|
I'm not cool enough for OP and am a sellout. Edit: NWA was right. Edit2: Former High Crime Suburban PD Former low crime misdo prosecutor (for 5 seconds) Current touchy feely government policy nerd in criminal law. Edit3: Still don't go to law school. nm fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Jun 21, 2015 |
#
¿
Jun 21, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Criminal lawyers aren't actually real lawyers, real lawyers represent corporate entities and suck from their corrupt teats. Criminal lawyers get to wear pasley ties and spectator shoes. You're just jealous.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Do Public Defenders have a real incentive to do their job properly? Yes and you know people who choose to get paid government wages for 300+ caseloads, stress, and a thankless job might actually care about professional integrity and keeping the system honest. And I say choose because PDs offices get 100s of apps per open spot so they have the pick of the litter. This is important, no one is getting a PD job because they can't get any other job. Also PDs offices do generally care about how many cases you take tp trial. From a practical perspective, if you are known as someone who fights hard, you will tend to get better deals (or outright dismissals), which means clients are more likely to happily take a deal, which means less work long term. [ quote="PT6A" post="446859134"] 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? On a similar issue, how would you recommend reducing or eliminating the large advantage that the wealthy enjoy when it comes to interactions with the criminal justice system? [/quote] All the loving time. Not much within the legal profession though. As for eliminating the advantage, get rid of cash bail. Seriously, take two identical clients, one in one out, and the one out of custody will get a better deal every day of the week. The out of custody defendants also is more likely to go to trial and it is way easier to prepare a case out of custody. You need to raise the income limit for the PD. The people who really get screwed make a couple bucks more than the PD limit. They get some chucklefuck who works cheap, they can't afford a trial, much less experts. In California, we get the same pay as DAs, but not the funding. This is a problem. Yes, the DA handles more cases, but they generally need to spend less time per case, in many cases all or most of the investigation has been done by another agency (and funding source), same with some, but not all experts. Also in California, and this impacts everyone, not just the jails, there needs to be some prosecutor disbarred and maybe imprisoned. There is a culture of hiding evidence, falsifying evidence and other ahit combined with a knowledge that nothing will happen if they get caught. nm fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Jun 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Do prosecutors have a real incentive to do their job properly? Define properly. Edit: to be clear this is a serious question. nm fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Jun 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Robokomodo posted:I think that public defenders have an incentive to do well so that people will hire them when they transfer to the private sector. I'd rehire the guy who defended me in a second. Most PDs don't want to go into the private sector. I may have left PD work but working for the government as a lawyer is pretty awesome.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
PT6A posted:From a layman's perspective, it's obvious that bail is a very imperfect system, but what alternative do you propose? A non-negligible percentage of arrestees really are guilty, and should be kept in jail, yet it's unconscionable to keep an innocent person in jail unnecessarily. Recently we had a case of someone out on bail killing someone in a hit-and-run here, after a gas-and-dash. That was clearly someone who was a danger to society and should've been kept in jail. To a certain extent, if we accept that people are innocent until proven guilty, one has to make sure it's possible to be released from jail pre-trail, but seriously painful to gently caress up while released. I don't know what the right answer is, unfortunately. If I, or anyone, did, then we wouldn't need the bail system. Washington DC has a pretty awesome system, it was on John Oliver's show a week or so back. A friend of a friend works there in DC and can't say enough good things about it. Otherwise, they need to reform the amounts especially on the misdo and light felony range. Yeah, in Minnesota for a misdo, the highest bail I ever saw was a couple thousand bucks, and they were generally under $1000. In the IE, LOWEST bail on schedule was $10,000 with the normal range being $75,000-$25,000 for a misdo. Low level felonies could easy be in six figures. That is a huge amount of money, even at 10%, often for offenses where no jail time would be imposed for a plea. Also, every day in jail costs the tax payers a huge amount of cash.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Re: Sovereign Citizens, I'm going to spend my 3rd of July going out to where some of them live where I'll call the cops on them and then inform the police that these people are not only breaking whatever law I care about but also don't believe in America. I'm going to wear my giant eagle shirt I bought at walmart under my seersucker suit. Ronald Reagan tie Edit: this would be better in the lawyer thread.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
joat mon posted:A red, white and blue bow tie with gold fringe. But he won't be on a boat.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I'm curious as to what the opinions are of the drug war from inside the system. It seems like the public faces of the system like police chiefs and police union bosses are always staunch drug warriors, I get the feeling that opinions are more diverse among the rank and file. What are your experiences? This is more a question about your co-workers than any people actually posting in here, since obviously drug war support and owning a Something Awful forums account don't typically go together. Everyone thinks it is stupid except for a few select cops, DAs, and judges. But none of the people with authority have the stones to do anything about it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
PT6A posted:It seems problematic to me that you can punish/imprison someone who has neither been found guilty nor admitted guilt. Do you think the justice system benefits from having this plea available? 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? No contest is also useful because in some jurisdictions, it cannot be used against you in a civil case. Lets say you got a dui where you hit another car. You don't dispute the dui, but the other guy ran a red light. By pleaing no contest, you preserve civil remedies (or defenses) without subkecting everyone to a trial. Also the easiesy way to think of a no contest plea is essentially doing a judge trial where you agree to stipulate to the police report as a factual basis and present no evidence. nm fucked around with this message at 07:24 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^ I think I've hung more juries than cases that have come back with a verdict. They all got dismissed. Someone was talking about jury selection. It is both real and bullshit. There are some attorneys who can pick a jury like a boss. The problem is that it really isn't a skill which can be taught or explained, but it is undeniable that some people can pick juries that are far more likely to acquit. I actually think it has more to do with getting the jury to think your way in jury selection. However, I do think that picking a jury which can hang is a skill that can be taught. If you pick a jury that will hate each other, think a wide variety of races, backgrounds, and income levels, people with strong opinions, those people will be far more likely to hang. And if a jury hangs at 50-50 or better, odds are they judge will dismiss (unless it is serious or high profile) because who wants to spend another week listening to the same bullshit for the same result? If it hangs worse than that, unless it was like 11-1, odds are client will get a better deal. I always tried to hang juries. Very few NGs, but lots of never convicted clients -- same result, easier to predict. -S- posted:I've always heard that if you can get a bench trial you should go for that instead of a trial by jury; Apparently bench trials end in acquittals or not-guilty verdicts at a far higher rate than jury trials. As a lawyer, have you ever advised a client to try to get a bench trial, and is what I've heard true at all? Absolutely not. If there are statistics that show that it is only because the defense was given a signal by the judge that they wanted to make the case go away. I have never done a bench trial that wasn't a sham (i.e. slow plea or stupid loving case a baby DA wouldn't dismiss) in some way because judges are way more likely to convict than juries. nm fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I was under the impression that prison labor was generally voluntary. Depends on the state. It sure as poo poo isn't in the south. In other states it is voluntart, but if you don't you lose a lot of priviledges.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
What?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
dogcrash truther posted:Woah really? Does that vary by state, then? Kind of, I think. The fact of your arrest is basically always public. It is on a police blotter somewhere and if the media picks it up, with google, it will never die. This is an often unspoken problem. Client of mine was arrested for murder, was cleared before charging (I was already appointed on another case already, so I helped him invoke and made sure the line up was fair). He was 100% innocent, even the cops agree. Google his name though and you find arrested for murder (and a lot of hateful internet comments), but no mention of him being cleared. Even if he has his arrest sealed, he will always be googleable. Arrests histories in CA are generally not supposed to be made public, but they are. If you are charged, that charge is public record (and may be found by an internet search) even if you get a not guilty. We do have a factual innocence petition, where if you prove your innocence, your arrest is taken off your record, all records are stamped "exonerated" and then destroyed (really, they have to stamp them before they are shredded) and if anyone speaks of it again they're kinda in trouble. It is really hard to get and are generally only granted in cases where someone gave a false if when arrested.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
The whole answer would be complex, but I would at minimum prohibit police from disclosing the names of arrestees before charge. If PC can't even be met, they don't need to be releasing that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Totally. Even people with charges that are later dropped, I think, should have the right to have any references to such eliminated. Or would you disagree? I know a guy who has been charged of DUI something like six times (and he's guilty as sin of all of them, and many more for the times he didn't get caught) but never convicted because he has good lawyers that can always plead it down to something like non-criminal dangerous driving. While a guy who is charged with something he didn't do doesn't deserve to have a stain on his record, I can see the other side of the argument that says the public has a right to know about people like my acquaintance, even if they've never actually been convicted of the crime they've been charged with repeatedly. The problem is the 1st Amendment implications of requiring a newspaper to depublish something.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^ There is no way that court information could be private anyhow. Dead Reckoning posted:Do you think there is a public interest in the police having to disclose who they are detaining? My understanding was that was why they were compelled to release the names of arrestees. I certainly understand that arguement, but the problem is that has been overwhelmed by negatives. I think you could do the same thing, by requiring police to release stats on those arrested but uncharged within 1 year, requiring names of persons arrested be disclosed to certain family members, and allowing those arrested to waive any privacy if they want.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
joat mon posted:I'm not sure what jurisdiction you're talking about. At least in (most of ?) the US, police arrest, and District Attorneys (or Grand Juries) charge. There is a break in time between arrest and going to jail and the DA filing charges. More importantly, there is a substantive procedural break between the arresting officer deciding there is probable cause and a district attorney/grand jury deciding there is probable cause/prosecutive merit to actually file charges. This is what probable cause affidavits are for; information from the arresting officer to the DA sufficient to support the DA's filing of a charge. Sometimes (rarely) a DA declines to file charges. At that time the arrested person is released or his/her bond is exonerated. Also, notice to family would be allowed because it sure would be lovely for that missing person's report to be filed when they are in jail. Finally, FOIA is broad but you can reclassify some data, and more important we're talking about changes to laws here (beyond the Constitution), so that is game. No one is arguing it would be easy.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:How the gently caress should I know? British monarchs ceased being relevant to me over 200 years ago. You'd get to refer to yourself as the crown. That's pretty badass.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Pro se defendants are great because they remind judges and DAs what would happen if PDs didn't exist. How loving terrible must it have been to be a DA before gideon (in one of the terrible states that didn't have PDs before they were forced.) I find judges are most postive torward me if I call my case right after a pro se. By the way guys, if you ever really want to have fun watch restraining order hearings where both are pro se. At my last courtroom, my judge who had done nothing but crim for at least a decade, somehow got forced to do them. And he was way too nice to tell them to shut up. Hilarious ,and something highlarious.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
the shadow toker posted:Without getting too much into D&D territory, I'd be interested in your guys experience with the practical consequences of having elected prosecutors and judges. If this happens in your jurisdiction, do you find that cases play differently when you're coming up on an election year? Are there differences in the length of sentences judges will hand out, or the type of bail/probation restrictions they're willing to give? Or do people just tend to play things safer and overcharge/over sentence in general? On cases we want to deal with any profile both sides will continue cases until after an election would be one example. Offers are always worse in an election year.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:There's been a few questions about prosecution integrity here and in the corresponding legal system D&D thread, but I haven't seen this one asked: "Excupatory evidence" must be turned over by the prosecution before trial per Brady without a request. The rest of it is governed by state discovery rules. In reality, in California it ia a complete and utter clusterfuck. Even if your DA is nit unethical, if they are lazy or the agency is lazy/unethical, you may not get your discovery at a meaningful time. And the party respinsible rarely sees any backlash.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
The victim people in my last county would no poo poo intimidate witnesses including victims (generally DV and sexual assault who were scared of testifying). But that's fine because they work for the state and "victim's right's." Yay.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Drewjitsu posted:Right, what I mean to say is that the current system of state level criminal law is hilarious and inconsistent across the country which leads to confusion and uncertainties. Unlike a jurisdiction like Canada, where criminal law is a federal law power through and through. Yeah, except when my clients get cases in state court dismissed bexause they have federal charges, they don't jump for joy for a reason.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
tekz posted:How accurate is this article? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...40f8_story.html It varies on the state. In CA, the pay is better (same as DAs), you're not doing felonies, much less serious felonies, until you've done a fair number of misdemeanors (length of time will vary on office), but his case loads he describes seems smaller than what we had. I think we had more investigators.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Without meaning to sound rude, is this how it works on paper, or how it works in practice? I can't speak to the expert thing, because our system such, but the pay is easy. The answer is unions. We're in the same one as DAs, so an attorney who has been a PD for 5 years gets the same pay as the DA who has been here 5 years. The problem with this system is that it still doesn't equalize funding, so while the individual gets paid more the PD's office tends to get less per case than the DA, which means lower staff numbers. (We probably should get more per case as we have to do all our own instigation while the DA just calls the local department and has anything more complex than subpoena service farmed out. They also can use government employed [by other agencies] experts for free.) What is weird is because the DA is elected and the PD is appointed, the head PD tends to make more money than the elected DA because the DA has a statutory pay, while the PD is still in certain pay scales. The elected isn't even the highest paid person in the DA's office in some cases.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:If a minor is being interrogated/interviewed and requests to call their parents do the police have to stop and let them do so? Frustratingly, it appears the answer is it depends on that state (and the only goon texas "criminal" lawyer here does traffic ticket law). It could indicate the interview is a custodial interrogation if he requested any they told him no and he had to answer.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 21:44
|
|