The Justice System and KC

[thedeviledadvocate]

I don't know, whose fault would it be if an innocent person was convicted and executed?

Was it the defense attorney's for not winning - maybe because he felt he would be offending the public if he filed to many motions or raised to much of a stink?

Was it the prosecutor's for using jailhouse snitches and questionable forensic evidence.

Was it the judge for allowing in questionable forensic evidence or for ruling incorrectly?

Was it law enforcement's for not investigating other suspects, for not looking into questionable leads, for illegally obtaining evidence?

Was it the jury's?

Something tells me that before we start asking whose fault it is if a defendant gets off on a technicality (therefore assuming they were in fact guilty) that we should first ask whose fault it is if an innocent person is not only convicted (happens daily) but sentenced to death (happens yearly), but also executed (exact number never to be known).

Whose fault would it be if an innocent person were convicted and executed?
That is a good question, but to me it has a simple answer, if all protocols were followed by LE and the prosecution, and the defense did everything they could do within the law, and the innocent person was still convicted, then the system is at fault and somehow needs to be revised so this can’t happen. If anyone did anything outside the laws provided, for example lied about how certain evidence was obtained, or failed to obtain evidence within the proper protocols, then the person who went outside the system to obtain the conviction would be at fault, not the system itself.
If indeed an innocent person can still be convicted and executed after all the protocols, procedures and rules of law were followed, and after all forms of appeals were exhausted, then I would not pose the question who is at fault, rather I would pose the question
What can we do to make certain an innocent person is never convicted and executed?
Although I have no simple answer for the convicted part of this question, the second part is very simple, get rid of the death penalty. That would absolutely insure no innocent person is ever executed. moo

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

My post was poorly worded. What i was referring to specifically (in my mind LOL) was why would the defense attorney be to blame when the acquittal is based on a technicality due to evidience not being collected properly.
IOW, if a defense attorney reveals that a confession was obtained illegally or if no search warrant was issued for evidence and it was all tossed out at trial, why would an acquittal based on that be the fault of the defense attorney? IMO it would be the fault of those that are responsible for collecting that data.

What I was thinking in my mind didn't exactly make it to the keyboard.

I totally agree with you that if the defense attorney gained an acquittal due to anything improperly obtained or collected, then the fault must fall on those responsible for the collection of that data. If this were the scenario the only thing the defense attorney could be blamed for is doing their job.

 

[Themis]

There are only 3 or 4 verified attorneys on the caylee forum (rhhornsby ,azlawyer and impatientredhead off the top of my head) and plenty of us non lawyer types and we think you are doing just fine! So do not ever be afarid to post what you are thinking. We are learning together, even the attorneys are picking up a thing or two.

Regarding getting someone off on a technicality..whose fault would you consider that to be?

MiraclesHappen, and Themis are also verified.

 

[songline]

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.

the reason the attorney does not ask that question is because he can not do the job right if he knows the truth.
Unless someone arrested said to his attorney "I am not guilty of this crime" an attorney wont ask.
As for DNA - that can be planted sometimes, depending on the situation; so the circumstances of all the other data can come into proving that as well.
More then likely not in the case of a rape, but in the case of a burglary it can...all someone has to do is leave a cigarette that was smoked with a mug, or paper cup..there is your planted DNA.
just saying....

 

[Themis]

The justice system is about resolution of the charges for the benefit of society at large.

 

[songline]

I was just smirking at the name of this thread Justice system and KC?
:waitasec: Why do I think that it is almost impossible?
Because her parents and clan are still walking around, taking vacations, eating out...
Do I know that their day will come too? I don't know that...I can only hope.

 

[JBean]

MiraclesHappen, and Themis are also verified.

Hi Themis. I rarely see any of you so you didn't pop in to my head! I stand corrected.
Thanks and as you can see my batting average is pretty bad.
Sorry for that oversight and I really need to post something for verified professionals so it doesn't happen again.

There are a handful of posters that others assume may be attorneys but they are not as far as I know.

Thanks again for the correction, I appreciate it.

 

[CitizenKim]

there are so many smart legal people on these threads it can be very intimidating to post. i am usually afraid that i will not be able to express myself as well as others.

but let me try:

i understand the need for defense attorneys, and i respect the american justice system. and i have heard all of the arguments. and YES, if i was accused of a crime of course i would want someone to defend me.

but i wonder if defense attorneys ever feel in a small place in their heart/soul a little bit of guilt for winning? if they truly knew their client was guilty, but was able to "win" an acquital because of a legal technicality...is the "win" worth it?

I agree w/you completely and I DO think that many struggle and suffer when they "win" for their guilty clients. Take a look a Robert Kardashian's face when he hears that OJ is acquitted- he looks shocked and devastated.

 

[cyberborg]

Talking about The Justice System and KC .... I was intrigued by the recent conviction of Amanda Knox and the similiarities.

I did not follow this case closely but it is interesting in some aspects, such as:

1. There seemed to be a lot of evidence in this case, like KC but it was also confusing and did not clearly and definitively connect with those convicted, my gut told me one thing but the evidence was not there,

2. AK was likewise a victim of the media with a focus on her personality, strangeness, attire, etc.

3. AK is/was a high profile accused and the trial dragged on for months, years it seemed like -- a major European trial.

To me, KC's trial could go in a similiar fashion where there is nothing definitive but she is found guilty as charged of all charges.

Interestingly, the Jury was comprised of two professional Jurors as former Judges. After a LOT of proceedings the actual deliberation and verdict was swift.

 

[RR0004]

Talking about The Justice System and KC .... I was intrigued by the recent conviction of Amanda Knox and the similiarities.

I did not follow this case closely but it is interesting in some aspects, such as:

1. There seemed to be a lot of evidence in this case, like KC but it was also confusing and did not clearly and definitively connect with those convicted, my gut told me one thing but the evidence was not there,

2. AK was likewise a victim of the media with a focus on her personality, strangeness, attire, etc.

3. AK is/was a high profile accused and the trial dragged on for months, years it seemed like -- a major European trial.

To me, KC's trial could go in a similiar fashion where there is nothing definitive but she is found guilty as charged of all charges.

Interestingly, the Jury was comprised of two professional Jurors as former Judges. After a LOT of proceedings the actual deliberation and verdict was swift.

I thought of Casey as well...but I'm not sure there was a lot of evidence against AK (JMO)...but one thing that stood out in my mind was the legal process in Italy...reasonable doubt doesn't even come in to play over there from what I understand (no sequestering of the jury either). Casey is very fortunate that she is being prosecuted here.

 

[MD MOMMY]

All that I know is that I don't know why she took on the case. It could be that she saw an inexperienced attorney over his head and wanted to help.

As for her public perception, outside of those who support Casey Anthony, I doubt she is poorly regarded.

Either way, we each have our own opinion that is built on nothing more than assumptions and inferences.

If I were AL and was presented with this case, I would take it in a hot second. It's obvious(and sorta kinda confirmed by you) that she was approached by JB, not the other way around. She see's this is a 20-something female, how many of those have been on death row? NOT MANY. The odds right there are stacked in her favor. I'm sure she looked at this case and thought it would be an easy notch on her belt of unfailability. This is in addition to all the press and notarity a case like this stinks of. She made a smart tactical move IMO. I'll leave my personal thoughts about her right where they are, but from a "business" perspective she is very wise IMO.

 

[MD MOMMY]

I thought of Casey as well...but I'm not sure there was a lot of evidence against AK (JMO)...but one thing that stood out in my mind was the legal process in Italy...reasonable doubt doesn't even come in to play over there from what I understand (no sequestering of the jury either). Casey is very fortunate that she is being prosecuted here.

Another similarity is AK started the entire investigation out with lies and changed up her story a few times.

AK was seen doing cartwheels while waiting to be interviewed by LE..now I'm unsure I can compare that to anyoneto date LMAO. I thought I read that the same standard of care applied in Italy in regards to reasonable doubt, but I could be wrong. I've read quite a bit on that case so it's mumbled in my head.

ETA...IF KC were being tried in Italy she wouldn't be facing the DP so she may just be hoping she was there LOL.

 

[jandkmom]

If KC is proven guilty in a court of law, I would rather her get LWOP than the death penalty. IMO to a young woman like KC, a lifetime of jail would be enough punishment.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

If I were AL and was presented with this case, I would take it in a hot second. It's obvious(and sorta kinda confirmed by you) that she was approached by JB, not the other way around. She see's this is a 20-something female, how many of those have been on death row? NOT MANY. The odds right there are stacked in her favor. I'm sure she looked at this case and thought it would be an easy notch on her belt of unfailability. This is in addition to all the press and notarity a case like this stinks of. She made a smart tactical move IMO. I'll leave my personal thoughts about her right where they are, but from a "business" perspective she is very wise IMO.

And let's not forget that she has a book coming out in January, which obviously played into this decision. Wonder why the bar association sees no problem with that?

 

[MD MOMMY]

And let's not forget that she has a book coming out in January, which obviously played into this decision. Wonder why the bar association sees no problem with that?

I'm not familiar with the bar associations ethics/rules at all, but I'm not sure I'm getting the problem here. Lawyers can write books. I'm sure while she was writing the book she was defending clients right? She apparently was approached by JB so it appears she wasn't lining up to defend KC just to publicize her new reads. I think that part was merely a bonus in her business savy decision. JMO.

 

[RR0004]

Another similarity is AK started the entire investigation out with lies and changed up her story a few times.

AK was seen doing cartwheels while waiting to be interviewed by LE..now I'm unsure I can compare that to anyoneto date LMAO. I thought I read that the same standard of care applied in Italy in regards to reasonable doubt, but I could be wrong. I've read quite a bit on that case so it's mumbled in my head.

ETA...IF KC were being tried in Italy she wouldn't be facing the DP so she may just be hoping she was there LOL.

Personally, I think there was a huge language problem...AK didn't even have an interpreter (or lawyer through the 48 hours of questioning). I just heard on LKL that in Italy one can be expected to be found guilty if charged...and pray that the verdict is overturned on appeal. If Casey is found guilty, this case may be over in the minds of many...but it no doubt will also go on...and on...and on.

Sorry for the OT.