Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kaenneth]

Public Defense budget should match Prosecution office's budget.

[mainiac]

Neonevik, there's this little thing called prosecutorial discretion.  Public prosecutors are free to chose not to pursue a case for a variety of reasons such as the likely innocence of the accused.  It's one of the many aspects of the legal system that you apparently don't think exist.

And every time someone points out the problems in the criminal justice system you immediately flee back to circular logic.  No the fact that someone was found guilty doesn't mean that a case should have been brought against them in the first place.  That's the whole darn problem!

[Truean]

I kinda am, since I don't think the US system works. The budget atourneys people get are largely incompetent, leading to the prosecution almost always having more power. Which is horrible for a system with two opposing sites.

Yeah budget lawyers and court appointed ones tend to be either incompetent or overworked or uncaring.

I'm that second one. Occasionally the third once in a while but overwhelmingly the second.

I kinda am, since I don't think the US system works. The budget atourneys people get are largely incompetent, leading to the prosecution almost always having more power. Which is horrible for a system with two opposing sites.

Yeah budget lawyers and court appointed ones tend to be either incompetent or overworked or uncaring.

Not to mention underpaid, you never want someone in that kind of position to be underpaid, it makes it hard to keep quality personnel, makes it so they're more open to corruption, and leads to the aforementioned problems.

Yes. Very yes.

Public Defense budget should match Prosecution office's budget.

  Someone else has my dream!
___________________________________________________________________________

"Th  prosecution did no wrong, for the evidence was clearly irrefutable, because he was convicted because of it" is kind of a circular argument

The prosecution did no wrong because they only worked with the evidence they were given by the police.

The prosecution obviously didn't start a case based off of nothing because they went to pretrail.

It is a A to B and C to D arguement. Not A to B to A

I... It really isn't that simple. So much going on with this kinda thing that it just. Criminal defense as appointed counsel is a massive pain and you often literally get per case what other lawyers charge per hour as a maximum cap on the amount you're paid.... Literally. It's often like $250.... $40 in court. $50 outta court capped at $250....

That doesn't even touch how oftentimes you end up getting next to nothing in the way of evidence from the police. I've had to go out and dig myself for records and I really don't get paid for it. I've actually proved an "arresting officer" was all the way on the other side of town writing a ticket and thus didn't see what he testified about seeing. That is unless of course he could be in two places at once....

"The evidence is the evidence...." That presupposes somebody took the time to investigate fully. Of course this takes effort and somebody to give a damn.... Quite frankly, I'm not surprised this sorta lack happens. After all, "public employees" including police are now portrayed as the bad guys in government whose funding needs cut.... Public defenders in my state haven't had a rate increase in at least 25 years.

Why don't we have justice? Cause nobody pays for it and it doesn't just happen. There's a massive difference between "should be" and "is."

[G-Flex]

Neonivek seems to have the idea that the prosecution is ethically justified prosecuting literally any case, just because, in theory, they should be found not guilty if the evidence isn't good enough.

So, what, does that make it okay for prosecutors with agendas to prosecute literally everyone they don't like for any number of crimes, on the off chance that they'll get away with convicting one, or to avoid going after legitimate offenders? Hell no.

I mean, of course it's the job of the court and the jury to decide whether or not the evidence presented is proof enough of guilt, but it's also the job of the prosecution to exercise discretion in deciding whether or not a case has enough legitimate evidence to bother pursuing, and not to prosecute those who they have no reason to think are guilty.

[Truean]

Neonivek seems to have the idea that the prosecution is ethically justified prosecuting literally any case, just because, in theory, they should be found not guilty if the evidence isn't good enough.

So, what, does that make it okay for prosecutors with agendas to prosecute literally everyone they don't like for any number of crimes, on the off chance that they'll get away with convicting one, or to avoid going after legitimate offenders? Hell no.

I mean, of course it's the job of the court and the jury to decide whether or not the evidence presented is proof enough of guilt, but it's also the job of the prosecution to exercise discretion in deciding whether or not a case has enough legitimate evidence to bother pursuing, and not to prosecute those who they have no reason to think are guilty.

As a matter of fact, you're right: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_8_special_responsibilities_of_a_prosecutor.html

I'm pretty sure every state has adopted this provision from the model rules for professional conduct. Unfortunately that doesn't mean they are always followed.

"He was identified by only one eyewitness who saw a Hispanic male running from the gas station. But DeLuna had just shaved and was wearing a white dress shirt -- unlike the killer, who an eyewitness said had a mustache and was wearing a grey flannel shirt.

Even though witnesses accounts were contradictory -- the killer was seen fleeing towards the north, while DeLuna was caught in the east -- DeLuna was arrested.

'I didn't do it, but I know who did,' DeLuna said at the time, saying that he saw Carlos Hernandez entering the service station.

DeLuna said he ran from police because he was on parole and had been drinking.

Hernandez, known for using a blade in his attacks, was later jailed for murdering a woman with the same knife. But in the trial, the lead prosecutor told the jury that Hernandez was nothing but a "phantom" of DeLuna's imagination.

DeLuna's budget attorney even said that it was probable that Carlos Hernandez never existed."

.... Holy shit. So much wrong with this... Let's start with "budget attorney," and realize you can fix that if you actually pay public defenders enough so they aren't overworked and underpaid. Forgetting that pay and work aspect, put yourself in the defense attorney's shoes: the police and prosecutor have said they investigated and that Hernandez never existed. THE PROSECUTOR AND POLICE MADE AN AFFIRMATIVE STATEMENT THAT HERNANDEZ (THE REAL KILLER) NEVER EXISTED.... Large enough text does not exist to accurately portray that statement. They do or should have a duty to investigate. How grossly negligent reckless can they be? People can blame the public defender if they want, but the real power to prevent this whole travesty rested mostly with the police, who did nothing, because that's easier....

Let's be real though, "Hernandez" is a last name like "smith." It would legitimately be difficult to investigate this, but you know seeing as we're gonna kill somebody over this, maybe the extra effort is worth it?

The prosecutor knew nobody bothered to investigate crap as to whether or not this Hernandez guy existed, despite conflicting eyewitness testimony. He didn't care and made an affirmative statement that cost an innocent man his life and let the killer go free. Moreover, the victim had called police before about a man with a switchblade knife threatening her; she was ignored.... The police admitted to making the arrest quickly to cover up the embarrassment....

[Neonivek]

That doesn't even touch how oftentimes you end up getting next to nothing in the way of evidence from the police

This is one of the reasons why a High-priced lawyer is a great advantage. It isn't just because they are used to these situations and know how to handle them. It is also because they have the resources to do things like hire their own investigators, bury the opponents in red tape, or know aspects of a case no one else would know.

Where the myth falls short is simply that High priced lawyers are not magical.

The prosecutor knew nobody bothered to investigate crap as to whether or not this Hernandez guy existed, despite conflicting eyewitness testimony

Is he even allowed to not do a case because he knows the police were incompetent? I mean he is sitting on enough evidence for a conviction.

The police admitted to making the arrest quickly to cover up the embarrassment

Dang it police! Though this isn't uncommon in the USA. I remember one husband who was arrested because he successfully guessed his wife was murdered at work when the police came to tell him the bad news.

Though I guess that isn't the worst I've heard them do. The worst, of stuff they do all the time, is probably what I've heard them do to convince people they gave their babies shaken baby syndrom. Ignoring that is doesn't exist, they outright try to convince you that you did it. There is trying to get a confession and then there is CREATING a confession. (Yes I know it means I need to learn more stuff about law transgressions since I only got this from a news segment and interviews)

[mainiac]

You are asking for a supererogatory (if not downright superhuman) effort from the defense to make up for the prosecution failing to provide a very minimal level of judgement.

[Neonivek]

You are asking for a supererogatory (if not downright superhuman) effort from the defense to make up for the prosecution failing to provide a very minimal level of judgement.

Me? I don't know were I implied it. Especially after I backed down.

[Theoboldi]

That doesn't even touch how oftentimes you end up getting next to nothing in the way of evidence from the police

This is one of the reasons why a High-priced lawyer is a great advantage. It isn't just because they are used to these situations and know how to handle them. It is also because they have the resources to do things like hire their own investigators, bury the opponents in red tape, or know aspects of a case no one else would know.

Where the myth falls short is simply that High priced lawyers are not magical.

The problem with this is though, that not everyone can afford those lawyers. As you said, they are high priced, which means people with a low income won't be able to pay them.
Also, just what are the lawyers supposed to know no one else knows? The perspective of the defendant? Any side knowing things the other doesn't is something that should not happen in court if you want a fair trial and verdict in this kind of system.

And a prosecutor should not abuse the fact that the police and defence are incompetent, just so he can quickly get a guilty verdict. Which is what happened here.

[Truean]

That doesn't even touch how oftentimes you end up getting next to nothing in the way of evidence from the police

This is one of the reasons why a High-priced lawyer is a great advantage. It isn't just because they are used to these situations and know how to handle them. It is also because they have the resources to do things like hire their own investigators, bury the opponents in red tape, or know aspects of a case no one else would know.

Where the myth falls short is simply that High priced lawyers are not magical.

The prosecutor knew nobody bothered to investigate crap as to whether or not this Hernandez guy existed, despite conflicting eyewitness testimony

Is he even allowed to not do a case because he knows the police were incompetent? I mean he is sitting on enough evidence for a conviction.

Dunno what TV show people have been watching but no....

Once again: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_8_special_responsibilities_of_a_prosecutor.html

"(ii) undertake further investigation, or make reasonable efforts to cause an investigation, to determine whether the defendant was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit.

(h) When a prosecutor knows of clear and convincing evidence establishing that a defendant in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit, the prosecutor shall seek to remedy the conviction."

"Conviction" should never be enough. "Convicting the right person" is the goal.

This is yet another problem with the view of "government run as a business." No, a thousand times no. The "done and on to the next one" view doesn't cut it in law, which somehow became "a business" rather than "a profession" as it should be. So now we have the "keep it moving, don't slow down, cause we've got a lot more of these to do" attitude to cases. Taking time to make sure justice gets done? That's inefficient... I guess.

So I guess tag and bag the first guy who looks good for the crime and forget anyone else. I mean it's only a murder, so why take time on it or investigate thoroughly? Why look up multiple possible suspects. Why care if there were conflicting eyewitness testimony or a million other things wrong with the case. Why not just ignore these things and tell the defense lawyer a blatant lie that the suspect was just making a person up rather that invest the bare minimum effort to investigate if that person is real? It isn't like it'll kill anyone.... O, wait.... Na, the police should just call it a day early and the prosecution shouldn't care....

But hey, who cares who actually did it, finding that would take effort on the part of the prosecution and police, right?

[Neonivek]

That doesn't even touch how oftentimes you end up getting next to nothing in the way of evidence from the police

This is one of the reasons why a High-priced lawyer is a great advantage. It isn't just because they are used to these situations and know how to handle them. It is also because they have the resources to do things like hire their own investigators, bury the opponents in red tape, or know aspects of a case no one else would know.

Where the myth falls short is simply that High priced lawyers are not magical.

The problem with this is though, that not everyone can afford those lawyers. As you said, they are high priced, which means people with a low income won't be able to pay them.
Also, just what are the lawyers supposed to know no one else knows? The perspective of the defendant? Any side knowing things the other doesn't is something that should not happen in court if you want a fair trial and verdict in this kind of system.

And a prosecutor should not abuse the fact that the police and defence are incompetent, just so he can quickly get a guilty verdict. Which is what happened here.

Well not everyone needs high priced lawyers. They just need freedom from overworked, incompetent, uncaring ones.

[Sowelu]

You attract competent, caring lawyers by paying more.  That's also how you get enough lawyers/staff for them to not be overworked.

[Neonivek]

You attract competent, caring lawyers by paying more.  That's also how you get enough lawyers/staff for them to not be overworked.

Indeed. I am just saying that we don't actually need to go all the way to high-priced.