Agreed....if you are a criminal, and have committed a crime, do not speak to the Police, or anyone for that matter because that will lessen the odds that your sleazy criminal defense lawyer will get your guilty ass off.
Agreed....if you are a criminal, and have committed a crime, do not speak to the Police, or anyone for that matter because that will lessen the odds that your sleazy criminal defense lawyer will get your guilty ass off.
Agreed....if you are a criminal, and have committed a crime, do not speak to the Police, or anyone for that matter because that will lessen the odds that your sleazy criminal defense lawyer will get your guilty ass off.
Agreed....if you are a criminal, and have committed a crime, do not speak to the Police, or anyone for that matter because that will lessen the odds that your sleazy criminal defense lawyer will get your guilty ass off.
Rock, You obviously did not watch the video.
Sorry....I couldn't get past his "You go girlfriend" comment.
Agreed....if you are a criminal, and have committed a crime, do not speak to the Police, or anyone for that matter because that will lessen the odds that your sleazy criminal defense lawyer will get your guilty ass off.
Agreed....if you are a criminal, and have committed a crime, do not speak to the Police, or anyone for that matter because that will lessen the odds that your sleazy criminal defense lawyer will get your guilty ass off.
Rock, You obviously did not watch the video.
Sorry....I couldn't get past his "You go girlfriend" comment.
b/w
I still stand behind my above comment.
He makes a lot of good points about why it is a bad idea to talk even if you are completely innocent and you tell only the truth. He has a few cornball moments, but the rest is really informative.
Rock, you're plain wrong on this one. Someone I knew once said something innocuous to a police officer, it ended up with them being charged with a felony. It was eventually thrown out, but that was only because there was no additional evidence (other than their own words).
Agreed....if you are a criminal, and have committed a crime, do not speak to the Police, or anyone for that matter because that will lessen the odds that your sleazy criminal defense lawyer will get your guilty ass off.
Of the assumptions and stipulations that burden the above post, the only one that is really wrong is that the criminal defense lawyer is sleazy. This is a common stereotype, and it is offensive. Criminal defense lawyers play a key role in our system of justice, such as it is, and they should not be derided or easily dismissed.
On the general topic, anyone accused of a crime should not speak to the police. This is true whether the person accused committed the crime or not. The police are completely uninterested in helping the accused improve his/her situation, and the police have an absolute license to lie to the accused about anything and everything. If the accused lies to the police, however, it could be used as evidence of guilt or worse, evidence to support a separate crime of obstruction of justice (Martha Stewart's only crime). The best thing anyone accused of a crime can do is say, "I would like to exercise my right to remain silent." If pressed to say anything further, my recommendation would be, "I would like for you to stop questioning me until I can speak to an attorney." Repeat those two things as many times as is necessary to get police questioning to cease.
The police do not want to help you. They want to help prosecutors obtain convictions. That is their job and they are good at it.
Agreed....if you are a criminal, and have committed a crime, do not speak to the Police, or anyone for that matter because that will lessen the odds that your sleazy criminal defense lawyer will get your guilty ass off.
are all criminal defense lawyers sleazy since they inevitably have represented guilty people? if so, are prosecutors equally as sleazy since they have inevitably prosecuted innocent defendants?
Agreed....if you are a criminal, and have committed a crime, do not speak to the Police, or anyone for that matter because that will lessen the odds that your sleazy criminal defense lawyer will get your guilty ass off.
are all criminal defense lawyers sleazy since they inevitably have represented guilty people? if so, are prosecutors equally as sleazy since they have inevitably prosecuted innocent defendants?
I would say a prosecutor who has knowingly prosecuted an innocent person is beyond sleazy and is criminal.
IMO a defense lawyer who counsels clients who they are know are guilty on how to best be found innocent are practicing a sleazy profession and I don't know how they sleep at night.
Agreed....if you are a criminal, and have committed a crime, do not speak to the Police, or anyone for that matter because that will lessen the odds that your sleazy criminal defense lawyer will get your guilty ass off.
Of the assumptions and stipulations that burden the above post, the only one that is really wrong is that the criminal defense lawyer is sleazy. This is a common stereotype, and it is offensive. Criminal defense lawyers play a key role in our system of justice, such as it is, and they should not be derided or easily dismissed.
On the general topic, anyone accused of a crime should not speak to the police. This is true whether the person accused committed the crime or not. The police are completely uninterested in helping the accused improve his/her situation, and the police have an absolute license to lie to the accused about anything and everything. If the accused lies to the police, however, it could be used as evidence of guilt or worse, evidence to support a separate crime of obstruction of justice (Martha Stewart's only crime). The best thing anyone accused of a crime can do is say, "I would like to exercise my right to remain silent." If pressed to say anything further, my recommendation would be, "I would like for you to stop questioning me until I can speak to an attorney." Repeat those two things as many times as is necessary to get police questioning to cease.
The police do not want to help you. They want to help prosecutors obtain convictions. That is their job and they are good at it.
Be advised.
Soulstrut Legal(TM)
I agree that my stereotype of all defense attorneys is incorrect and biased.....I retract that statement.
Agreed....if you are a criminal, and have committed a crime, do not speak to the Police, or anyone for that matter because that will lessen the odds that your sleazy criminal defense lawyer will get your guilty ass off.
are all criminal defense lawyers sleazy since they inevitably have represented guilty people? if so, are prosecutors equally as sleazy since they have inevitably prosecuted innocent defendants?
I would say a prosecutor who has knowingly prosecuted an innocent person is beyond sleazy and is criminal.
IMO a defense lawyer who counsels clients who they are know are guilty on how to best be found innocent are practicing a sleazy profession and I don't know how they sleep at night.
I have friends and family who have worked as public defenders for years, a couple have moved into private practice, and I used to ask them how they counsel someone they know is guilty. The response was something like this:
"That's not my job/role. My job is to defend my client to the best of my legal ability and it's up for a judge or jury to decide if my client is guilty or not. That verdict says nothing about whether I've done my job honorably or not. If my client is found "not guilty" when, in fact, he was guilty, then the system failed but I've only failed if I put together an incompetent defense on behalf of my client."
To put it another way, a rigorous defense of the accused is exactly what the justice system requires to be just. That way, you are convicting people who are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If a defense attorney can - again, ethically and legally - cast sufficient doubt, then that means the prosecution failed. Either way, the justice system has fulfilled its mission.
The other thing one needs to keep in mind too: prosecutors make their decisions on what cases to take and what to drop based on all kinds of considerations that have very little to do with justice and have everything to do with efficiency and political capital. I had a guest speaker in my class yesterday, a 22 year veteran of the LAPD who is also finishing up his sociology degree at my college. He was the sole detective assigned to the Chris Brown/Rihanna case and has worked domestic violence cases for years. He was saying that the overwhelming number of domestic violence cases featuring similar circumstances (no bones broken, no previous record) are not prosecuted as felonies...the DA usually refers it to the City's Attorneys office. But in the Chris Brown case, the DA pushed for a felony conviction because it was high profile but not because the circumstances would normally have mandated that choice. It was a sobering anecdote.
I would say a prosecutor who has knowingly prosecuted an innocent person is beyond sleazy and is criminal.
Every prosecutor in the country knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that he or she has put numerous innocent people behind bars. The crushing effect of the plea bargaining system makes that an inevitable result.
I would say a prosecutor who has knowingly prosecuted an innocent person is beyond sleazy and is criminal.
Every prosecutor in the country knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that he or she has put numerous innocent people behind bars. The crushing effect of the plea bargaining system makes that an inevitable result.
Absolutely. I am tempted to argue though that the plea bargaining system is, itself, a necessity in a legal system that couldn't possibly bring every case to trial under current staffing and infrastructure.
I would say a prosecutor who has knowingly prosecuted an innocent person is beyond sleazy and is criminal.
Every prosecutor in the country knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that he or she has put numerous innocent people behind bars. The crushing effect of the plea bargaining system makes that an inevitable result.
Absolutely. I am tempted to argue though that the plea bargaining system is, itself, a necessity in a legal system that couldn't possibly bring every case to trial under current staffing and infrastructure.
Sure, of course. Which is another thing that makes the War On Drugs and jailing prostitutes that much more ridiculous.
Our Judicial System is supposed to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.
Facilitating the punishment of the innocent or the freedom of the guilty is an aberration of justice.
Those who knowingly facilitate these results should at worst be prosecuted and at best be barred from participating in the process.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of our system of justice. You should do some thinking about the presumption of innocence in order to remedy that.
Our Judicial System is supposed to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.
Facilitating the punishment of the innocent or the freedom of the guilty is an aberration of justice.
Those who knowingly facilitate these results should at worst be prosecuted and at best be barred from participating in the process.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of our system of justice. You should do some thinking about the presumption of innocence in order to remedy that.
The word "knowingly" effectively overrules presumption.
There are only three sentences in my post above, which one(s) do you disagree with?
Our Judicial System is supposed to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.
Facilitating the punishment of the innocent or the freedom of the guilty is an aberration of justice.
Those who knowingly facilitate these results should at worst be prosecuted and at best be barred from participating in the process.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of our system of justice. You should do some thinking about the presumption of innocence in order to remedy that.
The word "knowingly" effectively overrules presumption.
There are only three sentences in my post above, which one(s) do you disagree with?
No, it doesn't. A defense attorney who knows his client is guilty is still obligated to give that client a fair and vigorous defense, within limits. An attorney isn't supposed to suborn perjury, for instance. But attacking the state's case on procedural grounds or based on general civil rights is not just an attorney's duty to his client, it's a duty to the overall system.
What do you think an attorney who knowingly has a guilty client should do? Resign? Show up the first day of the trial with a sign on his chest saying "The Fucker Did It"?
The old saying is "better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer." That concept goes back to English Common Law and I don't see any reason to dismiss it.
And so I disagree with sentences #2 or #3, with exceptions. Certainly any prosecutor who knowingly prosecutes an innocent defendant should be prosecuted and disbarred, as should a defense attorney who suborns perjury.
Do you seriously believe the guilty should not have the right of legal representation?
Of course they should....and I also believe that plea bargains are for the guilty, not the innocent.
Have you watched the video yet? The guy gives some very plausible examples in which someone completely innocent can be made to look very guilty (not knowingly by police or the prosecutor, though, that is, not when they know the person is innocent). In such a case, in may end up better for that innocent person to take a plea.
Our Judicial System is supposed to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.
Facilitating the punishment of the innocent or the freedom of the guilty is an aberration of justice.
Those who knowingly facilitate these results should at worst be prosecuted and at best be barred from participating in the process.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of our system of justice. You should do some thinking about the presumption of innocence in order to remedy that.
The word "knowingly" effectively overrules presumption.
No, it doesn't. A defense attorney who knows his client is guilty is still obligated to give that client a fair and vigorous defense, within limits. An attorney isn't supposed to suborn perjury, for instance. But attacking the state's case on procedural grounds or based on general civil rights is not just an attorney's duty to his client, it's a duty to the overall system.
What do you think an attorney who knowingly has a guilty client should do? Resign? Show up the first day of the trial with a sign on his chest saying "The Fucker Did It"?
The old saying is "better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer." That concept goes back to English Common Law and I don't see any reason to dismiss it.
You are 100% correct....a "good" lawyer, one who is adept at manipulating the system, gets paid top dollar and can get a guilty man off for his crimes.
The rich hire these "good" lawyers and that is why each and every one of you get to decry that the rich get "special" treatment....they do, and they pay for it.....I think it sucks and I think lawyers, the likes of a Frank Ragano or Murray Richman, who BRAG about getting guilty men set free are sleazebags.....you won't convince me otherwise.
A defense attorney with integrity, who knows his client is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, will suggest and effectively receive a plea bargain for his client.
Setting a guilty man free based on technicalities is not what our Judiical system was created to do.
Do I know our system isn't perfect, of course.....does that mean those who participate in it shouldn't strive for perfection?... not imo.
nzshadow
5,518 Posts
Comments
Rock, You obviously did not watch the video.
Yeah. Pot smokers should all be locked up.
Sorry....I couldn't get past his "You go girlfriend" comment.
b/w
I still stand behind my above comment.
This is EXACTLY what I had in mind.
He makes a lot of good points about why it is a bad idea to talk even if you are completely innocent and you tell only the truth. He has a few cornball moments, but the rest is really informative.
Edit:
Name changed to protect the innocent.
Of the assumptions and stipulations that burden the above post, the only one that is really wrong is that the criminal defense lawyer is sleazy. This is a common stereotype, and it is offensive. Criminal defense lawyers play a key role in our system of justice, such as it is, and they should not be derided or easily dismissed.
On the general topic, anyone accused of a crime should not speak to the police. This is true whether the person accused committed the crime or not. The police are completely uninterested in helping the accused improve his/her situation, and the police have an absolute license to lie to the accused about anything and everything. If the accused lies to the police, however, it could be used as evidence of guilt or worse, evidence to support a separate crime of obstruction of justice (Martha Stewart's only crime). The best thing anyone accused of a crime can do is say, "I would like to exercise my right to remain silent." If pressed to say anything further, my recommendation would be, "I would like for you to stop questioning me until I can speak to an attorney." Repeat those two things as many times as is necessary to get police questioning to cease.
The police do not want to help you. They want to help prosecutors obtain convictions. That is their job and they are good at it.
Be advised.
Soulstrut Legal(TM)
are all criminal defense lawyers sleazy since they inevitably have represented guilty people? if so, are prosecutors equally as sleazy since they have inevitably prosecuted innocent defendants?
I would say a prosecutor who has knowingly prosecuted an innocent person is beyond sleazy and is criminal.
IMO a defense lawyer who counsels clients who they are know are guilty on how to best be found innocent are practicing a sleazy profession and I don't know how they sleep at night.
I agree that my stereotype of all defense attorneys is incorrect and biased.....I retract that statement.
I have friends and family who have worked as public defenders for years, a couple have moved into private practice, and I used to ask them how they counsel someone they know is guilty. The response was something like this:
"That's not my job/role. My job is to defend my client to the best of my legal ability and it's up for a judge or jury to decide if my client is guilty or not. That verdict says nothing about whether I've done my job honorably or not. If my client is found "not guilty" when, in fact, he was guilty, then the system failed but I've only failed if I put together an incompetent defense on behalf of my client."
To put it another way, a rigorous defense of the accused is exactly what the justice system requires to be just. That way, you are convicting people who are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If a defense attorney can - again, ethically and legally - cast sufficient doubt, then that means the prosecution failed. Either way, the justice system has fulfilled its mission.
The other thing one needs to keep in mind too: prosecutors make their decisions on what cases to take and what to drop based on all kinds of considerations that have very little to do with justice and have everything to do with efficiency and political capital. I had a guest speaker in my class yesterday, a 22 year veteran of the LAPD who is also finishing up his sociology degree at my college. He was the sole detective assigned to the Chris Brown/Rihanna case and has worked domestic violence cases for years. He was saying that the overwhelming number of domestic violence cases featuring similar circumstances (no bones broken, no previous record) are not prosecuted as felonies...the DA usually refers it to the City's Attorneys office. But in the Chris Brown case, the DA pushed for a felony conviction because it was high profile but not because the circumstances would normally have mandated that choice. It was a sobering anecdote.
Every prosecutor in the country knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that he or she has put numerous innocent people behind bars. The crushing effect of the plea bargaining system makes that an inevitable result.
Absolutely. I am tempted to argue though that the plea bargaining system is, itself, a necessity in a legal system that couldn't possibly bring every case to trial under current staffing and infrastructure.
Sure, of course. Which is another thing that makes the War On Drugs and jailing prostitutes that much more ridiculous.
Facilitating the punishment of the innocent or the freedom of the guilty is an aberration of justice.
Those who knowingly facilitate these results should at worst be prosecuted and at best be barred from participating in the process.
lol
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of our system of justice. You should do some thinking about the presumption of innocence in order to remedy that.
The word "knowingly" effectively overrules presumption.
There are only three sentences in my post above, which one(s) do you disagree with?
Of course they should....and I also believe that plea bargains are for the guilty, not the innocent.
I'm not saying the system "is" this way, I'm saying it is supposed to be this way.
Do you disagree?
No, it doesn't. A defense attorney who knows his client is guilty is still obligated to give that client a fair and vigorous defense, within limits. An attorney isn't supposed to suborn perjury, for instance. But attacking the state's case on procedural grounds or based on general civil rights is not just an attorney's duty to his client, it's a duty to the overall system.
What do you think an attorney who knowingly has a guilty client should do? Resign? Show up the first day of the trial with a sign on his chest saying "The Fucker Did It"?
The old saying is "better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer." That concept goes back to English Common Law and I don't see any reason to dismiss it.
And so I disagree with sentences #2 or #3, with exceptions. Certainly any prosecutor who knowingly prosecutes an innocent defendant should be prosecuted and disbarred, as should a defense attorney who suborns perjury.
New Jim Crow type thing. http://www.newjimcrow.com/
Have you watched the video yet? The guy gives some very plausible examples in which someone completely innocent can be made to look very guilty (not knowingly by police or the prosecutor, though, that is, not when they know the person is innocent). In such a case, in may end up better for that innocent person to take a plea.
You are 100% correct....a "good" lawyer, one who is adept at manipulating the system, gets paid top dollar and can get a guilty man off for his crimes.
The rich hire these "good" lawyers and that is why each and every one of you get to decry that the rich get "special" treatment....they do, and they pay for it.....I think it sucks and I think lawyers, the likes of a Frank Ragano or Murray Richman, who BRAG about getting guilty men set free are sleazebags.....you won't convince me otherwise.
A defense attorney with integrity, who knows his client is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, will suggest and effectively receive a plea bargain for his client.
Setting a guilty man free based on technicalities is not what our Judiical system was created to do.
Do I know our system isn't perfect, of course.....does that mean those who participate in it shouldn't strive for perfection?... not imo.
No way I am watching them.
Can I get a summary?
Jeeez.....smh......really dude....it's not SUPPOSED to be about protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty??