Print

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

[Sowelu]

If an incompetent prosecutor gives up a case because he has a narrow view of the evidence, or because he is on the take and claims he believes the defendant is innocent, the accuser is disenfranchised.

[Theoboldi]

So?.....

I have no idea what you're trying to state there, but I don't want the prosecution to assume that the defendant is innocent. I just think it's better if the prosecution considers it a possiblity that the defendant may be innocent. Again, it works in other countries too.

[Neonivek]

I have no idea what you're trying to state there, but I don't want the prosecution to assume that the defendant is innocent. I just think it's better if the prosecution considers it a possiblity that the defendant may be innocent. Again, it works in other countries too.

You are refering to magistrates. It is an entirely different system with entirely different rules.

The idea is that no matter how much the prosecution attempts to make the court believe they are guilty... if the evidence doesn't support it... they cannot win.

If someone who was "obviously innocent" was found guilty... the last person I'd blame was the prosecution (assuming they didn't do anything underhanded or illegal) because they cannot do anything to change the outcome that much.

The Prosecution's job while they are in court is to: Present the evidence in the best possible way.

They don't prove anything. Honestly Theoboldi what do you think the prosecution does? What are they doing that can make a obviously innocent person guilty?

[GlyphGryph]

Again, it is not the prosecutions job to prove who is innocent and who is guilty. It is only their job to determine if there's enough evidence to pursue it in court - that the persons guilt is a possibility. It is the juries job to determine guilt and innocence. The Prosecution is only there to present them with the evidence.

[Theoboldi]

I know that. And they presented obviously faulty evidence in this case. I could go on about the people who actually looked at this evidence and accepted it, but my main point still is that the prosecution in this case did some highly illegal things and some very sloppy work to get make this man look guilty as quickly as possible. And considering it isn't the first time something like this has happened, I think my complains have a basis.

[Neonivek]

they presented obviously faulty evidence in this case.

If that was the case then the defense would have torn it down.

[Theoboldi]

Considering that DeLuna's own attourney said that the real culprit didn't actually exist, I'd say the defense was highly incompetent.

[Neonivek]

Considering that DeLuna's own attourney said that the real culprit didn't actually exist, I'd say the defense was highly incompetent.

Well then there you go. The real problem wasn't the obviously very dedicated and brave prosecution... but the very incompetent defense.

Either that or a corrupt judge.

Where it was the prosecution's fault I still don't know.

[GlyphGryph]

The defense in many places in the US is incredibly underfunded, overworked, and generally harried. And THAT is pretty messed up. Even a good defense lawyer would end up botching many of these cases under those conditions.

[G-Flex]

Sure, it's the job of the defense to tear down bad evidence. It's also the job of the prosecutor to ensure they have and are presenting valid evidence to begin with.

[Theoboldi]

I think I might have expressed myself unclearly here. I don't think it was purely the prosecutions fault, but they had a fairly large part in it. But really, I'd say that it was a combination of all three things. I can't see how this would have happened if even one person working on this case hadn't been a complete idiot or corrupt. Sorry about the misunderstanding, though.

[Neonivek]

The defense in many places in the US is incredibly underfunded, overworked, and generally harried. And THAT is pretty messed up. Even a good defense lawyer would end up botching many of these cases under those conditions.

Yes but you are forgetting. This person was "Obviously innocent".

It's also the job of the prosecutor to ensure they have and are presenting valid evidence to begin with.

Which it was if it got by pretrial. What other explanation is there?

Obviously the real villain here is the incompetent defense or the evil judge. Pick.

they had a fairly large part in it.

They had none. If the person was obviously innocent it would have never got past pretrial. Explain how the case got this far with a obviously innocent person. Believe it or not the judge himself could have ended it.

The only reason I am taking this seriously is because people demonify lawyers too much.

[Theoboldi]

Well, they could for actually have aknowledged the fact that there was another person who could have done it. And there's the fact that he didn't even look as he was described by a witness. Not enough for him to be clearly innocent, but considering they stated that the other culprit didn't even exist, they didn't even want to give him a chance to prove his own innocence.

Edit: It's just my personal opinion, that if the prosecution has to gather the evidence, the prosecution shouldn't also be the ones who are in favor of getting the culprit found guilty. Especially if it leads to things like this.

[Truean]

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/cdarrowpleaformercy.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_and_Loeb

I was once "called out" for being against the death penalty.

My response, "Seeing as I represent criminal defendants, my clients tend to not favor being executed...."

The justice system makes mistakes; the death penalty makes these mistakes irrevocable.

[MonkeyHead]

Truean, with your permission, I would like to use that line (attributed to you of course) in any and all future arguments I have regarding the death penalty.