|
On July 07 2011 12:56 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 12:41 Defacer wrote:
Can someone that knows something about the trial law explain if there was something the prosecution could have done differently with the evidence they had? They should not have dropped the child neglect charge, nor should they have pushed for the a murder charge (with death penalty, no less), on the basis of mere circumstantial evidence. By focusing on aggravated child neglect and the four counts of providing false information to police officers, she would have much more likely to have been found guilty, and would face up to 19 years in prison for all five counts under Florida law. More likely, her attorney would have agreed to a plea bargain for some lesser amount, perhaps 7 years (leaving her 4 to serve given that she's spent almost 3 years awaiting trial). However, the highly publicized nature of the case incentivizes the State Attorney's office to try to make an example out of her, both to minimize backlash for 'going easy' on her and to potentially score political points for attorney general Pam Bondi as this is the first media-scrutinized case she's faced since her election in January.
Thank you sir for putting the situation in context. To be perfectly honest, I just heard about this case a few days ago. For whatever reason, not many people in Vancouver have been talking about it.
|
On July 07 2011 12:59 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 12:56 sunprince wrote:On July 07 2011 12:41 Defacer wrote:
Can someone that knows something about the trial law explain if there was something the prosecution could have done differently with the evidence they had? They should not have dropped the child neglect charge, nor should they have pushed for the a murder charge (with death penalty, no less), on the basis of mere circumstantial evidence. By focusing on aggravated child neglect and the four counts of providing false information to police officers, she would have much more likely to have been found guilty, and would face up to 19 years in prison for all five counts under Florida law. More likely, her attorney would have agreed to a plea bargain for some lesser amount, perhaps 7 years (leaving her 4 to serve given that she's spent almost 3 years awaiting trial). However, the highly publicized nature of the case incentivizes the State Attorney's office to try to make an example out of her, both to minimize backlash for 'going easy' on her and to potentially score political points for attorney general Pam Bondi as this is the first media-scrutinized case she's faced since her election in January. Thank you sir for putting the situation in context. To be perfectly honest, I just heard about this case a few days ago. For whatever reason, not many people in Vancouver have been talking about it.
Yeah UK didn't really know about it either. Only found out when one afternoon I decided to watch fox news.
|
On July 07 2011 12:56 MozzarellaL wrote:
I am still wondering what 'trial law' is.
Trial law is the concentration of law concerned with litigation at the trial court level, the lowest level of the judiciary and the level with original jurisdiction, which means that it establishes the facts of the case. Above the trial courts are the appellate (appeals) courts, in which litigants can dispute the legal decisions made at trial court, but not the facts of the case.
On July 07 2011 12:59 Defacer wrote:
Thank you sir for putting the situation in context. To be perfectly honest, I just heard about this case a few days ago. For whatever reason, not many people in Vancouver have been talking about it.
You're welcome.
|
So how is she not guilty of this crime even though it's so obvious? Like event man slaughter?
|
On July 07 2011 13:06 sunprince wrote:Trial law is the concentration of law concerned with litigation at the trial court level, the lowest level of the judiciary and the level with original jurisdiction, which means that it establishes the facts of the case. Above the trial courts are the appellate (appeals) courts, in which litigants can dispute the legal decisions made at trial court, but not the facts of the case.
That's not trial law.
That's civil or criminal procedure.
|
On July 07 2011 13:08 kellymilkies wrote:
So how is she not guilty of this crime even though it's so obvious? Like event man slaughter?
Some members of the jury have publicly said they believe she is guilty but there is not enough physical evidence linking them to it. It's sick though how she is going to get paid a lot of money for interviews and treated like a celebrity. Even the jury are being paid for interviews. Because the prosecution wanted a death penalty, they also required much much more evidence then they would have otherwise needed.
|
This entire post really underscores how morons can make wild speculative conclusions based on events without conducting research into how the event took place, why it happened, or the use of definitive evidence to establish support for the conclusion. It's almost as if this poster decided a defendant was guilty just because he wanted her to be guilty, and didn't even bother to consult the evidence, instead relying on a random hypothesis he didn't bother to test
LOL the verbiage of your writing, it reeks of smug pseudo-intellectual posturing that is barely worthy of a response.. but I'm glad I struck a nerve. People like you need to have their cage rattled.
There are many reasons why one might think that this trial was a failure of the justice system, or at the least a complete circus. You're not up for that debate because you'd lose. You were smart to go with ad hominem attacks like "moron" and left-field assumptions like "didn't even bother to consult the evidence." That way, you can sound intelligent without really saying anything.
|
On July 07 2011 13:12 DeepBlu2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 13:08 kellymilkies wrote:
So how is she not guilty of this crime even though it's so obvious? Like event man slaughter? Some members of the jury have publicly said they believe she is guilty but there is not enough physical evidence linking them to it. It's sick though how she is going to get paid a lot of money for interviews and treated like a celebrity. Even the jury are being paid for interviews. Because the prosecution wanted a death penalty, they also required much much more evidence then they would have otherwise needed.
Ironically, Nancy Grace and the MSM who basically spent the last 3 months attacking her are the reasons why Anthony will be able to make so much $$.
|
On July 07 2011 13:12 Rybka wrote:
LOL the verbiage of your writing, it reeks of smug pseudo-intellectual posturing that is barely worthy of a response.. but I'm glad I struck a nerve. People like you need to have their cage rattled.
There are many reasons why one might think that this trial was a failure of the justice system, or at the least a complete circus. You're not up for that debate because you'd lose. You were smart to go with ad hominem attacks like "moron" and left-field assumptions like "didn't even bother to consult the evidence." That way, you can sound intelligent without really saying anything.
Better than making wild, unsubstantiated assumptions and presenting them as fact. This completely detracts whatever credibility you might have. I don't care whether or not you actually have a point to make, or what that point is. The fact that you make conclusions and don't bother to support them is enough for me to disregard anything you have to say. I don't even need to debate you, because there's nothing to debate. You have not presented a single iota of evidence to support your argument. Do you have a link to any juror interview where the juror implies or suggests he is influenced by CSI? Do you have any kind of study that compares rates of juror conviction in trials before and after CSI became mainstream television? No, you don't. How does one argue against someone who makes conclusory statements?
You don't, and that's why you deserve to be mocked.
|
On July 07 2011 13:11 MozzarellaL wrote:
That's not trial law.
That's civil or criminal procedure.
Criminal procedure refers to the process of criminal trials, while civil procedure refers to the process of civil trials.
'Trial law', on the other hand, refers to the specialty of law practiced by trial lawyers. Trial law does include a knowledge of criminal procedure, but is not the same thing.
Contrast with appellate law, the law practiced by appellate lawyers
|
On July 07 2011 13:15 iamho wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 13:12 DeepBlu2 wrote:On July 07 2011 13:08 kellymilkies wrote:
So how is she not guilty of this crime even though it's so obvious? Like event man slaughter? Some members of the jury have publicly said they believe she is guilty but there is not enough physical evidence linking them to it. It's sick though how she is going to get paid a lot of money for interviews and treated like a celebrity. Even the jury are being paid for interviews. Because the prosecution wanted a death penalty, they also required much much more evidence then they would have otherwise needed. Ironically, Nancy Grace and the MSM who basically spent the last 3 months attacking her are the reasons why Anthony will be able to make so much $$.
God, this shit is depressing because it's so true.. She'll probably get offers to do mom porn as well. Yeeeeeeeeeeeeuckk.
|
Innocent until proven guilty.
Was she proven guilty in court?
Or just in the media since day 1?
|
On July 07 2011 13:23 Achille5 wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty.
Was she proven guilty in court?
Or just in the media since day 1?
I'm always willing to think along those lines but there is a long list of rather undeniable events where she lied to the police. I still can't pass a final judgment, naturally, but I'm pretty sure people will be keeping their distance from her.
|
On July 07 2011 13:15 iamho wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 13:12 DeepBlu2 wrote:On July 07 2011 13:08 kellymilkies wrote:
So how is she not guilty of this crime even though it's so obvious? Like event man slaughter? Some members of the jury have publicly said they believe she is guilty but there is not enough physical evidence linking them to it. It's sick though how she is going to get paid a lot of money for interviews and treated like a celebrity. Even the jury are being paid for interviews. Because the prosecution wanted a death penalty, they also required much much more evidence then they would have otherwise needed. Ironically, Nancy Grace and the MSM who basically spent the last 3 months attacking her are the reasons why Anthony will be able to make so much $$.
Everyone's a winner!
|
On July 07 2011 13:20 sunprince wrote:
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Criminal procedure refers to the process of criminal trials, while civil law refers to the process of civil trials.
I have no idea what I'm talking about? If trial law is a real thing, please go to amazon and find me a treatise on trial law. Also, lol @ 'trial lawyer'. Any lawyer can be go into court and represent his client and magically turn into trial lawyer without having to a single bit of 'lawyering' once there.
Appellate law is a real thing because there are lawyers who 'specialize' in the fields of standard of review, and knowing what things can be reviewed on the appellate level.
So unless you're referring to the types of questions one can ask a witness, or when counsel can object to opposing counsel's questions (which falls under the Law of Evidence), I still have no idea what you're talking about.
|
On July 07 2011 13:32 MozzarellaL wrote:If trial law is a real thing, please go to amazon and find me a treatise on trial law. Also, lol @ 'trial lawyer'. Any lawyer can be go into court and represent his client and magically turn into trial lawyer without having to a single bit of 'lawyering' once there.
Any lawyer can represent their clients outside of their own specialities. Nevertheless, there are lawyers who specialize in litigation and trial practice.
The American Bar Association has a group specifically for such lawyers, there's another resource center here, and I'm sure if you were capable of using Google correctly you can find many instances of lawyers who self-idenitfy as trial lawyers/attorneys/specialists or litigation lawyers/attorneys/specialists.
You can also find trial law firms, e.g. law firms which specialize in, you guessed it, trial law.
|
On July 07 2011 13:40 sunprince wrote:Any lawyer can represent their clients outside of their own specialities. Nevertheless, there are lawyers who specialize in litigation and trial practice. The American Bar Association has a group specifically for such lawyers, there's another resource center here, and I'm sure if you were capable of using Google correctly you can find many instances of lawyers who self-idenitfy as trial lawyers/attorneys/specialists or litigation lawyers/attorneys/specialists.
A litigation attorney is not a 'trial attorney'. Many litigation attorneys never step foot into a court room their entire careers.
You can also find trial law firms, e.g. law firms which specialize in, you guessed it, trial law.
http://www.martindale.com/
That's a real directory of lawyers. It basically lists every lawyer who is practicing nationwide. You can find lawyers or law firms based on practice and field of law. Let's look for 'trial law', shall we? Oh, it doesn't exist, who would have thought.
|
On July 07 2011 13:46 MozzarellaL wrote:http://www.martindale.com/That's a real directory of lawyers. You can find lawyers or law firms based on practice and field of law. Let's look for 'trial law', shall we? Oh, it doesn't exist, who would have thought.
Try actually searching for 'trial law' or 'trial lawyer' on martindale.
You'll find quite a number of results.
|
|
|
Click on 'litigation', followed by 'trial practice'. When you look through the results, you'll notice terms such as 'trial law', 'civil trial law', 'criminal trial law', etc., included as practice areas.
And my previous point still stands, as you get over 12,000 results when you actually just do a simple search for 'trial law'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
