|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On July 03 2013 00:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 00:43 m4inbrain wrote:On July 03 2013 00:34 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2013 00:30 m4inbrain wrote:On July 03 2013 00:27 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2013 00:24 m4inbrain wrote:On July 03 2013 00:21 xDaunt wrote:On July 03 2013 00:18 Djzapz wrote:
Well yeah but are you also not even more ethically commanded NOT to put a pedophile back on the street if he's a danger to children? Or is that concern secondary to the job? No. Basically all other interests are subordinated to those of the client. The only exceptions are interests concerning the integrity of the legal profession and judicial system. For example, the lawyer can represent the pedophile, but he can't knowingly allow false or untrue testimony into evidence. So that's justice for you, making sure that your client roams free again? Because that's what it comes down to, justice, isn't it? Justice is the legal system gathering sufficient evidence to prove that that his client should be placed in jail and presenting that to a jury. His job is to assure that his client's rights are protected and to seek the best possible outcome for his client. What would you have an attorney do if they know their client is guilty, but the case against them is terrible due to lazy police and a crappy DA? Could you rephrase the question, since i can't really follow? What do you think an attorney should do if he knows his client is guilty, but also know that the case against his client is terrible because the police collected shitty evidence? I can tell you what my consciousness would tell me to do. If the attorney knows his client is guilty and uses loopholes to get him free, he should lose his license in my opinion. It's a dilemma that i don't know how to solve, but basically getting a jail-free-card should not be possible. Do you realize that you are advocating the absolute destruction of the legal system? Are you even taking the time understand the consequences of what you're saying before you say it?
I don't care what i'm advocating, if you tell me "mate, i murdered that child over there, can you help me get out of that?" and i say "sure, they made a mistake there, we can use that to get you free", you make yourself an accomplice (might be written wrong). Easy as that.
Edit: why is that guy sweating so much? Oo
|
On July 03 2013 00:47 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 00:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 03 2013 00:43 m4inbrain wrote:On July 03 2013 00:34 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2013 00:30 m4inbrain wrote:On July 03 2013 00:27 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2013 00:24 m4inbrain wrote:On July 03 2013 00:21 xDaunt wrote:On July 03 2013 00:18 Djzapz wrote:
Well yeah but are you also not even more ethically commanded NOT to put a pedophile back on the street if he's a danger to children? Or is that concern secondary to the job? No. Basically all other interests are subordinated to those of the client. The only exceptions are interests concerning the integrity of the legal profession and judicial system. For example, the lawyer can represent the pedophile, but he can't knowingly allow false or untrue testimony into evidence. So that's justice for you, making sure that your client roams free again? Because that's what it comes down to, justice, isn't it? Justice is the legal system gathering sufficient evidence to prove that that his client should be placed in jail and presenting that to a jury. His job is to assure that his client's rights are protected and to seek the best possible outcome for his client. What would you have an attorney do if they know their client is guilty, but the case against them is terrible due to lazy police and a crappy DA? Could you rephrase the question, since i can't really follow? What do you think an attorney should do if he knows his client is guilty, but also know that the case against his client is terrible because the police collected shitty evidence? I can tell you what my consciousness would tell me to do. If the attorney knows his client is guilty and uses loopholes to get him free, he should lose his license in my opinion. It's a dilemma that i don't know how to solve, but basically getting a jail-free-card should not be possible. Do you realize that you are advocating the absolute destruction of the legal system? Are you even taking the time understand the consequences of what you're saying before you say it? I don't care what i'm advocating, if you tell me "mate, i murdered that child over there, can you help me get out of that?" and i say "sure, they made a mistake there, we can use that to get you free", you make yourself an accomplice (might be written wrong). Easy as that.
Yeah, that would destroy the legal system. No attorneys would defend criminals for fear of being roped into their crimes or losing their license. Cops could alter evidence without fear of oversight by the defense counsel and DA's wouldn't even need to try because no one would have public defenders.
|
On July 03 2013 00:40 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 00:31 xDaunt wrote:On July 03 2013 00:24 m4inbrain wrote:On July 03 2013 00:21 xDaunt wrote:On July 03 2013 00:18 Djzapz wrote:
Well yeah but are you also not even more ethically commanded NOT to put a pedophile back on the street if he's a danger to children? Or is that concern secondary to the job? No. Basically all other interests are subordinated to those of the client. The only exceptions are interests concerning the integrity of the legal profession and judicial system. For example, the lawyer can represent the pedophile, but he can't knowingly allow false or untrue testimony into evidence. So that's justice for you, making sure that your client roams free again? Because that's what it comes down to, justice, isn't it? Justice has nothing to do with it. It's the duty of the attorney to try to get his client acquitted of the charges or otherwise minimize the sentence. Again I ask you the following: Would you rather the state be free to convict innocent people? That's the alternative. I'd rather make it easier to let guilty people go than make it easier for innocent people to be convicted of crimes that they didn't commit. It's not "the" alternative. It's "one" alternative. But fair enough, so a lawyer isn't bound to achieve "justice", but just the best possible outcome for the money he gets. Well, i don't agree to that, and that's why so many people think lawyers are scum. Another alternatve would be to get lawyers to follow justice. The duty should be to achieve that. Wether that means conviction or acqu..(don't know the right word). I agree that this might not really work, but the current system doesn't work either, at least sometimes. As i said, the lawyer doing his duty to get the criminal roam free again is doing a great injustice towards the party that lost someone or something, or whatever the fellony was.
No, it is the only alternative. I'm sorry if you can't see it that way, but you are heading down a slippery slope once you tell lawyers to only work hard for the clients they are pretty sure are innocent. There is a balance of power here between the state and the people, and you give an awful lot of power to the state when you suggest that a person who looks guilty should receive a lower quality defense than someone who doesn't. Because until the verdict is handed down, you don't know whether that person is a criminal, but you may have made them one, according to the books, by giving them a subpar defense in court.
Lawyers seeking "justice" is not an alternative. That is not their job, and there are plenty of entities in the legal system (judge and jury) who are perfectly capable of reaching a verdict.
And you twisted xDaunt's words to the max. He said nothing about the best possible outcome "for the money he gets," where do you get off putting it that way? It's about serving your client's interests in court, whether that means getting him acquitted, lessening his sentence, or just making sure his rights aren't trampled to shit in the process of conviction. If his defense attorney isn't looking out for his interests, who will? I know it satiates the little bloodthirsty voice inside to tell ourselves child molesters don't need attorneys and should just be strung up by their thumbs, but that is a dangerous line of thought that we can trace back to pre-enlightenment. Everyone deserves a fair trial.
|
On July 03 2013 00:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 00:43 m4inbrain wrote:On July 03 2013 00:34 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2013 00:30 m4inbrain wrote:On July 03 2013 00:27 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2013 00:24 m4inbrain wrote:On July 03 2013 00:21 xDaunt wrote:On July 03 2013 00:18 Djzapz wrote:
Well yeah but are you also not even more ethically commanded NOT to put a pedophile back on the street if he's a danger to children? Or is that concern secondary to the job? No. Basically all other interests are subordinated to those of the client. The only exceptions are interests concerning the integrity of the legal profession and judicial system. For example, the lawyer can represent the pedophile, but he can't knowingly allow false or untrue testimony into evidence. So that's justice for you, making sure that your client roams free again? Because that's what it comes down to, justice, isn't it? Justice is the legal system gathering sufficient evidence to prove that that his client should be placed in jail and presenting that to a jury. His job is to assure that his client's rights are protected and to seek the best possible outcome for his client. What would you have an attorney do if they know their client is guilty, but the case against them is terrible due to lazy police and a crappy DA? Could you rephrase the question, since i can't really follow? What do you think an attorney should do if he knows his client is guilty, but also know that the case against his client is terrible because the police collected shitty evidence? I can tell you what my consciousness would tell me to do. If the attorney knows his client is guilty and uses loopholes to get him free, he should lose his license in my opinion. It's a dilemma that i don't know how to solve, but basically getting a jail-free-card should not be possible. Do you realize that you are advocating the absolute destruction of the legal system? Are you even taking the time understand the consequences of what you're saying before you say it?
He's not operating in the real world, but the tv crime drama world, a lot of things he says is pretty consistent with tv show plot lines.
|
When 10 pedophiles go free to ensure no innocent is found guilty just means the system is working.
|
On July 03 2013 00:42 jeremycafe wrote:
I am so confused why this is a state witness. I am just waiting for something to change tone to make sense, but it never comes.
Having followed the trial on and off through the last week I'm still confused as to what the prosecution argues actually happened.
|
On July 03 2013 00:43 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 00:34 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2013 00:30 m4inbrain wrote:On July 03 2013 00:27 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2013 00:24 m4inbrain wrote:On July 03 2013 00:21 xDaunt wrote:On July 03 2013 00:18 Djzapz wrote:
Well yeah but are you also not even more ethically commanded NOT to put a pedophile back on the street if he's a danger to children? Or is that concern secondary to the job? No. Basically all other interests are subordinated to those of the client. The only exceptions are interests concerning the integrity of the legal profession and judicial system. For example, the lawyer can represent the pedophile, but he can't knowingly allow false or untrue testimony into evidence. So that's justice for you, making sure that your client roams free again? Because that's what it comes down to, justice, isn't it? Justice is the legal system gathering sufficient evidence to prove that that his client should be placed in jail and presenting that to a jury. His job is to assure that his client's rights are protected and to seek the best possible outcome for his client. What would you have an attorney do if they know their client is guilty, but the case against them is terrible due to lazy police and a crappy DA? Could you rephrase the question, since i can't really follow? What do you think an attorney should do if he knows his client is guilty, but also know that the case against his client is terrible because the police collected shitty evidence? I can tell you what my consciousness would tell me to do. If the attorney knows his client is guilty and uses loopholes to get him free, he should lose his license in my opinion. It's a dilemma that i don't know how to solve, but basically getting a jail-free-card should not be possible. Show nested quote +All the systems are flawed and no system works perfectly. If you don't want innocent people in jail due to police error, this is the price you pay. That i can agree upon, there's no system right now that works flawless. But the case you wanted me to comment on is a lawyer knowing that his client is guilty, there is no innocent person to put in jail due to policeerror. Which btw still happens alot, even with this system.
I think the issue here is with the word "loophole." There's no loopholes in the legal syatem, just laws. If your client is innocent because of an obscure law, he's just as innocent as if the law were well known. The lawyers job is not to judge if a law is good or not, only to know the law and apply it. If a law is bad or exploitable, it's up to lawmakers and the public to draw attention to it and get it changed.
|
On July 03 2013 00:50 woody60707 wrote:
When 10 pedophiles go free to ensure no innocent is found guilty just means the system is working.
10 out of how many?
|
I really feel like it isn't our place to advocate such radical change in law or society in this thread. This is specifically about the Martin Case, not about whether the law profession needs a facelift.
|
Why in the world would the State open the door to the Defense to get this kind of testimony in? This is prosecutorial malpractice.
|
On July 03 2013 00:50 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 00:42 jeremycafe wrote:
I am so confused why this is a state witness. I am just waiting for something to change tone to make sense, but it never comes. Having followed the trial on and off through the last week I'm still confused as to what the prosecution argues actually happened.
That Zimmerman shot martin with a depraved mind or ill will.
The state has shown evidences for this. It might not be enough for beyond reasonable doubt, but it isn't 100% ground life.
|
On July 03 2013 00:57 xDaunt wrote:
Why in the world would the State open the door to the Defense to get this kind of testimony in? This is prosecutorial malpractice.
What is the strategy here? I suppose they have other testimonies to get this in the air and then counter it or highlight inconsistencies? Have to wonder what the point is though, could have just avoided this guy altogether, unless they knew the defense was going to call him and they wanted the last say with the witness.
I'm not a lawyer but it seems like most all of these witnesses 'for the prosecution' have been anything but.
|
On July 03 2013 00:50 woody60707 wrote:
When 10 pedophiles go free to ensure no innocent is found guilty just means the system is working.
I've seldom seen such an idiotic one liner.
First of all are you trying to defend the system with that idiocy or are you saying it is a bad system? Second, as much as we would love to have a perfect system where the guilty criminals are sentenced and all innocents go free perfection is not something that can be easily reached.
Every legal system is faced with the challenge on how to deal with uncertainty for obvious reasons. Not every case is clear cut from the get go, and only a very small amount of capital offenders confess out of remorse. I hope we can agree on at least this basic premise of the background situation?
The current system in the United States works by representing both parties through legal counsel to make sure their case (arguments, evidence etc.) is presented professionally and ideally fully, so that judge and jury can make up their mind about innocence and guilt and reach a just verdict.
So far so good, but as we agreed on, almost nothing is for certain in this area almost all decisions are based on a number of influences, often conflicting pieces of evidence or statements. This grey area is where most problems start, but as should be readily apparent there is really no other option except to rule in favor of the defendant in case of doubt.
It is almost always easier to imply something than it is to disprove something 100%. Unless we want literally thousands of innocents in our jails the only way we can rule is that as long as there remains doubt he has to be found not guilty. Yes that might mean 10 pedophiles go free (out of how many?) but it also means that most people can live their life safely in the belief that they almost certainly will not be imprisoned for something they did not do.
|
Well you guys might be right. Maybe it can't be changed, i don't know, and i can't follow the trial and "think it all through". Let's look the trial, the guy earlier is right that this thread isn't about opinions what lawyers should do, so i apologize.
|
On July 03 2013 00:42 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 00:33 RCMDVA wrote:On July 03 2013 00:27 ZasZ. wrote:On July 03 2013 00:21 Djzapz wrote:On July 03 2013 00:20 Judicator wrote:
How is that not splitting hairs? You are saying the lawyer should not do their job in certain situations, how the hell does that make sense? Does it make more sense to have a child molester back on the street? Or does the job supersede that? On July 03 2013 00:21 xDaunt wrote:On July 03 2013 00:18 Djzapz wrote:
Well yeah but are you also not even more ethically commanded NOT to put a pedophile back on the street if he's a danger to children? Or is that concern secondary to the job? No. Basically all other interests are subordinated to those of the client. The only exceptions are interests concerning the integrity of the legal profession and judicial system. For example, the lawyer can represent the pedophile, but he can't knowingly allow false or untrue testimony into evidence. Alright If the evidence is stacked so highly against this hypothetical defendant that you call him a child molester, chances are they will get convicted no matter how good their defense attorney is. You guys are making it sound like, with the right attorney and the right amount of money, anyone can get out of anything. A better attorney may be able to spin certain arguments, or pick apart testimony on the stand, but the evidence will always be the evidence, and if the jury is convinced someone is a child molester, he will get put away no matter how much money he spent on his lawyer. OJ Simpson.... IMO the jury accepted that the state tried to frame a guilty man. So your response when I use the phrase "chances are," is to cite the most high-profile American murder trial in the last 25 years? Yeah, a guilty man will go free from time to time, which is the price we pay for having a system in place that tries like hell to convict as few innocent people as possible. In that case however, and in most cases where an evidently guilty man walks, the fault lies with the police work or the district attorney's office in their inability to bring a strong enough case. Defendants are guilty until proven innocent, and the only way their guilt can be proven is if the state does everything within their power to prosecute and the defense attorney does everything within their power to get them acquitted. At that point, all that is left is the evidence. If you have one side or the other or both thinking about justice instead of their legal duty, someone's constitutional rights are going by the wayside, and the case becomes more about lawyering and less about evidence.
I was more focusing on "if the jury is convinced someone is a child molester, he will get put away no matter how much money he spent on his lawyer."
Jury knew OJ did it. Everybody knows OJ did it. But there was so many police screw ups that he was found not guilty.
And we just had Casey Anthony. Everyone is 100% sure she is responsible for her kid dying. And she walked. (except for the lying to police). Also the state over charged wher for what they could prove.
Happens every week all over the US. Juries find peolpe not guilty all the time when they still believe "they did it".
|
On July 03 2013 00:57 woody60707 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 00:50 nihlon wrote:On July 03 2013 00:42 jeremycafe wrote:
I am so confused why this is a state witness. I am just waiting for something to change tone to make sense, but it never comes. Having followed the trial on and off through the last week I'm still confused as to what the prosecution argues actually happened. That Zimmerman shot martin with a depraved mind or ill will. The state has shown evidences for this. It might not be enough for beyond reasonable doubt, but it isn't 100% ground life.
That's not the confusing part. Depraved mind or ill will is a mind set, not what actually happened that night, what scenario the state are actually believing to be true. But as I said, I haven't watched all of the trial so I might have missed parts that paint that picture for them. Their questioning of several of the witnesses I've seen just seem to fall in line with what the defense argues.
|
On July 03 2013 01:06 RCMDVA wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 00:42 ZasZ. wrote:On July 03 2013 00:33 RCMDVA wrote:On July 03 2013 00:27 ZasZ. wrote:On July 03 2013 00:21 Djzapz wrote:On July 03 2013 00:20 Judicator wrote:
How is that not splitting hairs? You are saying the lawyer should not do their job in certain situations, how the hell does that make sense? Does it make more sense to have a child molester back on the street? Or does the job supersede that? On July 03 2013 00:21 xDaunt wrote:On July 03 2013 00:18 Djzapz wrote:
Well yeah but are you also not even more ethically commanded NOT to put a pedophile back on the street if he's a danger to children? Or is that concern secondary to the job? No. Basically all other interests are subordinated to those of the client. The only exceptions are interests concerning the integrity of the legal profession and judicial system. For example, the lawyer can represent the pedophile, but he can't knowingly allow false or untrue testimony into evidence. Alright If the evidence is stacked so highly against this hypothetical defendant that you call him a child molester, chances are they will get convicted no matter how good their defense attorney is. You guys are making it sound like, with the right attorney and the right amount of money, anyone can get out of anything. A better attorney may be able to spin certain arguments, or pick apart testimony on the stand, but the evidence will always be the evidence, and if the jury is convinced someone is a child molester, he will get put away no matter how much money he spent on his lawyer. OJ Simpson.... IMO the jury accepted that the state tried to frame a guilty man. So your response when I use the phrase "chances are," is to cite the most high-profile American murder trial in the last 25 years? Yeah, a guilty man will go free from time to time, which is the price we pay for having a system in place that tries like hell to convict as few innocent people as possible. In that case however, and in most cases where an evidently guilty man walks, the fault lies with the police work or the district attorney's office in their inability to bring a strong enough case. Defendants are guilty until proven innocent, and the only way their guilt can be proven is if the state does everything within their power to prosecute and the defense attorney does everything within their power to get them acquitted. At that point, all that is left is the evidence. If you have one side or the other or both thinking about justice instead of their legal duty, someone's constitutional rights are going by the wayside, and the case becomes more about lawyering and less about evidence. I was more focusing on "if the jury is convinced someone is a child molester, he will get put away no matter how much money he spent on his lawyer." Jury knew OJ did it. Everybody knows OJ did it. But there was so many police screw ups that he was found not guilty. And we just had Casey Anthony. Everyone is 100% sure she is responsible for her kid dying. And she walked. (except for the lying to police). Also the state over charged wher for what they could prove. Happens every week all over the US. Juries find peolpe not guilty all the time when they still believe "they did it".
It doesn't matter what we believe, it is the evidence that is presented to the jury that matters. Look at the case we are watching right now. Everyone "believed" that Zimmerman was guilty of something. But the evidence in the case is overwhelmingly against that. This is why we have courts, to cut through what people assume to be true and get down to what the state can actually prove happened.
|
On July 03 2013 01:00 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 00:57 xDaunt wrote:
Why in the world would the State open the door to the Defense to get this kind of testimony in? This is prosecutorial malpractice. What is the strategy here? I suppose they have other testimonies to get this in the air and then counter it or highlight inconsistencies? Have to wonder what the point is though, could have just avoided this guy altogether, unless they knew the defense was going to call him and they wanted the last say with the witness. I'm not a lawyer but it seems like most all of these witnesses 'for the prosecution' have been anything but.
Well, the most obvious strategy that the DA is pursuing is showing all of Zimmerman's inconsistent statements to discredit him. The problem is that none of the inconsistencies are major enough to be material. If anything, I think that the DA has only succeeded in bolstering Zimmerman's credibility in his statements.
I can see why people are wondering if the DA is trying this case merely to defuse race riots. I don't believe that this is in fact the case simply because it would be so unethical, but I really don't have any alternative explanation for why the charges weren't dropped.
|
On July 03 2013 01:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 01:06 RCMDVA wrote:On July 03 2013 00:42 ZasZ. wrote:On July 03 2013 00:33 RCMDVA wrote:On July 03 2013 00:27 ZasZ. wrote:On July 03 2013 00:21 Djzapz wrote:On July 03 2013 00:20 Judicator wrote:
How is that not splitting hairs? You are saying the lawyer should not do their job in certain situations, how the hell does that make sense? Does it make more sense to have a child molester back on the street? Or does the job supersede that? On July 03 2013 00:21 xDaunt wrote:On July 03 2013 00:18 Djzapz wrote:
Well yeah but are you also not even more ethically commanded NOT to put a pedophile back on the street if he's a danger to children? Or is that concern secondary to the job? No. Basically all other interests are subordinated to those of the client. The only exceptions are interests concerning the integrity of the legal profession and judicial system. For example, the lawyer can represent the pedophile, but he can't knowingly allow false or untrue testimony into evidence. Alright If the evidence is stacked so highly against this hypothetical defendant that you call him a child molester, chances are they will get convicted no matter how good their defense attorney is. You guys are making it sound like, with the right attorney and the right amount of money, anyone can get out of anything. A better attorney may be able to spin certain arguments, or pick apart testimony on the stand, but the evidence will always be the evidence, and if the jury is convinced someone is a child molester, he will get put away no matter how much money he spent on his lawyer. OJ Simpson.... IMO the jury accepted that the state tried to frame a guilty man. So your response when I use the phrase "chances are," is to cite the most high-profile American murder trial in the last 25 years? Yeah, a guilty man will go free from time to time, which is the price we pay for having a system in place that tries like hell to convict as few innocent people as possible. In that case however, and in most cases where an evidently guilty man walks, the fault lies with the police work or the district attorney's office in their inability to bring a strong enough case. Defendants are guilty until proven innocent, and the only way their guilt can be proven is if the state does everything within their power to prosecute and the defense attorney does everything within their power to get them acquitted. At that point, all that is left is the evidence. If you have one side or the other or both thinking about justice instead of their legal duty, someone's constitutional rights are going by the wayside, and the case becomes more about lawyering and less about evidence. I was more focusing on "if the jury is convinced someone is a child molester, he will get put away no matter how much money he spent on his lawyer." Jury knew OJ did it. Everybody knows OJ did it. But there was so many police screw ups that he was found not guilty. And we just had Casey Anthony. Everyone is 100% sure she is responsible for her kid dying. And she walked. (except for the lying to police). Also the state over charged wher for what they could prove. Happens every week all over the US. Juries find peolpe not guilty all the time when they still believe "they did it". It doesn't matter what we believe, it is the evidence that is presented to the jury that matters. Look at the case we are watching right now. Everyone "believed" that Zimmerman was guilty of something. But the evidence in the case is overwhelmingly against that. This is why we have courts, to cut through what people assume to be true and get down to what the state can actually prove happened.
I agree with this, if it was a matter of belief, I firmly believed that Zimmerman was in the wrong. Maybe not for murder 2 but I did think he instigated the confrontation from the media coverage (months ago to be honest, stopped following this religiously sometimes in january). So far not a single piece of evidence has been provided that would back up that belief and I've pretty much admitted I was wrong roughly 20 pages ago. That is what a good legal system should achieve. Present the evidence and let the judge and the jury make up their mind.
Admittedly I am somewhat flabbergasted why this thing even reached a trial if that is all the evidence they have, but that is a completely different discussion.
|
On July 03 2013 01:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 01:00 crms wrote:On July 03 2013 00:57 xDaunt wrote:
Why in the world would the State open the door to the Defense to get this kind of testimony in? This is prosecutorial malpractice. What is the strategy here? I suppose they have other testimonies to get this in the air and then counter it or highlight inconsistencies? Have to wonder what the point is though, could have just avoided this guy altogether, unless they knew the defense was going to call him and they wanted the last say with the witness. I'm not a lawyer but it seems like most all of these witnesses 'for the prosecution' have been anything but. Well, the most obvious strategy that the DA is pursuing is showing all of Zimmerman's inconsistent statements to discredit him. The problem is that none of the inconsistencies are major enough to be material. If anything, I think that the DA has only succeeded in bolstering Zimmerman's credibility in his statements. I can see why people are wondering if the DA is trying this case merely to defuse race riots. I don't believe that this is in fact case simply because it would be so unethical, but I really don't have any alternative explanation for why the charges weren't dropped.
Because that's something i don't know, would a case like this not have an impact on someone's career, negatively? Especially on the prosecution-side?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
