|
ActusRhesus posted: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?" 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.
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 05:57 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
How accurate is this article? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...40f8_story.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
tekz posted:How accurate is this article? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...40f8_story.html For Louisiana if anything it's understated. The bits about poor people being held in jail when rich people wouldn't leading to them being coerced into pleading guilty due to custody status is 100% true everywhere I've ever been. Regarding funding and caseloads for the rest of the country, it will be true to some degree almost everywhere, although I'm sure there are exceptions. I don't think any half-decent public defender will tell you with a straight face they've never felt compromised by their caseload, lack of expert funding, etc. Where I work for example those are issues, but fairly minor compared to Louisiana, our problems are more with almost every judge prosecuting from the bench and the prosecutors ignoring the law with no check on them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted: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. Without meaning to sound rude, is this how it works on paper, or how it works in practice?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
If a minor is being interrogated/interviewed and requests to call their parents do the police have to stop and let them do so?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
To follow up on the responses above, note that it will also be completely differently organized in every jurisdiction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Unfortunately the current insanity of the clear invocation requirements for Miranda are creeping into gault too so if he phrases it that way probably not. Many places recognize the right of a kid to have a parent present but because he asked to call them not have them present most judges will say he didn't invoke. Most judges are terrible is what I'm saying. Also because most everywhere tells police they have to inform parents if they have the kid in custody, there usually is no right for the kid to call them too like there sometimes is the right to call an attorney. Should they stop? Yes absolutely that should be taken the same way as an adult saying they want a lawyer in every jurisdiction I'm familiar with. Will they? In reality it's the whim of the cop doing the questioning. SlothBear fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Sep 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
nm posted:Frustratingly, it appears the answer is it depends on that state (and the only goon texas "criminal" lawyer here does traffic ticket law). For context - it may also, depending on state, have a different answer if the interview is being conducted at school with a school official's permission and presence. (For example, Tennessee doesn't require notification.). This goes back to the notion of schools as surrogate parents while the child is there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Kalman posted:For context - it may also, depending on state, have a different answer if the interview is being conducted at school with a school official's permission and presence. (For example, Tennessee doesn't require notification.). This goes back to the notion of schools as surrogate parents while the child is there. Yeah, my second reaction was that the "schools as surrogate parents" part would complicate things. I figured this wouldn't be cut and dry. edit: this article implies the local ACLU chapter thinks some rights may have been violated: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/16/police-violated-ahmed-mohamed-s-civil-rights-by-keeping-away-his-parents.html quote:Texas Family Code is clear this was not supposed to happen. I'm unclear if a school official counts for accompanying him or if because he was being interrogated at school if somehow magically he lost a right to conference with his parents. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
ACLUs generally have to be treated with caution- they will choose advocate for a particular side. That the side may be sympathetic does not mean their interpretation or presentation of facts or law are necessarily correct. You should basically think of the local chapter as the kid's second attorney in this context.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 05:57 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yeah, my second reaction was that the "schools as surrogate parents" part would complicate things. I figured this wouldn't be cut and dry. The latter is entirely possible, and that right may not actually exist - the ACLU exists to do impact litigation and has no problem staking out aggressive positions as to what they think the law says that may or may not have much backing. (I am definitely not a Texas lawyer, so they may be completely right - but I have done a lot of work with ACLU lawyers and while they're uniformly great people, they had no problem with the zealous part of zealous advocacy.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 05:45
|
|