deciding the case. A lot of tactics and instructions would be unnecessary if we adopted a system of professionally trained juries, which some reformers have suggested. But this would be highly controversial and unlikely to happen in the US given the right to a jury of one's peers. Also most removals are due to the optional peremptory strikes. For cause removal is not super easy unless someone has a conflict or an emergency because they will basically have to admit they can't be fair, which is another thing people don't like to do though some will if they figure it will get them out of jury duty. As I understand it they've still got to waste time in the big jury pool though so it's not that effective except as a way of pissing judges off. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 05:56 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
Tokelau All Star posted:Guilty means "Judge, it was me, I did it.", no contest means "Judge, I don't want to fight the charges." It seems problematic to me that you can punish/imprison someone who has neither been found guilty nor admitted guilt. Do you think the justice system benefits from having this plea available? What do you think about the Alford plea? That's pretty hosed up too, but it makes more sense to me than having "no contest" as an available option. Is it maybe even the same thing by a different name?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
PT6A posted:It seems problematic to me that you can punish/imprison someone who has neither been found guilty nor admitted guilt. Do you think the justice system benefits from having this plea available? It seems hosed up until you put yourself in the defendant's seat. Lets say you are charged with a crime that comes with manditory sex registration and life in prison. You are offered no jail and no registration. You are innocent, but the facts look bad. Do you plea? That is an extreme choice, but not having that out would be bad for clients. Sure we can talk about how bad it is than innocent people are taking pleas, and I agree in the big picture sense, but innocent people do get convicted at a non negligible rate and do you really want to risk it? No contest is also useful because in some jurisdictions, it cannot be used against you in a civil case. Lets say you got a dui where you hit another car. You don't dispute the dui, but the other guy ran a red light. By pleaing no contest, you preserve civil remedies (or defenses) without subkecting everyone to a trial. Also the easiesy way to think of a no contest plea is essentially doing a judge trial where you agree to stipulate to the police report as a factual basis and present no evidence. nm fucked around with this message at 07:24 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
nm posted:It seems hosed up until you put yourself in the defendant's seat. Lets say you are charged with a crime that comes with manditory sex registration and life in prison. You are offered no jail and no registration. You are innocent, but the facts look bad. Do you plea? That is an extreme choice, but not having that out would be bad for clients. Sure we can talk about how bad it is than innocent people are taking pleas, and I agree in the big picture sense, but innocent people do get convicted at a non negligible rate and do you really want to risk it? And from the prosecutor's perspective, let's say you have a defendant who is guilty as gently caress, the evidence is overwhelming, but the trial would be long, and very stressful for the victim/victim's family, but the defendant insists on maintaining his innocence, despite all evidence to the contrary. (I've had Alford cases where the victim and three witnesses who knew the defendant prior to the crime all ID'd him at the scene, the cops arrived while the robbery was in progress, and two co-defendants took deals for their testimony, but the defendant still insisted it wasn't him) Letting him do an Alford just gets it over with. As a general rule, if a defendant is willing to plead, Alford or otherwise, it's in the state's best interest to take it. However, doing an Alford plea can screw you at sentencing because judges like to see you take responsibility for your actions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 12:11
|
|
|
I've always heard that if you can get a bench trial you should go for that instead of a trial by jury; Apparently bench trials end in acquittals or not-guilty verdicts at a far higher rate than jury trials. As a lawyer, have you ever advised a client to try to get a bench trial, and is what I've heard true at all?
big trivia FAIL fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
I've almost always seen the opposite. Most choose the jury (and I think you can always choose a bench trial, which is cheaper and quicker for the court, unless some jurisdiction doesn't let you waive jury for some dumb reason). Unless there's something about a crime or defendant that is likely to make jurors see red because of some kind of bias it is always going to be easier to convince at least one juror to go your way. Put more cynically in a criminal context, most things going to trial are going to have a good amount of evidence and it's better to gamble that someone on a jury will get hung up on some little thing that makes them feel doubt, especially if the defendant is going to come across as sympathetic. Judges have the experience to tune that stuff out. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Do juries have to be unanimous to reach a verdict? Does this depend on the jurisdiction or other factors? I've seen a handful of TV shows or whatever where one juror won't convict and it keeps everyone stuck there and the guy's being pressured to agree so they can all go home. Is this an actual thing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
Normally criminal trial needs to be unanimous but for more detail see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hung_jury
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^ I think I've hung more juries than cases that have come back with a verdict. They all got dismissed. Someone was talking about jury selection. It is both real and bullshit. There are some attorneys who can pick a jury like a boss. The problem is that it really isn't a skill which can be taught or explained, but it is undeniable that some people can pick juries that are far more likely to acquit. I actually think it has more to do with getting the jury to think your way in jury selection. However, I do think that picking a jury which can hang is a skill that can be taught. If you pick a jury that will hate each other, think a wide variety of races, backgrounds, and income levels, people with strong opinions, those people will be far more likely to hang. And if a jury hangs at 50-50 or better, odds are they judge will dismiss (unless it is serious or high profile) because who wants to spend another week listening to the same bullshit for the same result? If it hangs worse than that, unless it was like 11-1, odds are client will get a better deal. I always tried to hang juries. Very few NGs, but lots of never convicted clients -- same result, easier to predict. -S- posted:I've always heard that if you can get a bench trial you should go for that instead of a trial by jury; Apparently bench trials end in acquittals or not-guilty verdicts at a far higher rate than jury trials. As a lawyer, have you ever advised a client to try to get a bench trial, and is what I've heard true at all? Absolutely not. If there are statistics that show that it is only because the defense was given a signal by the judge that they wanted to make the case go away. I have never done a bench trial that wasn't a sham (i.e. slow plea or stupid loving case a baby DA wouldn't dismiss) in some way because judges are way more likely to convict than juries. nm fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Regarding the jury stuff, I was on a sequestered jury (got to know some random people and deputies really well, interesting experience) for a week a few months ago and one thing I found interesting is how "uninvolved" the jury selection process seemed to be. Just about the only things asked of us (and they asked us as a group, not one on one) were "Do you think you'd have a bias for any reason?*" and "Do you have any negative feelings towards the police?" (the prosecutor asked this one). Even though no one spoke directly about the case during the trial (since we're not allowed to), I feel like I might have been placed in an awkward situation had I not been selected as an alternate on the final day. Based upon the evidence given, I was ready to find the defendant guilty of attempted second degree murder (+ the related charges of being a convicted felon with a firearm and something else I forget), but the prosecutor was pushing for attempted first degree murder. There was literally no evidence proving premeditation; it's entirely possible the defendant was really drunk and just decided on the spur of the moment to shoot the the victim for some personal reason. I feel like the rest of the jury probably would have just agreed with the prosecution, since several said things like "man I bet deliberations will just be 10 minutes!" In the end I'm not sure how I feel about being selected as an alternate. On one hand I avoided a potentially awkward situation, but on the other it's possible that this guy is going to spend longer in prison than he should because I wasn't there. Hopefully it wouldn't have made any different either way. By the way, I have a couple questions, one for nm and another for whoever might know best. The first is regarding something that the defense did that I thought was kind of bizarre. We had a video of the crime for this case, and in the video it was super obvious that the defendant fired his gun 6 times and it looked like a revolver (thus being fired 6 times). The defense attempted to argue that this was all total speculation and we only know he fired the shot that visibly punctured a soda bottle and the one that hit the defendant. I think this was because it looks worse if the defendant emptied all his rounds before deciding to leave (which would obvious show that he was more serious about killing this guy). The thing is, it was obvious from looking at my fellow jury members that pretty much everyone was rolling their eyes and like "ugh typical lawyer behavior!" While I understood that there was nothing wrong with doing what the defense did, I'm not sure why they chose to argue something that seemed to turn the jury against them (and really obviously too, I was cringing while he said this stuff). Was it a gamble that it would convince just one person or something? The second is that I was honestly not sure whether the evidence we had was enough for it to be right to find him guilty. The only eye witness was the victim and you couldn't see the face of the shooter in the video. I think that the victim was probably telling the truth and as far as I know he didn't have any reason to lie about anything (he had even gone to the defense's office asking not to prosecute), but what if he wasn't? It's just such a heavy thing. On one hand I don't want to send this guy to prison for many, many years if there's a chance he didn't commit the crime, but on the other I felt about 95% certain he did commit it and would have felt weird preventing his punishment under those circumstances. Honestly, the more I think about it the happier I am that I was chosen as an alternate. *There was this one lady who was like "YEAH I BET HE DID IT AND I WOULD VOTE GUILTY RIGHT NOW IF I COULD" and the judge made her go to every day of the trial and do jury duty again the following week
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
It sounds like you were faced with the age old question of reasonable doubt. If you were around for closing arguments or instructions you should get instructions by the judge on the what reasonable doubt means but this is an area where a lot of the instructions are ridiculously unhelpful and there's a lot of disagreement. I've usually heard it described as proof that would make a reasonable person hesitate in making an important decision. That doesn't seem like a perfect interpretation to me because there are tons of things that make me hesitate that I might consider and then decide aren't really reasonable. Also Canada doesn't go by that description according to was Wikipedia. But it's an attempt to break it down in a common sense way. I think it would make a lot more sense and cut down on confusion to pick a number like 95%+ and say that's proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but courts will never do this unless the constitution gets amended to say that because the system of courts interpreting the law is based on precedence and giving a specific number like that would be unprecedented. You'd also have the problem of people who can't calculate odds wrapping their heads around probability but I'd argue it's still better to set a firm number than what we do now. TLDR- no one knows what beyond reasonable doubt is except it means a lot more than "probably" but a little less than "certainly". Some people won't get that based on the jury instructions they get because the instructions are poo poo. But if you're talking more philosophically about what if you get it wrong on a verdict, that sucks for sure. And it would still happen sometimes even if the law said only convict if you're positive. The system will always be imperfect and the best we can do is minimize the flaws, which is some heavy poo poo. You also mentioned eyewitness testimony which is a whole other 
yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 06:44 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
I'm curious on what a person who knows how the justice system generally works would think of the film "12 Angry Men." Is there anything blatantly wrong in it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Kanine posted:I'm curious on what a person who knows how the justice system generally works would think of the film "12 Angry Men." Is there anything blatantly wrong in it? For starters, the majority of the jurors seem reasonably well educated and intelligent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Not a lawyer, but I'll throw my hat into the ring. I'm a PHD who researches gun violence and homicide, with a focus on human geography, poverty and neighborhoods. Currently working on two federally funded grants in two highly violent midwest cities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Kanine posted:I'm curious on what a person who knows how the justice system generally works would think of the film "12 Angry Men." Is there anything blatantly wrong in it? Blatantly no, because most jurors ignore their jury instructions the second the judge stops talking. Theoretically there is quite a lot wrong with it. Almost all of the conversations they have are conversations jurors aren't supposed to have. Speculating on evidence that wasn't presented, changing your vote just to get it over with, etc. I'd have to watch it again to break down the details but it's one of those things that I think does a good job of showing discussions jurors actually have but aren't supposed to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
NightConqueror posted:Not a lawyer, but I'll throw my hat into the ring. I'm a PHD who researches gun violence and homicide, with a focus on human geography, poverty and neighborhoods. Currently working on two federally funded grants in two highly violent midwest cities. Sociology, criminology, public health? I'm sociology/public health, mostly a focus on immigrant issues.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
What is your opinion on and the reasoning behind DAs threatening the maximum possible charge given the evidence just to coerce a plea agreement? Or does it not happen like that? Also this may not directly relate to your position, but why do prisons force inmates to work for fractions of a dollar per day? ShadowMoo fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:What is your opinion on and the reasoning behind DAs threatening the maximum possible charge given the evidence just to coerce a plea agreement? Or does it not happen like that? Are you asking whether prosecutors have an incentive to pursue lower charges than the facts support? Like if a guy robbed a convenience store at gunpoint, would/should the prosecutor just ignore that it was an aggravated robbery, and just pursue simple robbery charges?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:Also this may not directly relate to your position, but why do prisons force inmates to work for fractions of a dollar per day? Because it is cheaper and they can get away with it because no politician feels an incentive to do anything about it (mostly they are just going to hear about "mah tax money feeding/housing criminals").
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Because it is cheaper and they can get away with it because no politician feels an incentive to do anything about it (mostly they are just going to hear about "mah tax money feeding/housing criminals"). I think a better question would be "what legal loophole allows prisons to even get away with this" like is there some special status that makes wage laws not apply, or are there explicit laws allowing slavery, or what?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
many johnnys posted:I think a better question would be "what legal loophole allows prisons to even get away with this" like is there some special status that makes wage laws not apply, or are there explicit laws allowing slavery, or what? Yes. Take a closer look at the 13th Amendment. Amend. 13, Art. 1 posted:Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Yes. Take a closer look at the 13th Amendment. lol. '27 weird tricks the government doesn't want you to know!'
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:lol. '27 weird tricks the government doesn't want you to know!' "27 things that coach might have glossed over in Civics Class"
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Yes. Take a closer look at the 13th Amendment. Well, that and the fact that FLSA is frequently found not to apply to prisoners.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
I was under the impression that prison labor was generally voluntary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Edit: question thread
blarzgh fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I was under the impression that prison labor was generally voluntary. Depends on the state. It sure as poo poo isn't in the south. In other states it is voluntart, but if you don't you lose a lot of priviledges.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I was under the impression that prison labor was generally voluntary. It generally is voluntary, if only because the labor costs of the additional guards required to get prisoners to work involuntarily would make doing so cost prohibitive. Instead, as nm pointed out, privileges and good time credits (i.e. doing as little as 1/3 of your time vs. serving 100%) are conditioned upon working. Some pittance of pay is often included; in my state, $7.23 per month to start, up to $14.45 per month. Prison industries, if you can get on, pay more. Most get .20 to.25 per hour, with rare cases up to .43 per hour.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Some of you might be interested in UNICOR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Prison_Industries) Basically a metal working shop in many federal prisons that competes for government contracts and (ideally) gives inmates a transferrable skill upon release. Also, the pay gets up to $1.15 per hour, which is as far as I know the highest paying job in the entire federal system. Pook Good Mook fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Jun 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:What is your opinion on and the reasoning behind DAs threatening the maximum possible charge given the evidence just to coerce a plea agreement? Or does it not happen like that? Generally we charge based on what the evidence supports, at the highest level possible because...you know...the state likes to hold people responsible for their criminal actions. Now, if the defendant is willing to plead guilty it (a) shows they are taking responsibility and therefore likely have greater rehabilitative potential (b) spares the victims the stress of a trial (if applicable) (c) saves the state money and time and (d) guarantees a conviction, rather than rolling the dice with the jury. In my jurisdiction cases are pretty much won or lost in voir dire. So yeah, in light of all that, we're willing to cut some defendant's a break. I can't speak for other places, but here, we tend not to get too personally involved in our cases. Guy wants to plead? Awesome. Guy gets acquitted? Meh. Sucks, but doesn't really change my life at all. Not to say we don't go for the conviction, but I really like that my office has a general philosophy that our job is to present the evidence competently, not necessarily "win." Obviously that's the goal, but sometimes either the evidence just isn't there, or the jury is dumb. Great lawyers lose cases, lovely lawyers win cases. It has a lot more to do with the strength of the case than the skill of the lawyer in most cases. Either way, I still go home and play video games.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
This is probably a really dumb question, but why are there so many people in the American prison system?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Yes. Take a closer look at the 13th Amendment. But people are sentenced to imprisonment, not to servitude.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:But people are sentenced to imprisonment, not to servitude. From my state: quote:Any court, justice of the peace, police court or police magistrate, in cases where such courts have jurisdiction under the laws of this state, or as provided by the ordinances or charter of any incorporated town or city in the state, shall have full power and authority to sentence such convict to hard labor as provided in this article.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Kanine posted:This is probably a really dumb question, but why are there so many people in the American prison system? If the only focus of penal reform is "reducing prison populations", then the solution is simple- set all the prisoners free (yes, this is how some people view the problem, and yes, a smaller set of people have proposed solutions almost this "clear"). Addressing the root cause of why the prison system has such a large population begins with why people wind up attracting the attention of the criminal justice system in the first place: Poor social services, high availability of addictive substances, and a lack of gun regulation. The best reforms to the US justice system have nothing to do with legalizing pot, banning the death penalty or changing sentencing guidelines. They have to do with tripling US education funding, improving the different welfare systems, and reducing racial and general economic inequality. The availability of firearms and drugs are much harder to address, given the geographic and structural issues involved, but restrictions on these would also help. In all of these cases, the fundamental problem is that these are state-level regulatory or administrated systems, and that the federal components of these systems are massively underfunded. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Jun 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:If the only focus of penal reform is "reducing prison populations", then the solution is simple- set all the prisoners free (yes, this is how some people view the problem, and yes, a smaller set of people have proposed solutions almost this "clear"). Addressing the root cause of why the prison system has such a large population begins with why people wind up attracting the attention of the criminal justice system in the first place: Poor social services, high availability of addictive substances, and a lack of gun regulation. And the criminalization of poverty. Get a $125 red light ticket that's inflated to $400 with fees, don't pay it cause you don't have $400, get sent to jail, can't get bail, plead guilty to a questionable charge to get out so you can go back to work and try to hold your family together because you'll never afford the legal fees and it sucks to defend yourself from inside jail, and on your way home a cop sees you, a black man, fail to park and shut his car off at a red light and decides to write you for it, repeat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 18:06
|
|