| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
crms
United States11933 Posts
On July 12 2013 06:53 scott31337 wrote: Judge is allowing manslaughter verdict as well. I think they may find him guilty for that. No riots  there is noway they find him guilty of manslaughter under jury instructions unless they feel like ignoring evidence and the instruction. | ||
|
PassiveAce
United States18076 Posts
On July 12 2013 06:54 dAPhREAk wrote: unless someone can afford $300-400/hr, you are completely offbase saying that people should reject public defenders even with their large caseloads. cheap criminal attorneys tend to be the bottom feeders of the bar that feed off poor clients who dont know any better. I never said you need a 400$ attorney. I'm saying putting your life in the hands of a person whom you have absolutely no information about and who is chosen essentially at random is very silly. You make it sound like there are only two kinds of lawyers, ones who charge 400 an hour and scammers, which is a gross oversimplification. | ||
|
PanzerKing
United States483 Posts
On July 12 2013 06:49 PassiveAce wrote: Public defenders are severely overworked and underpaid. Retaining your own attorney in criminal matters is much better then relying on state provided counsel. First, I think you're overlooking the assigned counsel program. Assigned counsel (or 18b attorneys as they're called in New York) represent a large number of indigent defendants and they vary in quality just like retained attorneys. Some of the best trial attorneys in New York work in the 18b program. I would be much more concerned about going up against some of the experienced, seasoned 18b attorneys than most retained attorneys. Moreover, there's no penalty (at least in my state) for defense counsel to announce not ready for trial. So they're free to take essentially as much time as they need to prepare for your case. If you're in jail, I could potentially see that as a problem, but most defendants, even on serious felonies, aren't "in" in New York. Most are able to post a relatively low bail or you'll be ROR'd even with multiple priors on your rap sheet. Also, if you have the money to hire an attorney, you probably have the money to post bail. In that case, you may not even be eligible for a PD, and it becomes a moot point. Also, don't think that the public defender's office is going to set a neophyte attorney out on a serious case. I'm going up against a public defender in late august who will be trying only her second or third jury trial, and her client is facing 7 to 15 if convicted... but her second seat is a seasoned veteran with 15 years of practice under his belt. Any competent PD's office will have a couple of seasoned veterans around to supervise and assist on serious cases. | ||
|
PassiveAce
United States18076 Posts
I dont doubt that their are excellent attorneys who work in public defenders office's, but I think they are few and far between and I certainly wouldnt advise a friend of mine to chance it. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On July 12 2013 07:00 PanzerKing wrote: First, I think you're overlooking the assigned counsel program. Assigned counsel (or 18b attorneys as they're called in New York) represent a large number of indigent defendants and they vary in quality just like retained attorneys. Some of the best trial attorneys in New York work in the 18b program. I would be much more concerned about going up against some of the experienced, seasoned 18b attorneys than most retained attorneys. Moreover, there's no penalty (at least in my state) for defense counsel to announce not ready for trial. So they're free to take essentially as much time as they need to prepare for your case. If you're in jail, I could potentially see that as a problem, but most defendants, even on serious felonies, aren't "in" in New York. Most are able to post a relatively low bail or you'll be ROR'd even with multiple priors on your rap sheet. Also, if you have the money to hire an attorney, you probably have the money to post bail. In that case, you may not even be eligible for a PD, and it becomes a moot point. Also, don't think that the public defender's office is going to set a neophyte attorney out on a serious case. I'm going up against a public defender in late august who will be trying only her second or third jury trial, and her client is facing 7 to 15 if convicted... but her second seat is a seasoned veteran with 15 years of practice under his belt. Any competent PD's office will have a couple of seasoned veterans around to supervise and assist on serious cases. the SF, Alameda and Contra Costa bar (where i live) have the liberty of rejecting top students from top 10 law schools in the nation. not exactly the bottom of the barrel. =P public defenders get hate because people are stupid, not because public defenders are bad at their job. not to say some public defenders arent shit, but the generalization is completely unfair and unsupported. plus, the monthly lawyer rag that has all the suspensions and disbarments have a significant % of . . . private criminal attorneys. maybe not as many as immigration attorneys, but the number is up there. | ||
|
Blacktion
United Kingdom1148 Posts
On July 12 2013 06:34 PassiveAce wrote: LOL no. Public defenders are by and large atrocious, you can get one, but you dont want one. How the shit do you pay for defense then? The trial alone has gone on for days, and lawyers can be dear as shit. It would suck balls to be found innocent only for your first act as a free man to be to file for bankruptcy. Im not on the breadline, but i have nowhere near the cash id need to pay for any sort of defense if something like this happened to me. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On July 12 2013 06:40 Fruscainte wrote: I think one of the things that comes with a CCW is responsibility. Responsibility on your own part, some basic common fucking sense. If you're going out to buy some milk on a 5 minute errand in your upper class neighborhood I agree open or concealed carrying for the hell of it is kind of silly and dare I say a bit irresponsible. Keeping a gun in your glove compartment at all times isn't irresponsible. Taking your gun with you when you're going to be patrolling the streets all night for your neighborhood watch position isn't far too unreasonable. I think GZ is a bit of a tryhard but I don't think it's unreasonable. Your idea of responsible gun ownership is ignorant. It is much more responsible if you're running to the store to buy milk, that you have the gun on you, instead of in your glove compartment. When you are armed, you are in complete control of that firearm. When you leave it in your fucking car, you are not in control of that firearm. I can tell you that for federal officers, it is actually against policy for them to leave their weapon in their glove compartment. Also, not directly related to your post, but related to previous posts in this thread. Being armed or not is not a fucking toggle switch in some video game. Either you bring your weapon when you leave your home, or you don't. You don't know 100% that things won't come up, or other destinations may come up which you hadn't anticipated. The decision as to whether you are armed or not has already been made. It's safer to bring your weapon and be protected, than to not have your weapon when you wish you had. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On July 12 2013 07:08 Blacktion wrote: How the shit do you pay for defense then? The trial alone has gone on for days, and lawyers can be dear as shit. It would suck balls to be found innocent only for your first act as a free man to be to file for bankruptcy. Im not on the breadline, but i have nowhere near the cash id need to pay for any sort of defense if something like this happened to me. That is precisely one of the reasons it's so fucking wrong to be charged or overcharged with something, which you can simply prove your innocence at trial. Even found not guilty, it's a financial ruin to undergo this. So, yeah, there's that. People are generally ignorant of a ton of shit exhibited in this thread. | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On July 12 2013 07:08 Blacktion wrote: How the shit do you pay for defense then? The trial alone has gone on for days, and lawyers can be dear as shit. It would suck balls to be found innocent only for your first act as a free man to be to file for bankruptcy. Im not on the breadline, but i have nowhere near the cash id need to pay for any sort of defense if something like this happened to me. While it is true that people can bankrupt themselves trying to prove their innocence, George Zimmerman won't have to worry about that. As far as I know, MOM took this case on pro bono, likely due to the publicity it would generate for his firm. Zimmerman will have to worry about his reputation and his safety, however, should he be acquitted. There are plenty of people who will want to see him as a racist and a murderer, no matter what the jury may decide. | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
On July 12 2013 07:15 ZasZ. wrote: While it is true that people can bankrupt themselves trying to prove their innocence, George Zimmerman won't have to worry about that. As far as I know, MOM took this case on pro bono, likely due to the publicity it would generate for his firm. Zimmerman will have to worry about his reputation and his safety, however, should he be acquitted. There are plenty of people who will want to see him as a racist and a murderer, no matter what the jury may decide. What is he spending all that money from fundrasing on then? | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On July 12 2013 07:15 ZasZ. wrote: While it is true that people can bankrupt themselves trying to prove their innocence, George Zimmerman won't have to worry about that. As far as I know, MOM took this case on pro bono, likely due to the publicity it would generate for his firm. Zimmerman will have to worry about his reputation and his safety, however, should he be acquitted. There are plenty of people who will want to see him as a racist and a murderer, no matter what the jury may decide. he wont come off unscathed. O'Mara is pro bono, but he is not funding the costs and expert fees, which are likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. zimmerman has received significant donations, but i am not sure that those donations cover all the expenses. trials are expensive and like people are saying, even if you win, you get fucked. once, we successfully defended a trial only to end up in a fee dispute with our client after the fact, which resulted in another lawsuit (and more lawyers). | ||
|
PanzerKing
United States483 Posts
On July 12 2013 07:16 ComaDose wrote: What is he spending all that money from fundrasing on then? There may be fees related to the defense that aren't attorney's fees. Fees for hiring and consulting experts, purchasing a wardrobe, paying for documents to be prepared and copied or computer simulations to be generated, travel and lodging expenses for witnesses, and of course day-to-day food, lodging and upkeep for Zimmerman and his family because he certainly can't work while he's on trial and hiding from the general public. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On July 12 2013 07:16 ComaDose wrote: What is he spending all that money from fundrasing on then? Just because the attorney is doing it probono doens't mean the defense doesn't have to pay investigators, expert witnesses, and a whole bunch of other expenses associated with the case. It's a shit ton of a financial burden to pay for everything that the defense has to pay for. Prosecutors can draw in whatever resources they need, paid by the taxpayer, and bring that to bear against the defendant. On top of that tremendous advantage, this fucking prosecution team has also withheld evidence from the defense until immediately before trial, along with whatever else they've done that went undetected. You do NOT want to ever have to answer for your actions. Believe me. It's not surprising at all to me why not a single neighbor ran out to help Zimmerman, although there were obviously immediate safety concerns there as well. | ||
|
PanzerKing
United States483 Posts
On July 12 2013 07:18 dAPhREAk wrote: once, we successfully defended a trial only to end up in a fee dispute with our client after the fact, which resulted in another lawsuit (and more lawyers). That's why I love working for the government. I get my paycheck and my weeks upon weeks of paid vacation and my sweet pension with law school loan forgiveness and I don't have to worry about being stiffed. The money may not be great, but if you stick around long enough you can make a decent living and retire young and comfortable. | ||
|
PanzerKing
United States483 Posts
On July 12 2013 07:20 Kaitlin wrote: Prosecutors can draw in whatever resources they need, paid by the taxpayer, and bring that to bear against the defendant. On top of that tremendous advantage, this fucking prosecution team has also withheld evidence from the defense until immediately before trial, along with whatever else they've done that went undetected. Well, in a case like this, yes, the prosecution was probably given all the budgetary support that they need. But I would hardly say that we are "unlimited" in most situations, lol. It can be a major hassle to get one plane ticket to fly in a single witness. You have to go through several people, write memos, etc. Then sometimes you have to ask yourself, "is this worth the taxpayer's money?" I mean, if it's a shit case and you're probably going to lose anyways, why not just plead it out instead of wasting time and money flying in witnesses or booking valuable experts who might be needed on another ADA's case elsewhere? Moreover, withholding evidence until the eve of trial is normal. It's not underhanded in any way. In my jurisdiction, we GENERALLY practice completely open discovery, but that's not to say that we don't hold onto stuff so that we have an upper hand. It's entirely permissible and entirely ethical. I mean, if I have a witness who's going to say that the Defendant attempted to recruit other people to join in his larceny scheme, I'm not going to reveal that before trial. I'm going to wait until the last minute, make my Molineaux application, then watch the defense shit themselves. Why should I give away my strategy and give them and their team of paralegals weeks to formulate a response? It would be like announcing my build order without being scouted =) Remember, we're trying to do justice. We're doing it because we firmly believe the defendant is guilty, and we're the ones fighting a battle uphill against a 99.9% burden of proof. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On July 12 2013 07:20 PanzerKing wrote: That's why I love working for the government. I get my paycheck and my weeks upon weeks of paid vacation and my sweet pension with law school loan forgiveness and I don't have to worry about being stiffed. The money may not be great, but if you stick around long enough you can make a decent living and retire young and comfortable. the firm got a motocross track after the second lawsuit. =D i feel bad for our clients though; they really got screwed by the plaintiff. | ||
|
Fruscainte
4596 Posts
On July 12 2013 07:10 Kaitlin wrote: Your idea of responsible gun ownership is ignorant. It is much more responsible if you're running to the store to buy milk, that you have the gun on you, instead of in your glove compartment. When you are armed, you are in complete control of that firearm. When you leave it in your fucking car, you are not in control of that firearm. I can tell you that for federal officers, it is actually against policy for them to leave their weapon in their glove compartment. Also, not directly related to your post, but related to previous posts in this thread. Being armed or not is not a fucking toggle switch in some video game. Either you bring your weapon when you leave your home, or you don't. You don't know 100% that things won't come up, or other destinations may come up which you hadn't anticipated. The decision as to whether you are armed or not has already been made. It's safer to bring your weapon and be protected, than to not have your weapon when you wish you had. I think you're seriously over analyzing what I've been saying, tbh. I'm sorry you feel me as lesser of a person though because I don't like carrying my pistol everywhere and because I feel it's kind of retarded to carry my pistol everywhere I go at all times. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 12 2013 07:28 dAPhREAk wrote: the firm got a motocross track after the second lawsuit. =D i feel bad for our clients though; they really got screwed by the plaintiff. That is the weirdest outcome to a billing dispute I have heard in a while. We only got a foreclosed home once, but that was mostly due to the fact that the asshole declared BK. | ||
|
GreenGringo
349 Posts
| ||
|
iamperfection
United States9647 Posts
On July 12 2013 07:43 GreenGringo wrote: I predict that if Zimmerman is found guilty, the general opinion at TL will switch overnight from 95% pro-Zimmerman to 50% either way. Kind of like when Paris fell to the Germans and then opinion started to be divided and all these Nazi apologists sprung up out of the woodwork. Why ? im pretty sure the vast majority would probably be outraged here on tl. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games Grubby3774 FrodaN2225 ToD241 C9.Mang0171 KnowMe134 ArmadaUGS106 Dewaltoss106 mouzStarbuck78 UpATreeSC53 JuggernautJason16 |
|
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
OSC
WardiTV Weekly
The PondCast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
