• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Hung Jury = Mistrial after a 3.5 Month Trial!

^^^

(I wasn't there either. And I laughed when I read JPM's posts. He's a funny guy. When he's not being serious or posting, Search is your friend. Bad karma. :laughing)
 
I can't hate on SummitDog, he's just doing his job -- I do things often that I really wish I could ignore but due to the nature of my job, I can't. I hope this is the same thing.

That said.... it's never a good day when a shitbag gets away with a serious crime. Never.

Don't worry though, I'll go handle the 487's, 488's, 242's and 211's that your client goes and commits to continue to pay for his drug addiction / sales business.
 
antarius said:
I can't hate on SummitDog, he's just doing his job -- I do things often that I really wish I could ignore but due to the nature of my job, I can't. I hope this is the same thing.

That said.... it's never a good day when a shitbag gets away with a serious crime. Never.

Don't worry though, I'll go handle the 487's, 488's, 242's and 211's that your client goes and commits to continue to pay for his drug addiction / sales business.
Click to expand...

I really needed that slurpee..............
 
JPM said:
I know, OJ is innocent. :twofinger
Click to expand...

But how about Ethel Rosenberg?

Not wanting to get too serious here, but the presumption of innocence and the adversarial system to guarantee a perp competent representation is not for his benefit, but for ours. I know I'm not wise enough to hazard which of the pieces of the current system we can dispense without putting the innocent at risk sometime.

The integrity of the whole system (of which the LEO community is an integral part) is worth the hassle of dealing with those that are obviously guilty by the book.

And I DO appreciate all the efforts of all our LEOs :thumbup.

Cheers

Lou
 
To put it in a bit better perspective for you people. This is Santa Clara County (the Alabama by the Bay). SCC is the most conservative jury pool in the bay area. Keep also mind that San Jose "lost" its Safest Big City status. People want to feel "safe" and will do strange things to comfort themselves.

Lastly, the DA said in chambers with the judge: "I am not charging Mr. Storey's client for what he has done in this case but for who he is."

Insight: As one get's off the bus at the State Prison, the C.O.s seperate the Mexican Americans by Northerner (someone who lives above Hollister) or Southerner (South of Bakersfied) and then house them accordingly. If you were not a gang member before going in, you will likely become one or have a pretty unsafe existance in custody.

Scotty
 
And fwiw, having been appointed by the court, Scotty is sworn by oath to do the utmost within the limits of the law to defend his client. I'm sure none of you guys want a court system where there is only a judge and a prosecutor.
 
Is the D.A. one of the prosecutors highlighted in last year's San Jose Mercury series on the court system down there?

That series was very interesting and sad, detailing how easy it was to be convicted while being factually innocent and poor.
 
summitdog said:
Insight: As one get's off the bus at the State Prison, the C.O.s seperate the Mexican Americans by Northerner (someone who lives above Hollister) or Southerner (South of Bakersfied) and then house them accordingly. If you were not a gang member before going in, you will likely become one or have a pretty unsafe existance in custody.

Scotty
Click to expand...

I've no ill will towards you for doing your job -- and doing it well, regardless the pieces of crap you are told to protect. Your job is an important part of the system and while I think it's absolutely terrible when a criminal gets away with something, it is not something I blame on you. In fact, there's some respect for what you do. I couldn't look at a drug dealing gang banger and give him the benefit of the doubt, let alone protect him.

Now, onto the insight portion of your post. I do not care. He is a grown man (or woman). Excuses are likely what made your client get into the situation he was in, in the first place. Excuses are going to continue his chosen path of crime. But excuses will never be a valid defense in a persons choice to join a gang, commit a crime, etc.

He is a grown man, he made a choice. He has to live with the consequences of those actions.

It's like a recent case I had. A simple shop lifting when the subject had a check in his pocket to be cashed. The subject was on probation and subsequently, was violated and sent back to jail. Why did he steal the item? Well, they said he couldn't cash the check. Since he couldn't cash the check there, he had "no choice" but to take what he "needed."

Excuses.
 
allknowingtom said:
Aren't people innocent UNTIL proven guilty? I guess not for those that "uphold" the law.
Click to expand...

A BIG NO!

You are innocent or guilty based on if you committed the crime.

You are "presumed innocent" by our legal system. This does not mean you are not guilty of a crime. It means you will not be treated as guilty of a crime unless you are convicted.

If I steal your wallet, I am guilty. My guilt does not depend on being convicted.
 
Menke said:
A BIG NO!

You are innocent or guilty based on if you committed the crime.

You are "presumed innocent" by our legal system. This does not mean you are not guilty of a crime. It means you will not be treated as guilty of a crime unless you are convicted.

If I steal your wallet, I am guilty. My guilt does not depend on being convicted.
Click to expand...

Hey, who said you could bring reason and logic to BARF!:twofinger
 
bellisan said:
But how about Ethel Rosenberg?

Not wanting to get too serious here, but the presumption of innocence and the adversarial system to guarantee a perp competent representation is not for his benefit, but for ours. I know I'm not wise enough to hazard which of the pieces of the current system we can dispense without putting the innocent at risk sometime.

The integrity of the whole system (of which the LEO community is an integral part) is worth the hassle of dealing with those that are obviously guilty by the book.

And I DO appreciate all the efforts of all our LEOs :thumbup.

Cheers

Lou
Click to expand...

cardinal03 said:
And fwiw, having been appointed by the court, Scotty is sworn by oath to do the utmost within the limits of the law to defend his client. I'm sure none of you guys want a court system where there is only a judge and a prosecutor.
Click to expand...

Wow, people read wayyyy to much into things, or have no sense of humor, or no personal perspective of the real world (Hey, you all could be on a jury! :teeth). I have no part of this case therefore I have my right to my opinion, right or wrong. I often work the crosswalk for violations in front of our local courthouse and joke with the defense attorneys when they cross that is they get hit, I'm sure the driver had a very good excuse and I would not ticket them. :laughing
We laugh and they know I'm joking and they know that if they did get hit, I would treat the incident professionally and properly just as any other similar incident. I have a right to my personal beliefs and opinions as long as it does not affect how I do my job.

That being said I also believe in Karma, what goes around comes around. I have attorneys in my family but I chose to go into law enforcement because I know when I go to bed at night I did something to try and make my part of the world a better and safer place for everyone. I could not knowingly defend someone who I either thought or knew was guilty. Just as I have said before there are those in this world that do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do, and those only because they fear punishment. I only have to answer for myself at the end of they day.

As for summitdog, he is doing his job and seems to be doing it well. He chooses to follow what his profession has sworn him to do just as I sometimes have to do things in my profession that I do not necessarily like. While I might joke and give defense attorneys a hard time, it does not mean I don’t respect them or what they do.
 
I'd just like to reiterate what JPM stated. At the end of the day, we're all friends. People go into criminal justice because they believe in the system. The cops take people to jail. The DA's office holds people responsible. The Public Defender/Defense Attorney makes sure that all the rules were followed.

Always remember... Cops don't get paid extra for stats. The only thing they get for working hard is MORE WORK. If cops were really a bunch of donut eating lazy buffoons, they would never do anything. Then there won't be any liability, won't be any court to go to, no shit to get yelled at by supervisors, etc...
 
:applause

Nick said:
Always remember... Cops don't get paid extra for stats. The only thing they get for working hard is MORE WORK. If cops were really a bunch of donut eating lazy buffoons, they would never do anything. Then there won't be any liability, won't be any court to go to, no shit to get yelled at by supervisors, etc...
Click to expand...
 
allknowingtom said:
Aren't people innocent UNTIL proven guilty? I guess not for those that "uphold" the law.
Click to expand...

No, it's 'Presumed Innocent'. If they did it, they are guilty, even if not proven
guilty and eventually found innocent.
 
Actually, the term "innocent" is not applicable in the courts. They are either "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" depending on whether the prosecution proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Guilty = Guilty
Not Guilty = Burden of proof not met
Innocent = Did not commit crime
 
If, as am appointed defense attorney, you know your client is guilty of a crime, are you still required to defend them? Is there a way to bow out?

I guess it would be fraught with trouble. What is the line between "know", "believe", or just "think" someone is guilty? Might also open the same door to an appointed attorney that is open to the prospective jury: lie and you can get out of anything. But there is the other side: How do you defend someone to the best of your ability that you truly believe doesn't deserve it?

BTW...not everyone on that jury hasn't got the smarts to beg off. I'm a well-paid professional. My time is better spent (for myself, anyway) anywhere but on a jury. But I've always gone and done my civic duty. (Of course, on the other hand, as soon as the attorneys figure out that I'm not a patsy, I get kicked off... so I've never actually seen a trial to the end. I think our jury selection process needs an overhaul.)

And folks, for everyone getting their panties in a bunch over the statements by the cops, realize there's a reason why there are four parties involved in every criminal trial. This tension, the tug-of-war between the D.A. and the defense, is built into the system, because it works. It's adversarial, which is exactly what it was designed to be. The idea that we can all hold hands and think good thoughts together when we're discussing things like prison is just ludicrous. Nothing says the DA has to be fair...he just has to follow the rules. Nothing says the defense has to be fair...he just has to follow the rules. Fair is not one of the rules. It is the job of the justice to make sure the rules are followed. It is the job of the jury to make the decision. This allows for a way to get to a fair decision when no one involved has much incentive to be fair at all.

So, the tension that is there with the police (who are an extension of the DA in this situation) is absolutely the most natural thing in the world. And, in a way, totally required to make the system work.
 
A lot of times, it doesn't matter if the defendant is guilty or not. There are rules that have to be followed to ensure no one's constitutional rights were violated.

For example, if a cop just walks into someone's house, starts searching their shit, and finds a dead body, 14 kilos of heroin, and a bunch of stolen firearms, the person is obviously guilty (hypothetical situation, so I'm not going to go into gross detail). Even though they're guilty, the person's 4th Amendments rights were violated and the evidence is not admissible in court, which could ultimately lead to an acquittal/charges being dropped.

Ya gotta play the game by the rules...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top