|
What do you all think of non-unanimous conviction, as seen in Louisiana? This isn't a FTP post, but it certainly seems problematic that Louisiana started this as a response to blacks being allowed into juries. Full disclosure: my dad is a PD in Louisiana and rather hates it of course.
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 00:51 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:What do you all think of non-unanimous conviction, as seen in Louisiana? This isn't a FTP post, but it certainly seems problematic that Louisiana started this as a response to blacks being allowed into juries. Seems problematic. The whole point of unanimity is to force jurors to actually deliberate. FYI military juries also do not need unanimity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Military justice is pretty interesting and given the briefings we receive and dumb answers commanders and NCOs give to JAG when asked the most basic of legal questions, I feel for military legal workers. There are STILL senior officers and NCOs walking around saying that they get to just go search private housing off post because of general military authority. Of course if commanders screw up legal proceedings there are plenty of ways to administratively hammer someone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
NM
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted: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. That's poor reasoning, in part because you've conflated about 5 different factors. The root cause here is that the actor in question is poor relative to the initial fee.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Combining them in a short story seemed to flow better than listing all of the various ways the disconnect between the price of justice and the means of your average offender can lead to unnecessary incarceration.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
This is probably more appropriate for the debate the criminal justice thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Yeah, sorry that was me. Pro se defendants: Are they all insane disruptions or have you seen any pull some pretty clever moves out of nowhere?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Sociology, criminology, public health? Yeah, Criminology / public health here. Right now gun violence is up moderately from last year in a few cities I'm working in. It has the public and the Chiefs of police pretty upset. There's a number of possible causes, but the least helpful one I've heard is that "the Ferguson riots have made police too scared to arrest black men."
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:Yeah, sorry that was me. Some are batshit. But more are just difficult and refuse to cooperate with their counsel. Either way, I've yet to see a pro se do well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Doesn't pro se screw you out of a ton of appeals simply because you can't say your lawyer was poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:Doesn't pro se screw you out of a ton of appeals simply because you can't say your lawyer was poo poo? I'd think that unless you were actually deprived counsel because of something the court did you might be prevented from any sort of ineffective assistance of counsel claim, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:Doesn't pro se screw you out of a ton of appeals simply because you can't say your lawyer was poo poo? It's like saying not buying a lottery ticket screws you out of 500 million dollars. If you represent yourself you can't raise ineffective assistance of counsel. However, if you are represented by counsel, you chances of prevailing on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim are very, very, small. flakeloaf posted:Pro se defendants: Are they all insane disruptions or have you seen any pull some pretty clever moves out of nowhere? There was this one guy who kept getting arrested for trespassing at his church. He kept getting charged, and kept representing himself against the baby DAs and winning because he knew the law and they didn't. Somebody finally gave the church a clue and they learned how to forbid him from returning, so he stopped.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
What?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
nm posted:What? Don't worry about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Some are batshit. But more are just difficult and refuse to cooperate with their counsel. Either way, I've yet to see a pro se do well. I ask cause we had one guy, Wahab Dadshani, score a partial win after chasing a drug dealer into a video arcade and killing him with a sword. He had amici for some of the process, but the trial judge called him intelligent and articulate and stopped shy of congratulating him for doing a seriously good job; the jury convicted him of manslaughter (he was charged with first degree murder). Then later the parole board called him a dangerous, violent, high-risk offender with serious anger and self-control issues so maybe he should still be in jail, but everything up to that point was pretty impressive. flakeloaf fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Jul 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Is it rare for the defense to call police officers as witnesses?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
IIRC calling up police in their official position they have a requirement to act in the best interests of the state. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
This is actually a really interesting perspective and explanation of various legal tactics used in court specifically as it relates to cases directly involving witnesses https://youtu.be/cTs-ZKxS9SA?t=2m5s
RonMexicosPitbull fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Jul 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
Watermelon City posted:Is it rare for the defense to call police officers as witnesses? Yes, but it is not uncommon. I've had a number of cases where I would have called the cop if the DA hadn't beat me to it though. If the officer is just a witness to statements, not events, they may help you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
Watermelon City posted:Is it rare for the defense to call police officers as witnesses? Happens quite a bit here. And no. They have an obligation to tell the truth. If defense subpoenas them they go.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 12:07
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:IIRC calling up police in their official position they have a requirement to act in the best interests of the state. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc This might seem like a dumb question, but what, exactly does the "best interests of the state" mean?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:IIRC calling up police in their official position they have a requirement to act in the best interests of the state. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc RonMexicosPitbull posted:This is actually a really interesting perspective and explanation of various legal tactics used in court specifically as it relates to cases directly involving witnesses https://youtu.be/cTs-ZKxS9SA?t=2m5s Thanks guys, I needed some Alex Jones in my recommended videos.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
What's the reasoning behind reporting arrests independent of convictions, let alone a trial. Like if I get arrested for murder and it becomes so clear I didn't do it, or there's so little evidence, that the case is actually dismissed, an employer can still discover that I've been arrested for murder. I'm asking because it seems like this would be one of those ways that economic disadvantage get built into a system that targets certain classes of people even when it turns out they've done nothing wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Actus I didn't know you were JAG. I've been involved in a ton of court martials in various capacities, but nothing big or important to the trial. Do you think the relationship between the prosecutors and defense attorneys is too close in the military? The group I knew constantly were in each other's offices, hanging out with each other on the weekends for BBQs and after work for beers. Just seemed really weird that they were on opposite sides of the court room but being in the same unit had them ending up as buddies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Thanks guys, I needed some Alex Jones in my recommended videos. After having a prosecutor lie to my face in December, gently caress 'em. Next time they want me to give a statement they'll need a subpoena.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:After having a prosecutor lie to my face in December, gently caress 'em. Next time they want me to give a statement they'll need a subpoena. I...what? Those videos literally put Alex Jones in my recommended panel because that's the target demographic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I...what? Those videos literally put Alex Jones in my recommended panel because that's the target demographic. My bad, I thought you were addressing the content of the videos, not what it did to your Youtube list.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
Well, yes, my point is that the videos are aimed at antigovernment paranoiacs. They are literally for people who would like Alex Jones. That's why Youtube suddenly started recommending him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Well, yes, my point is that the videos are aimed at antigovernment paranoiacs. They are literally for people who would like Alex Jones. That's why Youtube suddenly started recommending him. And having had a prosecutor lie to my face doesn't exactly engender trust in the system, when there is no recourse for me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Defenders: Are the prosecutors on the up-and-up, or do you suspect something like that Orange County misconduct scandal is going on in most of their offices? Prosecutors: Are the defenders on the up-and-up? (I actually don't know of the ways a defense attorney can be corrupt, so if you've got stories to share ...)
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Defenders: Are the prosecutors on the up-and-up, or do you suspect something like that Orange County misconduct scandal is going on in most of their offices? In California, the majority of prosecutors are ethical (though often have a pretty simplistic world view), however unethical behavior is not punished by thier superiors and the bench and is often rewarded, so you have a shockingly high number of unethical prosecutors here. There are also some amount of unethical defense attorneys, though they are almost always in the private bar. Most of the behavior has more to do with recruiting clients, but some will lie to das and judges or manipulate witness statements. nm fucked around with this message at 07:10 on Jul 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
nm posted:Most of the behavior has more to do with recruiting clients, but some will lie to das and judges or manipulate witness statements. What's the client recruiting scam?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Thanks guys, I needed some Alex Jones in my recommended videos. The video I linked was a guy whos been an expert witness in literally hundreds of trials and written several books on the subject. Calm down and grow up a little.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 07:33
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Defenders: Are the prosecutors on the up-and-up, or do you suspect something like that Orange County misconduct scandal is going on in most of their offices? nm posted:In California, the majority of prosecutors are ethical (though often have a pretty simplistic world view), however unethical behavior is not punished by thier superiors and the bench and is often rewarded, so you have a shockingly high number of unethical prosecutors here. I'm sure it varies, but up here in Alaska, the public defenders operate on their own totally separate rules of ethics and professional responsibility that are completely insane and change daily with the whims of whatever judge we happen to be in front of. It's nuts the stuff they can get away with, stuff that if I pulled I would be sanctioned and probably disbarred within like five minutes. Then we have a few true believer defense attorneys who are cookey outliers and think all cops are engaged in a broad conspiracy and blah blah blah tinfoil hats to protect us from gubbmint drone surveillance. The huge majority of defense lawyers are just normal people though, even if some operate under different rules than I operate under. Fun story: we have this public defender up here who has a fantastic reputation for pulling the craziest poo poo in court. Someone once charged this gal for driving drunk and running over this little kid on a bike. The little kid was fine, she just had road rash, but it's still a felonious assault to drive drunk and cause an accident resulting in any injury in Alaska. Anyway, two days before trial this defense attorney convinces the judge that a) his client is like 8 and a half months pregnant, b) it's a super high risk pregnancy, c) she is going to have to do the trial from a hospital bed next to the defense's table, and d) the court is going to have to pay for a nurse to sit with her during the trial to monitor her. The judge buys it because the defendant has always appeared over the phone from her remote village and nobody has seen her since arraignment. The prosecutor of course freaks out and offers to continue the trial for several months but no no no, this defense attorney says his client wants to get it over with sooner than later and wants trial to start on Tuesday, not several months from now (in Alaska, with rare exception the defense bar unilaterally picks when trial gets scheduled for anything but murder charges or cases with like 30 witnesses). So the judge buys it, and orders the court administrator to organize and pay for a nurse to show up, but he also says the defense has to provide their own gurney. This was a phenomenally huge mess that had to go up several chains of command with emergency orders be issued to tap special Supreme Court funding and poo poo like that, because nobody had anticipated this crisis in the history of the State. Trial is set to start, we have a jury panel ready to go, and we have all the crap set up on Monday to start trial on Tuesday. And Tuesday morning in saunters the defense attorney and his client, who it turns out is 2 months pregnant, fine, and totally unaware of all the hullabaloo regarding her loins. Turns out the defense attorney just made the whole cockamamie story up just to rustle some feathers and have some fun at the court's expense. It worked, too. That defense attorney has given more ulcers to lawyers in this state than Vodka, which is saying something. I think he's hilarious. During a basic weapons possession trial (possession of brass knuckles, which are illegal in Alaska), he brought his entire gun collection to court and lined it up in the back of the courtroom just to emphasize how stupid the brass knuckle law was when you can literally own as many bazookas as you want in this State. He also broke a podium with a prosthetic leg to show how his client was defending himself from a guy with one leg. DAs are also just normal people doing our job. Though I am very glad that our DAs aren't elected officials and aren't swept aside every few years for an incoming governor's political buddies. Having political aspirations means having to make cases in the media, which leads to all sorts of hosed up conflicts for prosecutors. Nobody in my office needs to justify a win-loss ratio, so I have a lot more normalcy in my job than someone whose win-rate ratio is attacked by angry tea partiers every few years. I'm sure there are some true believer prosecutors that exist that will fight tooth and nail every low level drug charge, or get all unethical to avoid pleading out a big case, but I've not seen them up here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 08:35
|
|
|
Former JAG posters: our JAGs always talk about how fair they are compared to civilian lawyers because they don't get canned or lose elections for losing cases unless it's due to screwing up. They claim this makes them more willing to take on tough cases, such as difficult to prove sexual assaults. Do you think they're blowing smoke? They tend to back this up with a few local cases where the crime took place off post but the local DA wouldn't touch it for fear a jury would discredit a drunk woman or some such, and then the JAG prosecutors got a conviction at court martial. Or is this more that military conviction standards are looser?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
Grem posted:Actus I didn't know you were JAG. I've been involved in a ton of court martials in various capacities, but nothing big or important to the trial. Do you think the relationship between the prosecutors and defense attorneys is too close in the military? The group I knew constantly were in each other's offices, hanging out with each other on the weekends for BBQs and after work for beers. Just seemed really weird that they were on opposite sides of the court room but being in the same unit had them ending up as buddies. On the other hand, that closeness lead the judges (at least where I was stationed) to be very standoffish to avoid any appearance of impropriety. You didn't go talk to a judge without opposing counsel. The end. When I got out, it was the opposite. There wasn't a very good relationship between DAs and PDs, but the judges and DAs would have ex parte conversations all the time. mlmp08 posted:Former JAG posters: our JAGs always talk about how fair they are compared to civilian lawyers because they don't get canned or lose elections for losing cases unless it's due to screwing up. They claim this makes them more willing to take on tough cases, such as difficult to prove sexual assaults. What do you call a defense counsel who wins a court-martial? Lucky. What do you call a defense counsel who wins two courts-martial? Good. What do you call a defense counsel who wins three courts-martial? Trial Counsel (prosecutor) (In the Marine Corps) Up until the 90s, both TCs and DCs were evaluated by the same person, and that person was evaluated by the person who decided who was going to be court-martialed and who wasn't. Eventually, DCs got a separate evaluator and high ranking advocate for general DC stuff. However, duty assignments were still determined by the guy who might have a conflict of interest. I think the navy has a personal representation (legal assistance, DC) assignment track and a government stooge (TC, staff attorney) assignment track to combat that problem. TCs are more willing to take on hard cases because they don't have a choice if the non lawyer in charge of deciding who gets tried and who doesn't wants the case to go to trial. Judge Advocates are much more free of local politics, and the military justice system has more money to take marginal cases than most civilian jurisdictions. I'd say military conviction standards are tighter, assuming the non lawyer in charge of deciding who gets tried doesn't send ringers as jurors. (Yes, the same person who decides whether to press charges also decides who gets to be on the jury pool) Guilty? You probably want a civilian court. Not guilty? You probably want a(n unstacked) military court.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
RonMexicosPitbull posted:The video I linked was a guy whos been an expert witness in literally hundreds of trials and written several books on the subject. Calm down and grow up a little. This is, as per BigHead's example, a very poor standard, the man's self-curated wikipedia page notwithstanding.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
dogcrash truther posted:What's the reasoning behind reporting arrests independent of convictions, let alone a trial. Like if I get arrested for murder and it becomes so clear I didn't do it, or there's so little evidence, that the case is actually dismissed, an employer can still discover that I've been arrested for murder. I'm asking because it seems like this would be one of those ways that economic disadvantage get built into a system that targets certain classes of people even when it turns out they've done nothing wrong. I think it's mostly nobody noticing how far technology has advanced. In the old days, the only stuff that got disseminated beyond the local area were arrest warrants and convictions, and only convictions were 'stored' in any real sense. Now its all done electronically, automatically, and the information is hoovered up so quickly that it's hard to impossible to put back. Arrests that don't lead to charges being filed have a much lower chance of getting disseminated, so there's at least some protection for the instances of clearly didn't do it and so little evidence. For better or worse, public records are public, and that openness cuts both ways. The openness is generally good for society and generally bad for individuals. Perhaps its too easy to access that information and too hard to control it once created. In my state, getting a record expunged costs money, because as a practical matter, it requires an attorney to make it happen. Even then, the record isn't really expunged, because the DA and the police get to keep their copies, and the data collection agencies have no duty to erase their information. I'll write letters and make calls for my clients to explain to employers and prospective employers what their expunged or deferred record means, but I can't make the information not exist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 00:51 |
|
|
joat mon posted:Arrests that don't lead to charges being filed have a much lower chance of getting disseminated, so there's at least some protection for the instances of clearly didn't do it and so little evidence. It seems pretty awful for society in the case in question.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 23:32
|
|
