Attempted murder trial. Unusual defense.

[Platapus]

It is a sad commentary on our judicial system when both sides (prosecution and defense) are trying to manipulate the jury instead of just using the facts.

I wonder in the inquisitorial system could ever work in this country? The adversarial system seems to have drifted away from its original intent.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Platapus

It is a sad commentary on our judicial system when both sides (prosecution and defense) are trying to manipulate the jury instead of just using the facts.

I wonder in the inquisitorial system could ever work in this country? The adversarial system seems to have drifted away from its original intent.

That can be blamed squarely on the government ie the prosecution or the persecution as I like to call them.Due to the prosecutors office being a political operation, politics comes into play, esp in the US.Instead of seeking the truth, the boss ie the district/state attorney makes decisions based on politics, the lower levels have no real discretion. Prime example of this is the Case Anthony case.They knew they had no real case but the sensed blood in the water, overcharged her, went for the throat, figuring public emotions would convict her and they lost the case because they slapped a first degree murder charge on her without any real evidence, then tried to use junk science lol.This happens EVERYDAY even the low profile cases as well.

Another factor is the quality of people attracted to that job.I am sorry, but no attorney worth a damn will stay in a government job for long if they can make more money in private sector.The thing is, many are the talentless hacks and dregs of the legal profession, they are there because its a salary and benefits and requires no real talent or ambition to do the job.They are stooges for the government, nothing more.

Typically, they are self righteous, yes men and women who can and do not think for themselves.I encountered them when I worked at a firm and see the types in class who can't wait to be prosecutors and I often remind them they will be nothing more than a stooge for the government.The look on their face, like that of child who realized their hero was in fact not that great, is priceless.

The defense is there to protect the client's rights and keep the government off their back.The outrageous defenses that come out at times can be blamed on the prosecutions outrageous charges, every action there is an equal reaction.

In a perfect world, prosecutors would play by the rules, defense would ensure client's rights are upheld and everyone would go home happy but what are people to do when the government comes down on them? Use the system to your full advantage to get out of it.

[Platapus]

I would agree.

Just like it could be said cynically that a jury is made up of 12 people who are too dumb to come up with a reason to get out of jury duty, it could also be said that a Prosecutor is an attorney not good enough to be hired by a defense law firm.

One of the problems is that prosecutors are evaluated on their conviction rate, not the rate in which the guilty party is brought to justice. A prosecutor wants any conviction of anyone.

When it becomes accepted that most cases end on a plea bargain, it becomes easier for the prosecutor to overcharge, intimidate witnesses, and generally lie in order to manipulate the defendant into accepting a plea bargain. If the defendant is poor and can't afford an equally unethical lawyer, all the better for the conviction record of the prosecutor.

Being that prosecutors are agents of the government and are representing the "people" (what ever that means these days), they have to be held to a higher standard and actually suffer consequences for their misconduct.

Definition of Perjury: When someone, other than a lawyer, lies in court.

How often to we read about cases where the prosecution withheld evidence, suppressed witnesses, and flat out lied to the jury? Too many times. But I seldom read about prosecutors being indicted. The worst that seems to happen is that they are asked to resign so they can then write a book.

If a defense attorney pulls a fast one, a guilty person may go free. If a prosecutor pulls a fast one, an innocent person may go to prison.

Which is the greatest risk to our society?

Well, speaking as a law abiding citizen, I am much more afraid of an unethical prosecutor. Hence, as a law abiding citizen, I expect the government to hold prosecutors accountable. With no, or little, accountability, what is governing a prosecutor's actions?

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I would agree.

Just like it could be said cynically that a jury is made up of 12 people who are too dumb to come up with a reason to get out of jury duty, it could also be said that a Prosecutor is an attorney not good enough to be hired by a defense law firm.

One of the problems is that prosecutors are evaluated on their conviction rate, not the rate in which the guilty party is brought to justice. A prosecutor wants any conviction of anyone.

When it becomes accepted that most cases end on a plea bargain, it becomes easier for the prosecutor to overcharge, intimidate witnesses, and generally lie in order to manipulate the defendant into accepting a plea bargain. If the defendant is poor and can't afford an equally unethical lawyer, all the better for the conviction record of the prosecutor.

Being that prosecutors are agents of the government and are representing the "people" (what ever that means these days), they have to be held to a higher standard and actually suffer consequences for their misconduct.

Definition of Perjury: When someone, other than a lawyer, lies in court.

How often to we read about cases where the prosecution withheld evidence, suppressed witnesses, and flat out lied to the jury? Too many times. But I seldom read about prosecutors being indicted. The worst that seems to happen is that they are asked to resign so they can then write a book.

If a defense attorney pulls a fast one, a guilty person may go free. If a prosecutor pulls a fast one, an innocent person may go to prison.

Which is the greatest risk to our society?

Well, speaking as a law abiding citizen, I am much more afraid of an unethical prosecutor. Hence, as a law abiding citizen, I expect the government to hold prosecutors accountable. With no, or little, accountability, what is governing a prosecutor's actions?

Damn well said Platapus.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by August

Damn well said Platapus.

Every once in a while I get one right.

[mako88sb]

For the ones more savvy about how the law works then me, congratulations. It was in our paper a couple days ago that the Judge agreed that the accused was only trying to scare his ex-wife. Odd, but I can't find a link for that particular piece of news. He was convicted of breaking into her house and shooting her:

http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/09/27...n-shooting-her

The one bit that really confuses me is that the doctors were uncertain about the nature of her wounds as they didn't fit the pattern of the usual gunshot. Thus the case for blanks being used seems possible, What I can't understand is surely when the guy was arrested and his gun confiscated, they would of had whatever ammo was in it at the time. Unless he removed and discarded them somehow. If he managed that, it seems more then likely to me that there was real bullets in that gun or why would he bother? Anyway, I think he should be de-ported back to Iraq once his jail time is served.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by mako88sb

For the ones more savvy about how the law works then me, congratulations. It was in our paper a couple days ago that the Judge agreed that the accused was only trying to scare his ex-wife. Odd, but I can't find a link for that particular piece of news. He was convicted of breaking into her house and shooting her:

http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/09/27...n-shooting-her

The one bit that really confuses me is that the doctors were uncertain about the nature of her wounds as they didn't fit the pattern of the usual gunshot. Thus the case for blanks being used seems possible, What I can't understand is surely when the guy was arrested and his gun confiscated, they would of had whatever ammo was in it at the time. Unless he removed and discarded them somehow. If he managed that, it seems more then likely to me that there was real bullets in that gun or why would he bother? Anyway, I think he should be de-ported back to Iraq once his jail time is served.

Thanks Glad to see he did not get convicted on the attempted murder charge, it would have been a miscarriage of justice.Now, hopefully he will get out in reasonable time, spending 11 months in jail awaiting trial is a travesty.