|
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 09 2013 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 06:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 09 2013 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 06:09 xDaunt wrote:On July 09 2013 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 05:57 xDaunt wrote:
Given how low the amount of THC is, the judge probably should keep this drug evidence out. That would presume that anyone there has any idea about marijuana and it's effects. (think this is like MMA) As for the paranoia It is rarely associated with aggression. I wasn't referring to his ability to perform in a fight but the likelihood of someone who is "stoned" to seek one out. But again the impact of such trace amounts is totally irrelevant. For perspective TM had 1.5ng per ml you can have up to 24ng (49 in some places) per ml and pass a drug test.... Well, what the judge said is that these are issues of weight (ie credibility) as opposed to admissibility. Yeah not arguing the legality on this one just that it is totally being brought in to prejudice the jury against the prosecution and is no way relevant to the events of that night (as the defense is presenting it[not to mention it further besmirches Cannabis which, if it were not for the GOV propaganda to reinforce racist policies, would be considered one of the most amazing plant families we have ever discovered]). This is my problem with where the justice system has ended up. It has nothing to do with the "truth" it has everything to do with fabricating the best case you can, manipulating the facts to construct the best "legal" "story" the "facts" you can't keep out of the courtroom will allow. The idea that at the end of a trial "justice" has been served to me is a joke. I don't have a better system but it is still disappointing neither side in this case gives 2 shits about what actually happened that night just what serves their personal interests. There is no better way to find truth than to have two people arguing incessantly while a third party parses out which one is the most convincing. One side brings all the facts he believes in, the other side brings all the facts they believe in. Design wise its pretty good. Yeah I agree it's the best we got but the idea that they "believe in these facts" is a somewhat laughable notion. They believe the facts that gives their client the best chance at success. Regardless of how ridiculous and implausible. Unless your talking about public defenders in which case their client is lucky if they read the case before their day in court. (In defense of PD's [haha] they are overworked and underpaid so it's not exactly their fault they tend to do a piss poor job of doing anything other than asking the prosecutor for a reasonably fair plea.
I don't know if that's necessarily a fair representation of Public Defenders. A lot of them are sharp, sharp lawyers who are incredibly devoted to their job and incredibly good at it.
|
On July 09 2013 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 06:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 09 2013 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 06:09 xDaunt wrote:On July 09 2013 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 05:57 xDaunt wrote:
Given how low the amount of THC is, the judge probably should keep this drug evidence out. That would presume that anyone there has any idea about marijuana and it's effects. (think this is like MMA) As for the paranoia It is rarely associated with aggression. I wasn't referring to his ability to perform in a fight but the likelihood of someone who is "stoned" to seek one out. But again the impact of such trace amounts is totally irrelevant. For perspective TM had 1.5ng per ml you can have up to 24ng (49 in some places) per ml and pass a drug test.... Well, what the judge said is that these are issues of weight (ie credibility) as opposed to admissibility. Yeah not arguing the legality on this one just that it is totally being brought in to prejudice the jury against the prosecution and is no way relevant to the events of that night (as the defense is presenting it[not to mention it further besmirches Cannabis which, if it were not for the GOV propaganda to reinforce racist policies, would be considered one of the most amazing plant families we have ever discovered]). This is my problem with where the justice system has ended up. It has nothing to do with the "truth" it has everything to do with fabricating the best case you can, manipulating the facts to construct the best "legal" "story" the "facts" you can't keep out of the courtroom will allow. The idea that at the end of a trial "justice" has been served to me is a joke. I don't have a better system but it is still disappointing neither side in this case gives 2 shits about what actually happened that night just what serves their personal interests. There is no better way to find truth than to have two people arguing incessantly while a third party parses out which one is the most convincing. One side brings all the facts he believes in, the other side brings all the facts they believe in. Design wise its pretty good. Yeah I agree it's the best we got but the idea that they "believe in these facts" is a somewhat laughable notion. They believe the facts that gives their client the best chance at success. Regardless of how ridiculous and implausible. Unless your talking about public defenders in which case their client is lucky if they read the case before their day in court. (In defense of PD's [haha] they are overworked and underpaid so it's not exactly their fault they tend to do a piss poor job of doing anything other than asking the prosecutor for a reasonably fair plea.
i know quite a few public defenders who work really hard; even on weekends frequently and late at night. dont piss on them.
|
I don't know about other states, but the PD corps out here in Colorado is actually considered to be quite excellent.
|
On July 09 2013 06:35 xDaunt wrote:
I don't know about other states, but the PD corps out here in Colorado is actually considered to be quite excellent.
The PD office in MA is very good, specifically around the Boston Area. But we have all those law schools to pick up the best and brightest.
Also not very impressed with people shitting on PDs. I worked in probation and trying to defend the idiots who passed through that place on a daily basis is an unforgiving and thankless job.
|
The recent influx of law graduates and the relative dearth of employment opportunities have done a lot to improve on the outdated stereotype of the mediocre PD unable to get a higher paying job at a firm.
|
On July 09 2013 06:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 06:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 09 2013 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 06:09 xDaunt wrote:On July 09 2013 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 05:57 xDaunt wrote:
Given how low the amount of THC is, the judge probably should keep this drug evidence out. That would presume that anyone there has any idea about marijuana and it's effects. (think this is like MMA) As for the paranoia It is rarely associated with aggression. I wasn't referring to his ability to perform in a fight but the likelihood of someone who is "stoned" to seek one out. But again the impact of such trace amounts is totally irrelevant. For perspective TM had 1.5ng per ml you can have up to 24ng (49 in some places) per ml and pass a drug test.... Well, what the judge said is that these are issues of weight (ie credibility) as opposed to admissibility. Yeah not arguing the legality on this one just that it is totally being brought in to prejudice the jury against the prosecution and is no way relevant to the events of that night (as the defense is presenting it[not to mention it further besmirches Cannabis which, if it were not for the GOV propaganda to reinforce racist policies, would be considered one of the most amazing plant families we have ever discovered]). This is my problem with where the justice system has ended up. It has nothing to do with the "truth" it has everything to do with fabricating the best case you can, manipulating the facts to construct the best "legal" "story" the "facts" you can't keep out of the courtroom will allow. The idea that at the end of a trial "justice" has been served to me is a joke. I don't have a better system but it is still disappointing neither side in this case gives 2 shits about what actually happened that night just what serves their personal interests. There is no better way to find truth than to have two people arguing incessantly while a third party parses out which one is the most convincing. One side brings all the facts he believes in, the other side brings all the facts they believe in. Design wise its pretty good. Yeah I agree it's the best we got but the idea that they "believe in these facts" is a somewhat laughable notion. They believe the facts that gives their client the best chance at success. Regardless of how ridiculous and implausible. Unless your talking about public defenders in which case their client is lucky if they read the case before their day in court. (In defense of PD's [haha] they are overworked and underpaid so it's not exactly their fault they tend to do a piss poor job of doing anything other than asking the prosecutor for a reasonably fair plea. I don't know if that's necessarily a fair representation of Public Defenders. A lot of them are sharp, sharp lawyers who are incredibly devoted to their job and incredibly good at it.
I'm not saying they aren't hard working (the opposite actually) just that the sharpest hardest working PD is just not capable of putting on a defense comparable to what they or many other lawyers would be able and willing to as privately contracted lawyers. Had GZ actually of gotten a PD instead of O'Mara this case would not be going nearly as well for him.
As for the reading part a study showed that the estimated time to review a case for a PD in New Orleans was 7 minutes.
Yeah... that's right 7 minutes....
|
That says far more about New Orleans than it does PD's.
|
On July 09 2013 06:40 farvacola wrote:
The recent influx of law graduates and the relative dearth of employment opportunities have done a lot to improve on the outdated stereotype of the mediocre PD unable to get a higher paying job at a firm.
I think that this is half true. In my class, many of the top graduates wanted to be PD's.
|
On July 09 2013 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 06:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 09 2013 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 06:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 09 2013 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 06:09 xDaunt wrote:On July 09 2013 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 05:57 xDaunt wrote:
Given how low the amount of THC is, the judge probably should keep this drug evidence out. That would presume that anyone there has any idea about marijuana and it's effects. (think this is like MMA) As for the paranoia It is rarely associated with aggression. I wasn't referring to his ability to perform in a fight but the likelihood of someone who is "stoned" to seek one out. But again the impact of such trace amounts is totally irrelevant. For perspective TM had 1.5ng per ml you can have up to 24ng (49 in some places) per ml and pass a drug test.... Well, what the judge said is that these are issues of weight (ie credibility) as opposed to admissibility. Yeah not arguing the legality on this one just that it is totally being brought in to prejudice the jury against the prosecution and is no way relevant to the events of that night (as the defense is presenting it[not to mention it further besmirches Cannabis which, if it were not for the GOV propaganda to reinforce racist policies, would be considered one of the most amazing plant families we have ever discovered]). This is my problem with where the justice system has ended up. It has nothing to do with the "truth" it has everything to do with fabricating the best case you can, manipulating the facts to construct the best "legal" "story" the "facts" you can't keep out of the courtroom will allow. The idea that at the end of a trial "justice" has been served to me is a joke. I don't have a better system but it is still disappointing neither side in this case gives 2 shits about what actually happened that night just what serves their personal interests. There is no better way to find truth than to have two people arguing incessantly while a third party parses out which one is the most convincing. One side brings all the facts he believes in, the other side brings all the facts they believe in. Design wise its pretty good. Yeah I agree it's the best we got but the idea that they "believe in these facts" is a somewhat laughable notion. They believe the facts that gives their client the best chance at success. Regardless of how ridiculous and implausible. Unless your talking about public defenders in which case their client is lucky if they read the case before their day in court. (In defense of PD's [haha] they are overworked and underpaid so it's not exactly their fault they tend to do a piss poor job of doing anything other than asking the prosecutor for a reasonably fair plea. I don't know if that's necessarily a fair representation of Public Defenders. A lot of them are sharp, sharp lawyers who are incredibly devoted to their job and incredibly good at it. I'm not saying they aren't hard working (the opposite actually) just that the sharpest hardest working PD is just not capable of putting on a defense comparable to what they or many other lawyers would be able and willing to as privately contracted lawyers. Had GZ actually of gotten a PD instead of O'Mara this case would not be going nearly as well for him. As for the reading part a study showed that the estimated time to review a case for a PD in New Orleans was 7 minutes. Yeah... that's right 7 minutes....
I have worked in probation, most criminal cases are minor and have very slim fact sets. Most defendants hang themselves out to dry long before they get in front of a judge. Its hard to defend someone who admitted to the police that he committed the assault he was charged with. Or someone who was found covered in beer in the car they were driving, at 2 times the legal limit. Those cases need little review and they are the majority of what goes through the courts. They are also handled in district court, which moves at a fast clip.
Also, that fucking New Orleans in Mississippi. That is not what I would call the cradle of legal excellence on any level. There was a guy pretending to be a judge down, who stole a notary stamp and would make his own orders. It look them 2 years to catch him.
|
On July 09 2013 06:43 farvacola wrote:
That says far more about New Orleans than it does PD's.
Because my intentions seem to be unclear I am not saying PD's are bad lawyers just that given the circumstances a significant amount of PD's are placed under (particularly in dense urban areas) they simply can't do as good of a job as a privately contracted lawyer.
This contributes to the result of a disproportionate amount of their cases being settled with a plea without proper analysis of the evidence and the exhaustion of every reasonable legal defense.
As would presumably be the case with a privately contracted lawyer
|
On July 09 2013 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 06:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 09 2013 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 06:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 09 2013 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 06:09 xDaunt wrote:On July 09 2013 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 05:57 xDaunt wrote:
Given how low the amount of THC is, the judge probably should keep this drug evidence out. That would presume that anyone there has any idea about marijuana and it's effects. (think this is like MMA) As for the paranoia It is rarely associated with aggression. I wasn't referring to his ability to perform in a fight but the likelihood of someone who is "stoned" to seek one out. But again the impact of such trace amounts is totally irrelevant. For perspective TM had 1.5ng per ml you can have up to 24ng (49 in some places) per ml and pass a drug test.... Well, what the judge said is that these are issues of weight (ie credibility) as opposed to admissibility. Yeah not arguing the legality on this one just that it is totally being brought in to prejudice the jury against the prosecution and is no way relevant to the events of that night (as the defense is presenting it[not to mention it further besmirches Cannabis which, if it were not for the GOV propaganda to reinforce racist policies, would be considered one of the most amazing plant families we have ever discovered]). This is my problem with where the justice system has ended up. It has nothing to do with the "truth" it has everything to do with fabricating the best case you can, manipulating the facts to construct the best "legal" "story" the "facts" you can't keep out of the courtroom will allow. The idea that at the end of a trial "justice" has been served to me is a joke. I don't have a better system but it is still disappointing neither side in this case gives 2 shits about what actually happened that night just what serves their personal interests. There is no better way to find truth than to have two people arguing incessantly while a third party parses out which one is the most convincing. One side brings all the facts he believes in, the other side brings all the facts they believe in. Design wise its pretty good. Yeah I agree it's the best we got but the idea that they "believe in these facts" is a somewhat laughable notion. They believe the facts that gives their client the best chance at success. Regardless of how ridiculous and implausible. Unless your talking about public defenders in which case their client is lucky if they read the case before their day in court. (In defense of PD's [haha] they are overworked and underpaid so it's not exactly their fault they tend to do a piss poor job of doing anything other than asking the prosecutor for a reasonably fair plea. I don't know if that's necessarily a fair representation of Public Defenders. A lot of them are sharp, sharp lawyers who are incredibly devoted to their job and incredibly good at it. I'm not saying they aren't hard working (the opposite actually) just that the sharpest hardest working PD is just not capable of putting on a defense comparable to what they or many other lawyers would be able and willing to as privately contracted lawyers. Had GZ actually of gotten a PD instead of O'Mara this case would not be going nearly as well for him. As for the reading part a study showed that the estimated time to review a case for a PD in New Orleans was 7 minutes. Yeah... that's right 7 minutes....
please provide a link to this study. i dont see how this could possibly comport with Strickland v. Washington.
|
On July 09 2013 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 06:43 farvacola wrote:
That says far more about New Orleans than it does PD's. Because my intentions seem to be unclear I am not saying PD's are bad lawyers just that given the circumstances a significant amount of PD's are placed under (particularly in dense urban areas) they simply can't do as good of a job as a privately contracted lawyer. This contributes to the result of a disproportionate amount of their cases being settled with a plea without proper analysis of the evidence and the exhaustion of every reasonable legal defense. As would presumably be the case with a privately contracted lawyer
All good cases are settled and not taken before a Judge. Most attorneys see going before a judge as failure(in civil cases, criminal is a bit different). Most cases settle because avoid a trial is the only leverage the accused has over the prosecution, because the evidence against them is so bad.
Once again, I worked in probation. Almost all of cases that came through there were sure winners. Few cases had facts that needed to be fleshed out, due to the fact that the Defendants hung themselves out to dry before they got to Court.
On July 09 2013 06:51 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 06:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 09 2013 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 06:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 09 2013 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 06:09 xDaunt wrote:On July 09 2013 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 05:57 xDaunt wrote:
Given how low the amount of THC is, the judge probably should keep this drug evidence out. That would presume that anyone there has any idea about marijuana and it's effects. (think this is like MMA) As for the paranoia It is rarely associated with aggression. I wasn't referring to his ability to perform in a fight but the likelihood of someone who is "stoned" to seek one out. But again the impact of such trace amounts is totally irrelevant. For perspective TM had 1.5ng per ml you can have up to 24ng (49 in some places) per ml and pass a drug test.... Well, what the judge said is that these are issues of weight (ie credibility) as opposed to admissibility. Yeah not arguing the legality on this one just that it is totally being brought in to prejudice the jury against the prosecution and is no way relevant to the events of that night (as the defense is presenting it[not to mention it further besmirches Cannabis which, if it were not for the GOV propaganda to reinforce racist policies, would be considered one of the most amazing plant families we have ever discovered]). This is my problem with where the justice system has ended up. It has nothing to do with the "truth" it has everything to do with fabricating the best case you can, manipulating the facts to construct the best "legal" "story" the "facts" you can't keep out of the courtroom will allow. The idea that at the end of a trial "justice" has been served to me is a joke. I don't have a better system but it is still disappointing neither side in this case gives 2 shits about what actually happened that night just what serves their personal interests. There is no better way to find truth than to have two people arguing incessantly while a third party parses out which one is the most convincing. One side brings all the facts he believes in, the other side brings all the facts they believe in. Design wise its pretty good. Yeah I agree it's the best we got but the idea that they "believe in these facts" is a somewhat laughable notion. They believe the facts that gives their client the best chance at success. Regardless of how ridiculous and implausible. Unless your talking about public defenders in which case their client is lucky if they read the case before their day in court. (In defense of PD's [haha] they are overworked and underpaid so it's not exactly their fault they tend to do a piss poor job of doing anything other than asking the prosecutor for a reasonably fair plea. I don't know if that's necessarily a fair representation of Public Defenders. A lot of them are sharp, sharp lawyers who are incredibly devoted to their job and incredibly good at it. I'm not saying they aren't hard working (the opposite actually) just that the sharpest hardest working PD is just not capable of putting on a defense comparable to what they or many other lawyers would be able and willing to as privately contracted lawyers. Had GZ actually of gotten a PD instead of O'Mara this case would not be going nearly as well for him. As for the reading part a study showed that the estimated time to review a case for a PD in New Orleans was 7 minutes. Yeah... that's right 7 minutes.... please provide a link to this study. i dont see how this could possibly comport with Strickland v. Washington.
I will bet money the study is reference arraignment hearings that are settled on the spot, rather than being set for trial. It likely also includes all minor crimes that qualify for a public defender, but do not have jail time associated with it.
|
On July 09 2013 06:51 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 06:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 09 2013 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 06:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 09 2013 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 06:09 xDaunt wrote:On July 09 2013 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 05:57 xDaunt wrote:
Given how low the amount of THC is, the judge probably should keep this drug evidence out. That would presume that anyone there has any idea about marijuana and it's effects. (think this is like MMA) As for the paranoia It is rarely associated with aggression. I wasn't referring to his ability to perform in a fight but the likelihood of someone who is "stoned" to seek one out. But again the impact of such trace amounts is totally irrelevant. For perspective TM had 1.5ng per ml you can have up to 24ng (49 in some places) per ml and pass a drug test.... Well, what the judge said is that these are issues of weight (ie credibility) as opposed to admissibility. Yeah not arguing the legality on this one just that it is totally being brought in to prejudice the jury against the prosecution and is no way relevant to the events of that night (as the defense is presenting it[not to mention it further besmirches Cannabis which, if it were not for the GOV propaganda to reinforce racist policies, would be considered one of the most amazing plant families we have ever discovered]). This is my problem with where the justice system has ended up. It has nothing to do with the "truth" it has everything to do with fabricating the best case you can, manipulating the facts to construct the best "legal" "story" the "facts" you can't keep out of the courtroom will allow. The idea that at the end of a trial "justice" has been served to me is a joke. I don't have a better system but it is still disappointing neither side in this case gives 2 shits about what actually happened that night just what serves their personal interests. There is no better way to find truth than to have two people arguing incessantly while a third party parses out which one is the most convincing. One side brings all the facts he believes in, the other side brings all the facts they believe in. Design wise its pretty good. Yeah I agree it's the best we got but the idea that they "believe in these facts" is a somewhat laughable notion. They believe the facts that gives their client the best chance at success. Regardless of how ridiculous and implausible. Unless your talking about public defenders in which case their client is lucky if they read the case before their day in court. (In defense of PD's [haha] they are overworked and underpaid so it's not exactly their fault they tend to do a piss poor job of doing anything other than asking the prosecutor for a reasonably fair plea. I don't know if that's necessarily a fair representation of Public Defenders. A lot of them are sharp, sharp lawyers who are incredibly devoted to their job and incredibly good at it. I'm not saying they aren't hard working (the opposite actually) just that the sharpest hardest working PD is just not capable of putting on a defense comparable to what they or many other lawyers would be able and willing to as privately contracted lawyers. Had GZ actually of gotten a PD instead of O'Mara this case would not be going nearly as well for him. As for the reading part a study showed that the estimated time to review a case for a PD in New Orleans was 7 minutes. Yeah... that's right 7 minutes.... please provide a link to this study. i dont see how this could possibly comport with Strickland v. Washington.
The 7 minutes figure lines up nicely with the 7 years figure, which is considered a "speedy" time between arrest and trial in Louisiana.
|
On July 09 2013 06:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 06:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 09 2013 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 06:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 09 2013 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 06:09 xDaunt wrote:On July 09 2013 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 05:57 xDaunt wrote:
Given how low the amount of THC is, the judge probably should keep this drug evidence out. That would presume that anyone there has any idea about marijuana and it's effects. (think this is like MMA) As for the paranoia It is rarely associated with aggression. I wasn't referring to his ability to perform in a fight but the likelihood of someone who is "stoned" to seek one out. But again the impact of such trace amounts is totally irrelevant. For perspective TM had 1.5ng per ml you can have up to 24ng (49 in some places) per ml and pass a drug test.... Well, what the judge said is that these are issues of weight (ie credibility) as opposed to admissibility. Yeah not arguing the legality on this one just that it is totally being brought in to prejudice the jury against the prosecution and is no way relevant to the events of that night (as the defense is presenting it[not to mention it further besmirches Cannabis which, if it were not for the GOV propaganda to reinforce racist policies, would be considered one of the most amazing plant families we have ever discovered]). This is my problem with where the justice system has ended up. It has nothing to do with the "truth" it has everything to do with fabricating the best case you can, manipulating the facts to construct the best "legal" "story" the "facts" you can't keep out of the courtroom will allow. The idea that at the end of a trial "justice" has been served to me is a joke. I don't have a better system but it is still disappointing neither side in this case gives 2 shits about what actually happened that night just what serves their personal interests. There is no better way to find truth than to have two people arguing incessantly while a third party parses out which one is the most convincing. One side brings all the facts he believes in, the other side brings all the facts they believe in. Design wise its pretty good. Yeah I agree it's the best we got but the idea that they "believe in these facts" is a somewhat laughable notion. They believe the facts that gives their client the best chance at success. Regardless of how ridiculous and implausible. Unless your talking about public defenders in which case their client is lucky if they read the case before their day in court. (In defense of PD's [haha] they are overworked and underpaid so it's not exactly their fault they tend to do a piss poor job of doing anything other than asking the prosecutor for a reasonably fair plea. I don't know if that's necessarily a fair representation of Public Defenders. A lot of them are sharp, sharp lawyers who are incredibly devoted to their job and incredibly good at it. I'm not saying they aren't hard working (the opposite actually) just that the sharpest hardest working PD is just not capable of putting on a defense comparable to what they or many other lawyers would be able and willing to as privately contracted lawyers. Had GZ actually of gotten a PD instead of O'Mara this case would not be going nearly as well for him. As for the reading part a study showed that the estimated time to review a case for a PD in New Orleans was 7 minutes. Yeah... that's right 7 minutes.... I have worked in probation, most criminal cases are minor and have very slim fact sets. Most defendants hang themselves out to dry long before they get in front of a judge. Its hard to defend someone who admitted to the police that he committed the assault he was charged with. Or someone who was found covered in beer in the car they were driving, at 2 times the legal limit. Those cases need little review and they are the majority of what goes through the courts. They are also handled in district court, which moves at a fast clip. Also, that fucking New Orleans in Mississippi. That is not what I would call the cradle of legal excellence on any level. There was a guy pretending to be a judge down, who stole a notary stamp and would make his own orders. It look them 2 years to catch him.
The lack of time and compensation has very little to do with their "legal excellence" and a lot to do with the expectations to resources ratio.
And Ironically enough admitting committing a crime is not necessarily in it of itself proof of guilt. Now whether a PD is going to take the time and effort to argue that is another question. Given the demonstrable lack of time they actually have to work with any given case it becomes a matter of what is most practical to them rather than exhausting every reasonable legal defense
|
On July 09 2013 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 06:47 Plansix wrote:On July 09 2013 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 06:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 09 2013 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 06:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 09 2013 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 06:09 xDaunt wrote:On July 09 2013 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 05:57 xDaunt wrote:
Given how low the amount of THC is, the judge probably should keep this drug evidence out. That would presume that anyone there has any idea about marijuana and it's effects. (think this is like MMA) As for the paranoia It is rarely associated with aggression. I wasn't referring to his ability to perform in a fight but the likelihood of someone who is "stoned" to seek one out. But again the impact of such trace amounts is totally irrelevant. For perspective TM had 1.5ng per ml you can have up to 24ng (49 in some places) per ml and pass a drug test.... Well, what the judge said is that these are issues of weight (ie credibility) as opposed to admissibility. Yeah not arguing the legality on this one just that it is totally being brought in to prejudice the jury against the prosecution and is no way relevant to the events of that night (as the defense is presenting it[not to mention it further besmirches Cannabis which, if it were not for the GOV propaganda to reinforce racist policies, would be considered one of the most amazing plant families we have ever discovered]). This is my problem with where the justice system has ended up. It has nothing to do with the "truth" it has everything to do with fabricating the best case you can, manipulating the facts to construct the best "legal" "story" the "facts" you can't keep out of the courtroom will allow. The idea that at the end of a trial "justice" has been served to me is a joke. I don't have a better system but it is still disappointing neither side in this case gives 2 shits about what actually happened that night just what serves their personal interests. There is no better way to find truth than to have two people arguing incessantly while a third party parses out which one is the most convincing. One side brings all the facts he believes in, the other side brings all the facts they believe in. Design wise its pretty good. Yeah I agree it's the best we got but the idea that they "believe in these facts" is a somewhat laughable notion. They believe the facts that gives their client the best chance at success. Regardless of how ridiculous and implausible. Unless your talking about public defenders in which case their client is lucky if they read the case before their day in court. (In defense of PD's [haha] they are overworked and underpaid so it's not exactly their fault they tend to do a piss poor job of doing anything other than asking the prosecutor for a reasonably fair plea. I don't know if that's necessarily a fair representation of Public Defenders. A lot of them are sharp, sharp lawyers who are incredibly devoted to their job and incredibly good at it. I'm not saying they aren't hard working (the opposite actually) just that the sharpest hardest working PD is just not capable of putting on a defense comparable to what they or many other lawyers would be able and willing to as privately contracted lawyers. Had GZ actually of gotten a PD instead of O'Mara this case would not be going nearly as well for him. As for the reading part a study showed that the estimated time to review a case for a PD in New Orleans was 7 minutes. Yeah... that's right 7 minutes.... I have worked in probation, most criminal cases are minor and have very slim fact sets. Most defendants hang themselves out to dry long before they get in front of a judge. Its hard to defend someone who admitted to the police that he committed the assault he was charged with. Or someone who was found covered in beer in the car they were driving, at 2 times the legal limit. Those cases need little review and they are the majority of what goes through the courts. They are also handled in district court, which moves at a fast clip. Also, that fucking New Orleans in Mississippi. That is not what I would call the cradle of legal excellence on any level. There was a guy pretending to be a judge down, who stole a notary stamp and would make his own orders. It look them 2 years to catch him. The lack of time and compensation has very little to do with their "legal excellence" and a lot to do with the expectations to resources ratio. And Ironically enough admitting committing a crime is not necessarily in it of itself proof of guilt. Now whether a PD is going to take the time and effort to argue that is another question. Given the demonstrable lack of time they actually have to work with any given case it becomes a matter of what is most practical to them rather than exhausting every reasonable legal defense
Kid, I worked in the field, the PDs did a very good job on the cases they could and settle the cases they couldn't. It worked out because in settling, the Defendants normally avoided jail time. You are referencing a study when people who work in the field of law are telling you that it isn't like that everywhere. Accept the fact that we may know more about this than you.
|
|
|
Go cite the study for this "7 minute" figure. I'm guessing that it is highly misleading because it includes arraignment hearings where all the PD does is show up at the jail and work out a plea deal. It's not uncommon for a PD to handle dozens of these kinds of cases in a morning or afternoon -- even in smaller cities.
|
On July 09 2013 07:06 xDaunt wrote:
Go cite the study for this "7 minute" figure. I'm guessing that it is highly misleading because it includes arraignment hearings where all the PD does is show up at the jail and work out a plea deal. It's not uncommon for a PD to handle dozens of these kinds of cases in a morning or afternoon -- even in smaller cities.
i'm guessing its a study from immediately after hurricane katrina.
|
On July 09 2013 07:10 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 07:06 xDaunt wrote:
Go cite the study for this "7 minute" figure. I'm guessing that it is highly misleading because it includes arraignment hearings where all the PD does is show up at the jail and work out a plea deal. It's not uncommon for a PD to handle dozens of these kinds of cases in a morning or afternoon -- even in smaller cities. i'm guessing its a study from immediately after hurricane katrina.
Yeah, that's a possibility.
|
On July 09 2013 07:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 06:47 Plansix wrote:On July 09 2013 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 06:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 09 2013 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 06:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 09 2013 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 06:09 xDaunt wrote:On July 09 2013 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
That would presume that anyone there has any idea about marijuana and it's effects. (think this is like MMA)
As for the paranoia It is rarely associated with aggression.
I wasn't referring to his ability to perform in a fight but the likelihood of someone who is "stoned" to seek one out.
But again the impact of such trace amounts is totally irrelevant. For perspective TM had 1.5ng per ml you can have up to 24ng (49 in some places) per ml and pass a drug test.... Well, what the judge said is that these are issues of weight (ie credibility) as opposed to admissibility. Yeah not arguing the legality on this one just that it is totally being brought in to prejudice the jury against the prosecution and is no way relevant to the events of that night (as the defense is presenting it[not to mention it further besmirches Cannabis which, if it were not for the GOV propaganda to reinforce racist policies, would be considered one of the most amazing plant families we have ever discovered]). This is my problem with where the justice system has ended up. It has nothing to do with the "truth" it has everything to do with fabricating the best case you can, manipulating the facts to construct the best "legal" "story" the "facts" you can't keep out of the courtroom will allow. The idea that at the end of a trial "justice" has been served to me is a joke. I don't have a better system but it is still disappointing neither side in this case gives 2 shits about what actually happened that night just what serves their personal interests. There is no better way to find truth than to have two people arguing incessantly while a third party parses out which one is the most convincing. One side brings all the facts he believes in, the other side brings all the facts they believe in. Design wise its pretty good. Yeah I agree it's the best we got but the idea that they "believe in these facts" is a somewhat laughable notion. They believe the facts that gives their client the best chance at success. Regardless of how ridiculous and implausible. Unless your talking about public defenders in which case their client is lucky if they read the case before their day in court. (In defense of PD's [haha] they are overworked and underpaid so it's not exactly their fault they tend to do a piss poor job of doing anything other than asking the prosecutor for a reasonably fair plea. I don't know if that's necessarily a fair representation of Public Defenders. A lot of them are sharp, sharp lawyers who are incredibly devoted to their job and incredibly good at it. I'm not saying they aren't hard working (the opposite actually) just that the sharpest hardest working PD is just not capable of putting on a defense comparable to what they or many other lawyers would be able and willing to as privately contracted lawyers. Had GZ actually of gotten a PD instead of O'Mara this case would not be going nearly as well for him. As for the reading part a study showed that the estimated time to review a case for a PD in New Orleans was 7 minutes. Yeah... that's right 7 minutes.... I have worked in probation, most criminal cases are minor and have very slim fact sets. Most defendants hang themselves out to dry long before they get in front of a judge. Its hard to defend someone who admitted to the police that he committed the assault he was charged with. Or someone who was found covered in beer in the car they were driving, at 2 times the legal limit. Those cases need little review and they are the majority of what goes through the courts. They are also handled in district court, which moves at a fast clip. Also, that fucking New Orleans in Mississippi. That is not what I would call the cradle of legal excellence on any level. There was a guy pretending to be a judge down, who stole a notary stamp and would make his own orders. It look them 2 years to catch him. The lack of time and compensation has very little to do with their "legal excellence" and a lot to do with the expectations to resources ratio. And Ironically enough admitting committing a crime is not necessarily in it of itself proof of guilt. Now whether a PD is going to take the time and effort to argue that is another question. Given the demonstrable lack of time they actually have to work with any given case it becomes a matter of what is most practical to them rather than exhausting every reasonable legal defense Kid, I worked in the field, the PDs did a very good job on the cases they could and settle the cases they couldn't. It worked out because in settling, the Defendants normally avoided jail time. You are referencing a study when people who work in the field of law are telling you that it isn't like that everywhere. Accept the fact that we may know more about this than you.
Well kid, having a bit of a troubled past and having associates that went through the justice system themselves I have personally seen PD's call their client by the wrong name multiple times to the same person in court. I've seen them be more friendly and attentive to prosecutors than their clients, I've seen them actually digging through the wrong case for 20 minutes looking for documents that weren't going to be there because that case wasn't even the one they had that day. And personally point it out that the court date on the documents was for a week from that day.
Maybe your experience was different maybe you want to validate your own, while dismissing mine, I don't really care one way or the other. Whatever rationalizations transpire to validate in those offices how they are able to say what happens serves the ABA's 10 principles is between them and the people of the related jurisdictions. However it is clear that many PD's think it is a significant problem and systematically prohibiting them from doing what they would otherwise do to best defend their clients.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
