917 users online (158 members and 759 guests)  



Websleuths News


Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 116
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,759

    The Justice System and KC

    Maybe we can have a frank discussion about our justice system and how it relates to KC's trial.
    This is not an opportunity to bash LE the FBI , or our justice system as a whole.
    But rather, we have posters that see perceived weaknesses in our justice system and perhaps we can have an honest discussion about that. I don't mean only favorable comments are allowed, but if you have issue with something please be specific as to what you mean and be constructive in your criticisms.



    I am bringing over some posts from another thread so please hang on.
    Last edited by JBean; 12-03-2009 at 08:17 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    219
    This is directed at all attorneys, not just defense attorneys. Would you agree that when arguing whether or not evidence is admissable, it's NOT really about the admissability? It is all about "winning" for your "side"?

    For instance...defense is arguing that the Body Farm air test results are "junk science" and are going to argue that they are inadmissable. BUT, if the results were in KC's FAVOR, the defense would be arguing FOR the results to be admissable.

    In other words, lawyers (defense and prosecution) don't really care if evidence is admissable or not. They could argue FOR "ABC evidence" in one case, yet argue AGAINST "ABC evidence" in another case, depending on how it affects their "side."

    How does that ultimately affect pursuit of justice? Does it really come down to who argues the best? Is "truth" even what is being sought?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,342
    Quote Originally Posted by tracy87 View Post
    This is directed at all attorneys, not just defense attorneys. Would you agree that when arguing whether or not evidence is admissable, it's NOT really about the admissability? It is all about "winning" for your "side"?

    For instance...defense is arguing that the Body Farm air test results are "junk science" and are going to argue that they are inadmissable. BUT, if the results were in KC's FAVOR, the defense would be arguing FOR the results to be admissable.

    In other words, lawyers (defense and prosecution) don't really care if evidence is admissable or not. They could argue FOR "ABC evidence" in one case, yet argue AGAINST "ABC evidence" in another case, depending on how it affects their "side."

    How does that ultimately affect pursuit of justice? Does it really come down to who argues the best? Is "truth" even what is being sought?


    Justice is not taught in law schools. Trial attornies advocate on behalf of their client. Prosecutors advocate on behalf of the People. Defense attornies advocate on behalf of the defendant or defendants.

    In the minds of most defense attornies and prosecutors, a trial is not about a search for truth or the pursuit of justice. Rather, it's about winning. And to the extent that judges rule certain evidence to be admissable or not, consider the motions that precede such rulings to be but a means to an end; i.e., winning.
    Last edited by Wudge; 12-03-2009 at 06:49 PM.
    It's not what a man knows that makes him a fool, it's what he does know that ain't so. .... Josh Billings

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Orlando, Florida
    Posts
    783
    Quote Originally Posted by tracy87 View Post
    This is directed at all attorneys, not just defense attorneys. Would you agree that when arguing whether or not evidence is admissable, it's NOT really about the admissability? It is all about "winning" for your "side"?

    For instance...defense is arguing that the Body Farm air test results are "junk science" and are going to argue that they are inadmissable. BUT, if the results were in KC's FAVOR, the defense would be arguing FOR the results to be admissable.

    In other words, lawyers (defense and prosecution) don't really care if evidence is admissable or not. They could argue FOR "ABC evidence" in one case, yet argue AGAINST "ABC evidence" in another case, depending on how it affects their "side."

    How does that ultimately affect pursuit of justice? Does it really come down to who argues the best? Is "truth" even what is being sought?
    The problem is you direct your question to the attorneys - when in reality an attorney is just en extension of the client. Therefore, your question is best analyzed from the perspective of the client.

    So would I hold it against an accused person for objecting to incriminating evidence being used against them? Not a chance.

    Just like I would never hold anything against an accused person for trying to introduce exculpatory evidence to prove their innocence - no matter how questionable the evidence was.

    And why is that? Because a judge, not the attorneys, decides what is admissible and what is not. The attorneys are just the advocates for the respective sides.

    And ultimately, even if a judge admits evidence into a trial, a jury is free to reject the value of the evidence entirely.
    My blog: Florida Law and the Criminal Justice System
    My site: Law Office of Richard Hornsby, Criminal Defense Lawyer
    “The only real lawyers are trial lawyers, and trial lawyers try cases to juries.” - Clarence Darrow

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    16,024
    Isn't that a little simplistic? So Casey said I don't want to die and AL said I know what you are trying to say - I'll write ten motions? I was going to add something about Baez but decided it might not be appropriate. My point is - don't you think that answer is a little pat for explaining what defense lawyers do?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Wudge View Post
    Justice is not taught in law schools. Trial attornies advocate on behalf of their client. Prosecutors advocate on behalf of the People. Defense attornies advocate on behalf of the defendant or defendants.

    In the minds of most defense attornies and prosecutors, a trial is not about a search for truth or the pursuit of justice. Rather, it's about winning. And to the extent that judges rule certain evidence to be admissable or not, consider the motions that precede such rulings to be but a means to an end; i.e., winning.
    If the Defense does not try to prevail "win" our system would fail. If the prosecution does not believe the person committed the crime they should not prosecute. If they believe the person is guilty and then did not try to prevail (win) they should be fired.

    Please name a better system of Justice.
    Last edited by CDMORLANDO; 12-03-2009 at 07:06 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,022
    Quote Originally Posted by CDMORLANDO View Post
    If the Defense does not try to prevail "win" our system would fail. If the prosecution does not believe the person committed the crime they should not prosecute. If they did not try to prevail (win) they should be fired.

    Please name a better system of Justice.
    I think we do have be best system of justice. I think part of the problem is that both sides are not always equal in their representatives and both sides don't always use the same ethics or disclosure. The truth is the truth no matter what the answer is.

    What would your advice be to the prosecution on appealing to the jury's sense of justice?
    Last edited by jandkmom; 12-03-2009 at 07:07 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    5,658
    Quote Originally Posted by tracy87 View Post
    This is directed at all attorneys, not just defense attorneys. Would you agree that when arguing whether or not evidence is admissable, it's NOT really about the admissability? It is all about "winning" for your "side"?

    For instance...defense is arguing that the Body Farm air test results are "junk science" and are going to argue that they are inadmissable. BUT, if the results were in KC's FAVOR, the defense would be arguing FOR the results to be admissable.

    In other words, lawyers (defense and prosecution) don't really care if evidence is admissable or not. They could argue FOR "ABC evidence" in one case, yet argue AGAINST "ABC evidence" in another case, depending on how it affects their "side."

    How does that ultimately affect pursuit of justice? Does it really come down to who argues the best? Is "truth" even what is being sought?
    That's why I really don't have a lot of faith in all of the rules regulations, and technical nonsense that effect criminal cases. It's more about the procedure and formula than justice or truth.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,342
    Quote Originally Posted by CDMORLANDO View Post
    If the Defense does not try to prevail "win" our system would fail. If the prosecution does not believe the person committed the crime they should not prosecute. If they believe the person is guilty and then did not try to prevail (win) they should be fired.

    Please name a better system of Justice.
    I didn't mean to imply that I'm a champion of a particular system of jurisprudence practiced in another country. I meant only to provide Tracey with my view on where truth and justice truly rank versus winning.

    Though if it were up to me, I would bring a practice or two from other countries to America.
    Last edited by Wudge; 12-03-2009 at 07:27 PM.
    It's not what a man knows that makes him a fool, it's what he does know that ain't so. .... Josh Billings

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    5,658
    Quote Originally Posted by cecybeans View Post
    and

    c. because they are waiting at the bus stop and she wants to be nonchalantly looking the other way when they get hit
    Good point. I also don't think Casey cares the slightest bit about either George or Cindy. It would probably make her uncomfortable to see them and she seems to lack any kind of meaningful attachment to anyone on this planet, so why would she bother? I do think she sees Lee as a sort of companion, but still I don't think she has genuine feelings for anyone. jmo


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    5,658
    Quote Originally Posted by logicalgirl View Post
    Isn't that a little simplistic? So Casey said I don't want to die and AL said I know what you are trying to say - I'll write ten motions? I was going to add something about Baez but decided it might not be appropriate. My point is - don't you think that answer is a little pat for explaining what defense lawyers do?
    Not to mention that AL is simply using casey as a means to fight her bizarre personal war against the death penalty. She thinks she is 100% right and is using the courts to force her beliefs on society. That is not what courts are for, that is what the legislature is for. I don't understand why the attorneys are allowed to use the courts as a tool for their idealistic crusades.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Wudge View Post
    I didn't mean to imply that I'm a champion of a particular system of jurisprudence practiced in another country. I meant only to provide Tracey with my view on where truth and justice truly rank versus winning.

    Though if it were up to me, I would bring a practice or two from other countries to America.
    Since you was the last poster and I quoted you, it may have appeared to be aimed at you.

    I intended to make the more general comment that while a "bad" system no one has designed a better system.

    No one would want a system that defense attorney decided (as a Jury of one) that someone was guilty and therefore did not try to win.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    219
    thank you wudge and rhornsby. i understand and respect your replies.

    recently my brother was accused of a particularly horrible crime. i hired him a "high-profile attorney" (lol) here in ft myers. in my naivety i was searching for the truth. i did not want my brother to "get off', rather i wanted him to take responsibility for his crime if he indeed was guilty. i hired the attorney to make sure he was informed of his rights and was getting good advice and to be his "advocate".

    imagine my surprise when the first thing the attorney told me was, do not ask him if he is guilty and i (meaning the atty) will never ask him either. apparently, there was dna evidence, and a taped confession implicating my brother. the atty said, don't worry we are working to get the evidence thrown out. i said, but, but, but....if he committed the crime, he should take responsibility, right?

    apparently not.

    i know this is way off topic.

    but, i just don't understand defense attorneys.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by CDMORLANDO View Post
    If the Defense does not try to prevail "win" our system would fail. If the prosecution does not believe the person committed the crime they should not prosecute. If they believe the person is guilty and then did not try to prevail (win) they should be fired.

    Please name a better system of Justice.
    i agree totally with this statement. i would not want to live under any other justice system. as a WHOLE i agree with the "justice system". BUT when i look at specific pieces...well i just don't know.

    he admitted it, dna proves it....but his atty can get it "thrown out", and now he walks. people can say, oh well...that's how our system works. the total good outweighs the tiny part of the bad.

    BUT then i look into the eyes of the victim, the eyes of her mother. i see my parents and the staggering weight they carry...well i just don't know.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,342
    Quote Originally Posted by tracy87 View Post
    thank you wudge and rhornsby. i understand and respect your replies.

    recently my brother was accused of a particularly horrible crime. i hired him a "high-profile attorney" (lol) here in ft myers. in my naivety i was searching for the truth. i did not want my brother to "get off', rather i wanted him to take responsibility for his crime if he indeed was guilty. i hired the attorney to make sure he was informed of his rights and was getting good advice and to be his "advocate".

    imagine my surprise when the first thing the attorney told me was, do not ask him if he is guilty and i (meaning the atty) will never ask him either. apparently, there was dna evidence, and a taped confession implicating my brother. the atty said, don't worry we are working to get the evidence thrown out. i said, but, but, but....if he committed the crime, he should take responsibility, right?

    apparently not.

    i know this is way off topic.

    but, i just don't understand defense attorneys.

    (This ........ caused me to laugh until my stomach hurt.)

    Trust me. It's not an everyday occurrence that someone hires a defense attorney with the hope they will get their new client to 'fess up'.

    (God bless you. I hope things work out for the best, whatever that might be.)
    It's not what a man knows that makes him a fool, it's what he does know that ain't so. .... Josh Billings

Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. The Justice System Has Failed
    By Boodles in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 07-06-2011, 04:17 PM
  2. NO Criminal Justice System in New Orleans ...
    By 13th Juror in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-06-2005, 09:16 PM