|
Hello, Goons. This is a thread for goons to help goons get a better understanding of the criminal justice system from people who actually work in the system. We've tried to gather a host of opinions from Public Defenders, Prosecutors, and Private Defense Counsel. We have goons who work in rural areas, urban areas, east coast, west coast, elected DA jurisdictions, appointed DA jurisdictions, etc. etc. to give you a wide view from many different perspectives. If you are a goon with experience in the criminal justice system and want to join our answer monkey ranks, please PM ActusRhesus with whatever background info you are willing to share, and we will be happy to add you. Thusfar, your contributors are: Joat Mon Former Military trial prosecutor, Military appellate defense counsel (special (misdemeanors), general (felonies), some capital) Former Public Defender, high crime urban area trial Former Appellate Public Defender, appellate public defender, central US - serious juvenile and adult, misdemeanors, felonies, capital Currently: rural area trial public defender, central US - all juvenile and adult, misdemeanor, felony BigHead Trial Prosecutor, Alaska mostly rural stuff, whole gamut of offenses from shoplifting to murder. "I occasionally cover appellate stuff that our appellate unit is too lazy / understaffed to handle themselves." ActusRhesus Former Military defense counsel (primarily misdemeanors) Former Military trial prosecutor (primarily fraud and sexual assault) Former private defense counsel (white collar and OFAC/ITAR) Current Prosecutor, high crime urban area (primarily appeals, some jury trials and post conviction work, predominantly homicide.) blarzgh Traffic Ticket Prosecutor nm Former Public Defender, People's Republic of California Current Criminal Justice Policy Monkey Gleri Our resident Canadian. Provincial Crown (that's canada talk for government) prosecutor in Atlantic Canada. Exclusively does criminal/quasi-criminal trials (mostly theft, impaired driving, assault, etc.) in a small-scale urban to rural setting. What to use this thread for: "I don't understand what x means or how y works?" "I read about this case and I don't understand this aspect of it, is this normal?" What not to use this thread for: 1. gently caress the Police! 2. Sucking Off the Police. 3. making GBS threads on prosecutors for being fascist bootlicking thugs. 4. Asking defense counsel "how can you live with yourself" for representing [insert client or case here]?" 5. Legal Advice for "your friend." Plenty of other threads in which you can do all of the above. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 13:43 on Jun 28, 2015 |
#
¿
Jun 21, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 06:28 |
|
|
Reserved in case this turns into some sort of megathread.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Do Public Defenders have a real incentive to do their job properly? Honestly, I think most public defenders I have squared off against were very competent and do what they do out of a sincere respect for the constitutional rights of the accused. Also, the myth of the incompetent public defender, at least here, is really inaccurate. The legal job market is poo poo, and these are reasonably well paying jobs (by statute, prosecutors and PDs of the same seniority make exactly the same in this jurisdiction) with no billable hour requirement, full medical and dental, reasonable work hours, and solid retirement plans. I'm not so sure it's an "incentive" issue so much as it is the people landing these jobs generally don't suck. PT6A posted:How common is it for people to look down on defence lawyers because they "defend bad people"? Do people not understand that the only way to defend the wrongly accused is to ensure that everyone receives as strong a defence as possible? You'd be surprised. Most rational people get that, but throw an emotional case like child molestation into the mix and people tend to lose their ability to think rationally. As to your second question, I don't think the wealthy have as much of an advantage over indigents as people think. The ones who are a little S.O.L are the ones who have enough money to not qualify for a PD, but not enough to fund tons of experts and investigators etc. etc. But as noted above, in my experience, public defenders are just as good, and in many cases better than many private counsel. They are, however, overworked. (Though I would also point out that this is true of the prosecutors in many jurisdictions too....we have only slightly more attorneys than the PD office, but we have to take all cases, including the ones that either have retained counsel, or the PD's office has contracted out due to a conflict of interest) So I suppose the two things I would look to do would be 1) add more PD resources. and 2) create a separate funding line for expert witnesses for defendants who fall in that middle income range, overseen by the PDs office. (Example, defendant submits request through counsel to PD's office. PD's office reviews it to see if request is reasonable, and then authorizes funding) ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Jun 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
seacat posted:For a serious case (felony) would you rather defend someone you know for a fact is guilty or someone you know for a fact is innocent? If I don't think someone is guilty I nolle the charges. As for defense, there is nothing more terrifying than representing someone you believe is innocent.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
chunkles posted:Can somebody explain voir dire to me? I agree that that people should be barred from serving on a jury if e.g. they know the defendant, or plaintiff, or so on. I don't really understand why the prosecution and defense are given the ability to strike jurors based on their personal opinions. Basically you are looking for people who may be biased one way or the other. The idea is to get a neutral panel who will decide based on the evidence. So, for example, in a gang related homicide case, the defense would not want a juror who had a close family member murdered, as it might cloud their judgment. The prosecution might not want someone with a close family member in jail, as it may make them more sympathetic to the defendant. Voir dire is there to explore those possible biases.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2015 11:32
|
|
|
Javid posted:It's my impression that there are limitations to a lawyer's ability to drop out of defending a client. What are they? Is it different for PDs? As a general rule once you've entered an appearance you are stuck unless a clear conflict develops. Same rules apply to PDs. This is why most lawyers require a retainer. Client stops paying you, too bad.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2015 11:34
|
|
|
seacat posted:Hope this doesn't get too philosophical but what do you guys see as the most prevalent systemic problem in the justice system? i.e. what is the biggest "the whole design of this is hosed" rather than any individual case. This should probably go in the DnD debate the criminal justice thread. Also, logical fallacy. You immediately open with the presumption "the whole design is hosed"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2015 11:38
|
|
|
That would be a clear conflict. There are some other examples and they usually hover around rules of professional responsibility.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2015 13:39
|
|
|
sullat posted:Also, there's something called a "Batson challenge" where the defense gets to complain that the prosecution is kicking all the minorities off the jury. A good voir dire provides non-racial excuses for the prosecution to justify those decisions, like, "Oh, his cousin's second mistress was a friend of the defendent's neighbor, so I had to kick him", or, "Oh, I find that <insert profession> is too biased in these cases", or "He looked at me funny, so he must be hostile to the prosecution". I've seen defense get Batson challenged too where the victim was a minority.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
My concern was with how the question was phrased. Trying to avoid turning this into a repeat of DnD echo chamber.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Actually with the exception of sexual assault I think the military affords a lot more rights to the defendant. Starting with appointed counsel and free experts regardless of income level.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Frankly I think ending the war on drugs would decrease my gang related homicide caseload, so I'm all for it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
nm posted:It seems hosed up until you put yourself in the defendant's seat. Lets say you are charged with a crime that comes with manditory sex registration and life in prison. You are offered no jail and no registration. You are innocent, but the facts look bad. Do you plea? That is an extreme choice, but not having that out would be bad for clients. Sure we can talk about how bad it is than innocent people are taking pleas, and I agree in the big picture sense, but innocent people do get convicted at a non negligible rate and do you really want to risk it? And from the prosecutor's perspective, let's say you have a defendant who is guilty as gently caress, the evidence is overwhelming, but the trial would be long, and very stressful for the victim/victim's family, but the defendant insists on maintaining his innocence, despite all evidence to the contrary. (I've had Alford cases where the victim and three witnesses who knew the defendant prior to the crime all ID'd him at the scene, the cops arrived while the robbery was in progress, and two co-defendants took deals for their testimony, but the defendant still insisted it wasn't him) Letting him do an Alford just gets it over with. As a general rule, if a defendant is willing to plead, Alford or otherwise, it's in the state's best interest to take it. However, doing an Alford plea can screw you at sentencing because judges like to see you take responsibility for your actions.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 12:11
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:What is your opinion on and the reasoning behind DAs threatening the maximum possible charge given the evidence just to coerce a plea agreement? Or does it not happen like that? Generally we charge based on what the evidence supports, at the highest level possible because...you know...the state likes to hold people responsible for their criminal actions. Now, if the defendant is willing to plead guilty it (a) shows they are taking responsibility and therefore likely have greater rehabilitative potential (b) spares the victims the stress of a trial (if applicable) (c) saves the state money and time and (d) guarantees a conviction, rather than rolling the dice with the jury. In my jurisdiction cases are pretty much won or lost in voir dire. So yeah, in light of all that, we're willing to cut some defendant's a break. I can't speak for other places, but here, we tend not to get too personally involved in our cases. Guy wants to plead? Awesome. Guy gets acquitted? Meh. Sucks, but doesn't really change my life at all. Not to say we don't go for the conviction, but I really like that my office has a general philosophy that our job is to present the evidence competently, not necessarily "win." Obviously that's the goal, but sometimes either the evidence just isn't there, or the jury is dumb. Great lawyers lose cases, lovely lawyers win cases. It has a lot more to do with the strength of the case than the skill of the lawyer in most cases. Either way, I still go home and play video games.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
This is probably more appropriate for the debate the criminal justice thread.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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:Doesn't pro se screw you out of a ton of appeals simply because you can't say your lawyer was poo poo? Generally, IAC claims go to habeas, not direct appeal in this jurisdiction and yeah...if you don't have a lawyer you can't complain your lawyer was poo poo. Seems pretty straightforward. 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. Here the only arrest information that is publicly available is pending arrests. If the charges are dropped or end in an acquittal, it's not available to the public. 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. Nah, honestly I think a little bit of collegial attitude helps both sides. Best deals I ever negotiated were done over beers and golf. Only time I saw it become problematic was one department head deciding making friends was more important than actually doing our job. I had to point out that opposing counsel had misrepresented facts. she didn't want me to because it would make people mad. But that was a fluke. I didn't see the collegial attitude as a detriment in most instances. 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? For the most part. Every once in a while you get one who is shady (bullying victims or witnesses, misrepresenting facts etc.) but I think for the most part the defense bar is just there to do their job. It's a dog and pony show. They have to act all "aggressive" for their client to keep the client happy. We know it's an act. As long as they don't act like a douche outside the presence of their client, people tend not to care. 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. Sexual assault is ludicrously politicized in the military justice system. They aren't' taking the cases because they are fearless litigators. They are taking them because convening authorities are afraid to dismiss them. As for talent, sure there are some very talented JAGs but on the whole they will never compare to civilians because of sheer lack of experience. You learn to try cases by trying cases. To give you some perspective on the differences in case loads, CAAFlog, a mil justice blog, gives out the "silver tongue award" for the attorney who argues the most appellate cases in a given term. The 2013 winner had four cases. And there was a six way tie for second with three. As a first year civilian appellate prosecutor, I would sometimes have three arguments in a single month...occasionally two in the same week.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Drewjitsu posted:I speak and write the Queen's English, filthy Yankee. If we wanted to speak the queen's English we wouldn't have told her great great great great great grandfather to go gently caress himself. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Frederick "Griff" Louis, Prince of Wales? How the gently caress should I know? British monarchs ceased being relevant to me over 200 years ago.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Kanine posted:http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/07/08/420913118/does-it-matter-that-95-of-elected-prosecutors-are-white I think elected prosecutors in general are problematic. However, at least here (our prosecutors are appointed. Run of the mill are unionized and pretty much lifetime appointments. Heads of districts are subject to review every I believe 8 years) there are not many minority prosecutors because most applicants are white. When a minority applicant does show up they are almost always hired and put in high caseload offices because the division wants them visible.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
A judge I know has a great way of handling sov cits. "Well, sir, since you don't recognize the authority of this court, my clerk can't administer an oath. And since my clerk can't administer the oath, you can't swear to appear. The prisoner shall be held without bond."
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
nm posted:On cases we want to deal with any profile both sides will continue cases until after an election would be one example. I'm in an appointed state. We see very little politics in the charging decisions.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
BigHead posted:If we found out a prosecutor withheld evidence he or she would not be a prosecutor any longer. That is consistent with how it is here. We tend to have an open discovery policy, with the one exception being documents that could reveal the identity of a witness prior to a hearing on probable cause, and once the case is teed up for trial, we may ask the court to order the defense counsel not to share certain information with his client if it poses a threat to witness safety (e.g. home address etc.) This is after a fairly high profile case in which a child witness and his mother were shot. We do a high volume of gang related cases in this area. But unless there is genuine concern for witness safety, we don't play hide the ball. the only time I deviated from "whelp, it's in the file so here you go" is in the military there is a weird rule about reciprocal discovery where the governemnt only gets to ask for stuff if the defense filed a discovery request...so I would copy my file minus my personal notes, cull out all the Brady material and deliver it with a letter stating "the government has additional documents prepared for you and will deliver them upon receipt of a discovery request pursuant to whatever the hell the rule was." literally within five minutes of getting the request, the rest would be turned over. PostNouveau posted:You live outside the U.S.? Or maybe in a less corrupt part of it than everywhere else? Or maybe California is the outlier and every prosecutor I know thinks Orange County is appalling? The problem with "prosecutorial misconduct" is when the lay person hears it, they assume "hiding evidence" "suborning perjury" etc but the overwhelming cases of "misconduct" at issue on appeal are things like "said the word victim twice in closing argument" or "didn't turn over a police report that the police never told them was written...but the prosecutor is responsible anyway under the rules." If you want to poo poo on prosecutors, there's a whole thread for that over in DnD. This is the thread for people to ask actual criminal justice practitioners about their actual experiences. Also, Lol that article. "No one knows the exact extent of prosecutor misconduct. That’s because many prosecutorial activities take place behind closed doors, rendering any misconduct difficult to detect." And yet we can write ten pages about how clear the issues is based on quotes from defense attorneys! Brb...gonna go twirl my mustache. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 12:43 on Jul 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2015 12:36
|
|
|
We have designated victim advocates whose job it is to make sure the victims know what's going on/understand the process while still keeping arm's length from the prosecutors. Do you guys not have that?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Add one more example: We don't recognize a good faith exception for fourth amendment purposes. Edit: ah. You covered Leon.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
SlothBear posted:It's neither dumb nor overbroad and the vip lounge of the ivory tower isn't the place to try to understand the criminal justice system from. Hth. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
So this is what cop thread for smart people looks like. I approve.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
SlothBear posted:As someone who has not been in practice all that long, I have only ever known harmless error as "the excuse we bust out when we just don't want to rule for the defense." Conversely, "what we say when we want to admit the prosecutor said something stupid during closing, but dude, you confessed all over yourself and their were eight eyewitnesses so who gives a gently caress?"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Con-conversely, what we say when we don't like you even though there was no way we could whitewash your illegally obtained confession, that the jury heard; it was harmless error. Here an improperly admitted confession is usually per se harmful error.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
here PDs make the exact same amount as DA's of equal experience, felony level jobs are extremely competitive and go to very experienced PDs, and we have an independent commission that approves funding for defense experts. They are generally pretty lenient because we have a lot of appellate case law that says lack of experts can be ineffective assistance.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 06:28 |
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Without meaning to sound rude, is this how it works on paper, or how it works in practice? In practice. the last person hired by the PD appellate division had 20 years of private practice experience arguing before the State Supreme Court and a stellar reputation. Our state case law is pretty much "give the defense an expert or we will reverse you, bitches!"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2015 22:58
|
|