|
The Warszawa posted:If the vote did split on racial lines it is a problem, though. Of course, there's no indication that it did. Not really? Even if it was 8-4 or 7-5, you'd still need 4 or 5 white people to vote to indict (and 9-3 is pretty close to representative of St. Louis County). Having 9 would only matter in the other direction. Still would be pretty lovely if they did split on racial lines, though, but not because of the numbers involved.
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 13:44 |
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:I'm not a boot guy but I want some for Court. Where should I look for "dress" boots? Would it be too on the nose if hypothetically I was able to get (nice dress) custom boots that were made in prison?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Sir John Falstaff posted:Not really? Even if it was 8-4 or 7-5, you'd still need 4 or 5 white people to vote to indict (and 9-3 is pretty close to representative of St. Louis County). Having 9 would only matter in the other direction. Yeah, that's what I was saying - if the vote split on racial lines, it is a problem. That problem would not be mitigated if the composition of the grand jury was different. It wouldn't be a problem because of the result it'd be a problem because of the polarization.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:I'm not a boot guy but I want some for Court. Where should I look for "dress" boots? Cavendars
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:I'm not a boot guy but I want some for Court. Where should I look for "dress" boots? http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3522417
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:I'm not a boot guy but I want some for Court. Where should I look for "dress" boots? When I was up in the desert in California, we had a guy at the PD's office who just wore cowboy boots. No one ever said anything, and he won a lot of cases. Otherwise, dress boots are a thing. Allen Edmonds has some nice boots. Also, i disagree with the link above. You could wear the boot mentioned with a suit in the winter, though a darker color would be a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
Basic black Justin Ropers. Grand juries are used very very rarely where I am. We also have citizen impanelled grand juries. If you can get enough people to sign a petition (between 500 and 5000 depending on the size of the county) a grand jury is convened.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
The equal protection clause was literally inserted to stop this poo poo Also I'm the goon who comes from the most money probably
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Which is fun because I'm at least the third consecutive generation to do worse than their parents
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Which is fun because I'm at least the third consecutive generation to do worse than their parents My dad's Carlos Slim, bitch. Also, I get URM status.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:The equal protection clause was literally inserted to stop this poo poo if you dont stop randomly bragging i am going to start discussing biglaw bonuses this year and will my firm match or wont they 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:Well, I got into the JD at Melbourne Uni (do any other Ausgoons post in this thread?) we're 8th-ranked in the world, I didn't even expect to get in, let alone get a Commonwealth-supported place (government offered loan and subsidy). I only had a 155 LSAT but I had a very high undergrad GPA and I guess my statement must have been not-bad. Congratulations on getting into the Melbourne JD. What do you feel you want to get out of your law degree? I am an Aussie law graduate/admitted lawyer not practising, and would be prepared to share any wisdom I have. There are one or two others of us in the IRC channel. First of all, how much are the fees for CSP? Please don't tell me they are anything like the full fee JD, which is straight up daylight robbery. Biggest take home if you want to be a lawyer: get. good. grades. Especially if you want to work in a big law firm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 11:26
|
|
|
the milk machine posted:Who ranks law schools worldwide? Also why. These fuckers. (And for some reason the law schools of my country in that ranking are in a totally different order than they would appear in any of our national rankings. Good job, QS.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Cavendars I was in Texas in March for training and I bought boots here that are very nice. I've worn them for haloween and nothing else. But I hardly ever wear a suit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
Re: Ferguson I think it's pretty clear if they returned a true bill that there probably would have been an acquittal at trial, although I wonder what the charge would have been. I recall reading that the prosecutor basically just gave them everything from murder 1 to involuntary manslaughter and kinda said "hey listen to the evidence and figure it out." I haven't touched any criminal stuff in a few years but I thought with gj proceedings the prosecutor usually recommends a charge? Some of the prosecution's behavior was a bit perplexing and can probably be handwaved away by using that old chestnut "our job is not to convict our job is to seek justice." OH WELL Re: bootchat I'm in upstate NY and I see yahoos wearing dress boots from time to time and they look fine, what's more common though is regular boots because attorneys here are slobs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Millennial posted:Congratulations on getting into the Melbourne JD. What do you feel you want to get out of your law degree? My student contribution is $30k. A full-fee JD is $110k. Which uni did you study at? How did you find law school? How different was your experience in Aus from the US experience described ITT? How was the job market when you graduated (and what year was this)? How long did it take you to work out which area of law you were interested in practicing? Are you not practicing because you couldn't find work? edit:stalked your posts. went to UQ. job market is poo poo. okay. BOAT SHOWBOAT fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Nov 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
It sure was fun getting grilled by a judge in provincial court because my client loving slept in and I kept having to delay the matter until he showed up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:It sure was fun getting grilled by a judge in provincial court because my client loving slept in and I kept having to delay the matter until he showed up. It sure was fun getting grilled by a judge in provincial court because my client had left the jurisdiction in contravention of a court order without telling me. edit: actually, my situation was better because I had a good excuse to get off the record.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
I really...really need to just back slowly away from all the Michael Brown/Police threads. In other news, got my picture taken yesterday with a cellphone coming out of court by a very friendly looking young man. I'm sure it's just to put on a fashion blog. Justice's best dressed. (I don't think anything will actually come of it. It's just a scare tactic. Much like the frequent uneventful attempted calls from correctional institutions because my cell phone got leaked...again.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
LeschNyhan posted:It sure was fun getting grilled by a judge in provincial court because my client had left the jurisdiction in contravention of a court order without telling me. It was my first time getting grilled by a judge. I just always assumed that it would happen due to my own fuckup, but I'm guessing that day will come soon. Now I have to deal with his family law file.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
I'm guessing just admitting your client completely blew off the start time would be some kind of faux pas?ActusRhesus posted:I really...really need to just back slowly away from all the Michael Brown/Police threads. I don't blame you, but your posts are some of the only ones worth reading in that one. Javid fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Nov 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Common AR keep trying to sway the masses.It's fun when they think you don't know anything about being a prosecutor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
AR, take it from me, just unsubscribe and pretend the thread doesn't exist. It'll make you much happier. (It's how I eventually had to deal with the Snowden/NSA thread.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
AR, can you please post a succinct version of why the grand jury did what they did and why the prosecutor was not abdicating his responsibility. I just need something quick to tell people I know in person to shut them up and gently caress going into that thread to piece it all together.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I really...really need to just back slowly away from all the Michael Brown/Police threads. One of my friend's adverse parties keeps sneaking into his office building and putting flyers on his door accusing him of fraud and whatnot. Last week that defendant had a friend record their court appearance wearing a hidden camera and put it on YouTube, which has now been relayed to the judge. I'm looking forward to the next hearing on that case since the judge is very serious about courtroom etiquette and has repeatedly stepped off the bench to take cell phones away from people in the gallery.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Kalman posted:AR, take it from me, just unsubscribe and pretend the thread doesn't exist. It'll make you much happier. (It's how I eventually had to deal with the Snowden/NSA thread.) Also net neutrality threads. Basically D&D in general. (at the risk of shop talk: my brief excursions into that thread have convinced me that it's kind of darkly hilarious that some American prosecutors have gone so far off the reservation that "not actively trying to railroad the accused to a conviction" now looks like throwing the game.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
A prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich. But they probably shouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Yeah, people have it backwards. Darren Wilson wasn't treated unfairly, everyone else who gets charged with a crime is. I would love it if my clients got the cop version of justice. Or as a friend of mine put it something like - Oh, no indictment because eyewitnesses disagree and the guy charged says he didn't do it? Well that's certainly different than every case that goes to trial where all of the witnesses agree on exactly what happened and the defendant says he did it. Of course I didn't have the heart to tell him I've got a dozen cases right now which that describes perfectly...the point still stands.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:AR, can you please post a succinct version of why the grand jury did what they did and why the prosecutor was not abdicating his responsibility. I just need something quick to tell people I know in person to shut them up and gently caress going into that thread to piece it all together. That's a tough question because there are things, reading the transcripts, that bother me as well. Now, I'm a little forgiving as reading transcripts most people tend to sound like bumbling retards...even good attorneys so whether or not wilson was getting soft balls is debatable. However, the questioning of the brown family autopsy doc was downright hostile which seemed odd...and witness 40 with the bizarre racist journal entry about driving into the ghetto to better understand the niggers...while I'm glad they put in the journal as it certainly put her testimony in perspective...I don't know why they called her to the stand at all because that journal kills her credibility. We have a policy of not putting objectively crazy people on the stand unless we are desperate. However, the things worth pointing out from an objective criminal procedure standpoint: 1. McCullugh did not present the evidence. two female prosecutors did. so whining about what McCullugh did to did not say is irrelevant...He said "hi thanks for being here, over to you ladies." I didn't know this until I read the transcripts. 2. The hurr durr they ran out of batteries! Is taken out of context. rest of the sentence is "and CSI was there and was already taking their own pictures." 3. In Missouri a prosecutor cannot indict. Only a grand jury or judge can. here's a good brief explanation. http://ago.mo.gov/publications/courtprocess.pdf In fact, it appears from this those are the only ways to bring charges, I suspect as a check on the fact the prosecutor is an elected official (which I hate) In our state prosecutors charge via long form information and defendants facing a possible life sentence have the right to request a hearing on probable cause. But we are appointed by a neutral criminal justice commission, not elected so there is less politics in the charging decisions. 4. Durr look! The jury had 9 whites! it's a conspiracy! Is utter bullshit. The grand jury is selected for a term. when this one was selected Michael Brown was alive and well. No way to know this case was coming down the pipe. And I, as a prosecutor, WANT law abiding streetwise minority jurors who are less likely to buy a lot of "poor misunderstood kid" bullshit and believe the sweet 18 year old youth in the courtroom may in fact be capable of murder...unfortunately we often have to hardship excuse minority jurors because they often have employment issues. Amazing how many people in low wage jobs only work one hour less than the amount at which their employer would have to pay them for jury duty. Total coincidence, I'm sure. As much as I want that person, if serving on the jury will hurt them financially, we let them go. So not seeing a lot of minorities on a jury is, in my jurisdiction, not a reflection of evil racist prosecutors...but a reflection of the fact minority venirepersons are more likely to be socioeconomically disadvantaged and released, at their request. (Now I'm sure there are some good old boys who think a black juror will automatically acquit on both the prosecution and defense sides...I think they're idiots.) 5. What did this case all come down to? One fact. Did officer wilson have a reasonable, even if mistaken, belief he was in danger. If the jury believed his testimony that it looked like brown was reaching to his waist band, and the forensics corroborated that brown was moving forward, that's it. Now, that depends a lot on how credible they found wilson. some of his testimony does seem contradictory. But so does almost everyone else's. Dorian Johnson in particular was completely self serving, and the claim that Wilson tried to pull Brown into the vehicle through the window strains credulity. (And other witnesses could have been mistaken...or they didn't see the whole thing. etc. Some people can genuinely believe they saw what they saw and still be wrong. Not lying, just wrong.) So it's not a question of "who is telling the truth" Wilson v. Johnson...it's who was telling the least amount of bullshit. And unfortunately, there was footage of brown shoving a clerk...and character of the victim is always on trial. Ask any rape victim ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Thanks! That's a pretty good rundown for me of what's going on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
AR, since the thread's decided that you're the resident expert on prosecuting and grand juries in Ferguson even though you're not a MO prosecutor, do you know what the standard is for a grand jury to prosecute? Is it just preponderance?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Thanks! That's a pretty good rundown for me of what's going on. The fact is, it is getting increasingly hard to get convictions, and unless you have a really credible witness, good luck. The last case I tried was an acquittal. Weakest alibi defense EVER and I'm sure the jury didn't buy it...but the only witness we had willing to ID the shooter (it was a gang related homicide of a 14 year old kid) was...well...not a great witness. Everyone else developed a case of "I didn't see nothing." Though coincidentally an hour after the shooting the defendant's home was also shot up...but, you know...no one saw nothing. So it was an acquittal...and it sucked. But people don't want to convict on the word of one lovely witness. (Granted the bar here is lower...it's just probable cause) But Dorian Johnson was, for the prosecution, the most important witness...and he was a lovely witness. Add to that the forensics that seem to corroborate wilson's story and...there you go. Even if they had indicted it probably would have been an acquittal. Oh, and the "ham sandwich quote" is really more applicable to federal grand juries because the USAO are pussies who only take slam dunks (no offense if any of you goons are feds.) No-bills actually do happen in the state world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:AR, since the thread's decided that you're the resident expert on prosecuting and grand juries in Ferguson even though you're not a MO prosecutor, do you know what the standard is for a grand jury to prosecute? Is it just preponderance? ha ha...yeah, honestly I'm not an expert on missouri law, but they seem to define "probable cause" as "preponderance." Or so everything I'm reading suggests. which is weird to me because here probable cause is way lower than that. More "a good faith evidence-based basis" Odd.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
I'm also curious (and posted this in the Mike Brown thread but am guessing you missed it there since it moves quickly) - the instructions to the jurors at least implied that they needed to find probable cause that Wilson was not justified in order to return an indictment. That seems... odd. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I'm also curious (and posted this in the Mike Brown thread but am guessing you missed it there since it moves quickly) - the instructions to the jurors at least implied that they needed to find probable cause that Wilson was not justified in order to return an indictment. That seems... odd. Thoughts? I guess it would depend on how their law is written and whether it's considered an element of the offense or an affirmative defense... usually self defense is an affirmative defense. Maybe it's different in a cop shooting case? I dunno...like I said...I'm not from Missurruh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:AR, since the thread's decided that you're the resident expert on prosecuting and grand juries in Ferguson even though you're not a MO prosecutor, do you know what the standard is for a grand jury to prosecute? Is it just preponderance? I think it's 'reasonable belief that defendant committed the crime', with all the caveats about affirmative defenses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
SlothBear posted:Yeah, people have it backwards. Darren Wilson wasn't treated unfairly, everyone else who gets charged with a crime is. I would love it if my clients got the cop version of justice. Yep.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:Well, I got into the JD at Melbourne Uni (do any other Ausgoons post in this thread?) we're 8th-ranked in the world 8th in what? Monaghan posted:It sure was fun getting grilled by a judge in provincial court because my client loving slept in and I kept having to delay the matter until he showed up. Story of the day: I was reading a transcript from a bail application, part of the Crown's submission to deny him bail was because he had 187 tattooed on him, "187 being the California penal code for murder" 
Zarkov Cortez fucked around with this message at 08:00 on Nov 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:My student contribution is $30k. A full-fee JD is $110k. 1. It's good you're not paying full fee because it is daylight robbery. Melbourne JD on CSP is a much better option. 2. I studied at QUT, did a dual bachelors in accountancy and laws. I took a long time to complete the degree as I was working full-time after a few years. I was also a school leaver, in my experience this makes a huge difference in the level of maturity you have studying law. I wished I had come back as a postgrad or something. I found law school a hard slog, but much better once I started working and had a bit more life experience. You may love it. My experience was that I hated the social aspect as everyone there is ultra-competitive and gunning for good grades. I found some of the subjects very interesting and others utterly banal. Melbourne Uni is no doubt like QUT in that it will grade to a curve. I would be very surprised if it didn't. As a result, that means to get good grades you have to work harder, work smarter and have a better ounce of luck than the average law student. So - even though the content of the law is different to the US experience, the legal and judicial culture markedly different, I found the law school experience described here somewhat similar. 3. I graduated mid year 2012. The market isn't great but it has improved a lot from where it was immediately post-GFC. It depends a lot on what you want to do as well. Do you have any idea what kind of law you want to practise if at all? What was your undergrad? I found I enjoyed public law subjects a lot such as constitutional and administrative law, but also smattering of others. What subjects you enjoyed gives a good guide as to what areas you wouldn't mind practising in. I tended to hate some subjects and enjoy others. Weirdly, I enjoyed tax law but hated corporate law. Go figure. Since doing practical legal training I think I would really enjoy working in litigation and that's the area I want to work in now. I loved criminal law in undergrad but I think I want to avoid working in criminal law like the plague. 4. Right now I'm not practising mostly because I slacked off, didn't get a great GPA and as a result had no offers from top tier or mid tier firms. Or any firm for that matter. I went ahead and did practical legal training and hoped it would lead me somewhere. I now work in a law firm now in a non-solicitor role and I will have the option to move into a lawyer role if I want to. I've just got to work out if I really want to practise or not. 5. I always thought where you went to university didn't matter, but to be honest, I've found so far respect for the fact I've got a QUT LLB. So you will probably find the same with your Melbourne degree. UQ and QUT are well respected here in QLD, UQ with the GO8 edge over QUT. Congrats on getting into Melbourne Uni JD. Melbourne and Monash are great law schools with the biggest reputations in Victoria, and if you work hard, there should be opportunities. The most important thing however is to get good grades. If you get good grades, doors will open, and if you want to work in a big law firm that door will open for you. If you really want to work in a big commercial firm, make your resume stellar with good grades, great extracurriculars and you will have the opportunity. The advice changes depending on what you want to do when you graduate. Feel free to PM me if you wanna know anything further! Also sorry for 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 13:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 13:44 |
|
|
SlothBear posted:Yeah, people have it backwards. Darren Wilson wasn't treated unfairly, everyone else who gets charged with a crime is. I would love it if my clients got the cop version of justice. This is an excellent way to summarize it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 05:08
|
|