I can't imagine what kind of excuse the prosecution put forth. I mean... ignoring a confession? Is that even legal?
"The family needs reveng closure, we don't have time to listen to the defense's constant whining!"
Probably. I've gotten that crap before. Even assuming it's true, they'd need it from the right person....
I can't imagine what kind of excuse the prosecution put forth. I mean... ignoring a confession? Is that even legal?
Actually no, no it is not. It's not only illegal, it's freaking super illegal.
That is to say, if the prosecutor has evidence that that could prove the innocence of the accused, they have to disclose it to the defense. In Ohio, I'm pretty sure this is an ethics violation that can get you in serious trouble with the state bar and Supreme Court Disciplinary Process.
Namely, it's Rule 3.8: Special Duties of a Prosecutor.The prosecutor in a criminal case shall not do any of the following:
(a) pursue or prosecute a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;
(b) [RESERVED]
(c) [RESERVED]
(d) fail to make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, fail to disclose to the defense all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by an order of the tribunal;
(e) subpoena a lawyer in a grand jury or other criminal proceeding to present evidence about a past or present client unless the prosecutor reasonably believes all of the following apply:
(1) the information sought is not protected from disclosure by any applicable privilege;
(2) the evidence sought is essential to the successful completion of an ongoing investigation or prosecution;
(3) there is no other feasible alternative to obtain the information.
(f) [RESERVED]
Comment
[1] A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence. Applicable law may require other measures by the prosecutor and knowing disregard of those obligations or a systematic abuse of prosecutorial discretion could constitute a violation of Rule 8.4. A prosecutor also is subject to other applicable rules such as Rules 3.6, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, and 5.3.
On the bright side, he can afford an entire team of high win-ratio lawyers for the upcoming drug possession trial.
Feh, "high win ratio" is a myth, which is why it's unethical (read, you can get disciplined by the bar for it) to advertise that crap.
Namely it's against Rule 7.1 as illustrated in the comments:[3] An advertisement that truthfully reports a lawyer’s achievements on behalf of clients or former clients may be misleading if presented so as to lead a reasonable person to form an unjustified expectation that the same results could be obtained for other clients in similar matters without reference to the specific factual and legal circumstances of each client’s case. Similarly, an unsubstantiated comparison of the lawyer’s services or fees with the services or fees of other lawyers may be misleading if presented with such specificity as would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the comparison can be substantiated. The inclusion of an appropriate disclaimer or qualifying language may preclude a finding that a statement is likely to create unjustified expectations or otherwise mislead a prospective client.
At least in Ohio, technically, though I'm not entirely sure about how well it's enforced, it's still tacky, because you simply can't use a "win ratio" for anything at all. It's worthless. No matter how much the client wants to have some indication or guarantee of a win, they can't, ever, at all, without it being a lie. There's a reason the rules were written this way and were far more strict in the past.
___________________________________________________________________
Edit:
http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-army-cut-combat-brigades-175948392.htmlMixed feelings, but I'm inclined to say Shit....
Ok, so here's an organizational problem with multiple consequences I'm guessing people don't immediately see. 1.) The army is up or out. You advance in rank or they boot you out.... This harms lifers. 2.) You already get lost in the crowd easy enough and now the demand on CO and officer ranks are going to be greater even though your tech can absorb some of it. 3.) "Work hard and get promoted" just got harder because there will be fewer officer positions to go into. 4.) Unfortunately, this proposed cut in defense
These aren't necessarily unsolvable though. 1.) They could conceivably lessen the "up or out" policy at least. 2.) They don't necessarily have to cut the number of officers though I'm fearful this might happen. Also, they'd need to make a reduced number of headquarters count for more/be more accessible and more clear (the army is often incredibly hard to understand concerning a lot of things).
It's possible to restructure, but .... You do have to do it right.... Not easy.
Author
Topic: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread (Read 879553 times)