Should crimininal defense have limits?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

BonosSaint

Rock n' Roll Doggie
Joined
Aug 21, 2004
Messages
3,566
Don't know any of you remember the photo that made national media a few years back--a sheet dangling from a prison window, the escape route of a prisoner accused of murdering several people. Five bodies were found buried on the property he lived at. (Another embarassing moment for Northeastern PA) Well his murder case is with the jury now and Hugo Selinski has become sort of a folk hero (he was accused of two of the murders, but all the victims were suspected drug dealers). The consensus is he'll be acquitted or the jury hung, even though everybody is pretty sure he did it. (The prosecution sounds like it is pretty inept--what with forensic experts contradicting each other and to be fair, a pretty circumstantial case).

This isn't really the point of the post--just our big trial of the year...

The question I wanted to put out there, is do you think all is fair in a criminal defense--with the understanding that a prosecutor has a lot of arsenal at his/her disposal? For example, how often do we hear conspiracy theories, fantastic drug cartel theories, etc.
Should the defense attorney be bound by anything (other than not suborning perjury) in his defense?

I tend to love some of the defenses the legal shows like Boston Legal, the Practice, etc. put on. While they are often farcical, I see a little bit of truth in the presentations (along with a little gratuitious political speechmaking). Do you want an attorney who makes sure you get a fair trial or one who makes sure you get acquitted? Do you want an Alan Shore to defend you?

My instincts have often been in favor of the defense, because I don't trust the prosecution, but I've found so many of the defenses over the top (okay, probably not in 95% of the criminal trials, which are probably pretty mundane affairs, but in the high profile cases).

And do you find yourself in a trial favoring the prosecution or defense in general? And do you think for the most part that either side seeks justice or just a win?

(I ramble. Sorry, the beginning of mad cow disease.)
 
No. There should be no limits.

Let the judiciary sort through the circus, which is not limited to the defense. The U.S. government made a circus out of the Moussaoui trial here, and the judge is not too happy. But that's the job of the judge, not Congress.

Melon
 
BonosSaint said:
Do you want an Alan Shore to defend you?

Well doesn't everyone my dear? :sexywink:

I encourage all of you to read Alan's arguments, they are the stuff legends are made of. Of course it's all in my delivery. Check it out tonight, you will love it.
 
So who's the better defense attorney--Alan Shore or Denny Crane?
 
I don't think there should be limits to criminal defense. After all, you're supposed to be innocent until you're proven guilty. The pressure should be on the prosecution to prove guilt. This is not fun and games.
 
Last edited:
To say there should be no limits ignores the problems in the current system.

In the current criminal justice system, all a defense attorney needs to do is create a seed of doubt in a juror's mind. That means the introduction of fabricated theories that have no basis in fact. For every high profile case that illustrates this point (think OJ), there are countless others.

Perhaps the issue could be addressed by "professional" juries. Currently, we do not seat the people best suited for evaluation of fact.
 
nbcrusader said:
To say there should be no limits ignores the problems in the current system.

In the current criminal justice system, all a defense attorney needs to do is create a seed of doubt in a juror's mind. That means the introduction of fabricated theories that have no basis in fact. For every high profile case that illustrates this point (think OJ), there are countless others.

Perhaps the issue could be addressed by "professional" juries. Currently, we do not seat the people best suited for evaluation of fact.

It's not as if the prosecution presents unbiased facts. The prosecution exists to get a conviction, and any seeds of doubt that they might have encountered are going to be ignored in their presentation.

It's an imperfect system that we have, but it works better than the alternatives before it.

"Professional juries" will just get jaded and cynical after a while. And they won't bite the hand that pays their salary after a while, which means less of a chance of a successful defense.

Melon
 
melon said:
It's not as if the prosecution presents unbiased facts. The prosecution exists to get a conviction, and any seeds of doubt that they might have encountered are going to be ignored in their presentation.

There are, however, limitation placed on what the prosecution can present (or withhold), which do not apply to the defense.

For example, if the prosecution finds evidence that could favor the defense, they must present it to the defense (or risk losing the case entirely).

Conversely, the defense can deny or hide evidence that would favor the prosecution.
 
melon said:
"Professional juries" will just get jaded and cynical after a while. And they won't bite the hand that pays their salary after a while, which means less of a chance of a successful defense.

Grand Juries usually sit for one year.

I agree that individuals in the position for a much longer term may lose sight of their function.
 
nbcrusader said:
There are, however, limitation placed on what the prosecution can present (or withhold), which do not apply to the defense.

That may be, but that would be by design. The burden was always supposed to be on the prosecution, not the defense; a side-effect of the anti-government attitudes of the Founding Fathers.

Melon
 
nbcrusader said:
Currently, we do not seat the people best suited for evaluation of fact.

Can you expand on this a bit? I mean, what would make for a person best suited for evaluation of fact? And with professional juries, it would be a job or career? Based on what?
 
Angela Harlem said:
Can you expand on this a bit? I mean, what would make for a person best suited for evaluation of fact? And with professional juries, it would be a job or career? Based on what?

The basic premise of our judicial system is a trial by peers (instead of "the Crown" handing down judgment).

Theoretically, you would pull jurors from all aspects of life. However, you lose people who do not respond to jury notices, or who find an excuse for not serving. It is a job that most people would rather not do.

Let's just say I've heard more than one attorney refer to jury pools (the group of potential jurors) as the people not smart enough to get out of jury service.
 
nbcrusader said:
Let's just say I've heard more than one attorney refer to jury pools (the group of potential jurors) as the people not smart enough to get out of jury service.

I will say that this is a major problem in the American legal system, but in other countries, the daily pay received for jury duty is often substantially higher. Not lavish, but enough to make it seem worth your while. In America, however, it's generally so low that it feels like a waste of time. Maybe our government should think of this the next time it wants more tax cuts.

Melon
 
Hell No! Defense Attorneys are SCUM!! They protect the innocent about 5% of the time. The rest of the time they get the guilty off.

I'm a Chicago Homicide Detective. All of their conspiracy theoricies are B.S. The sad fact is that you all believe in them.

"I'm a doo-gooder. Let's believe in it.' I'd bet my mother's life that O'J'. was guilty.

But let's blame it on a "racist" detective. Fuhrman said "******" sometime in his life so he is a racist. I blame the outcome of that trial on judge ito. He let it get out of hand.

The outcome came down to the fact that Detective Fuhrman said "******", not to the fact that there was inconclusive evidence to prove that O'J' killer his ex-wife.

Give me a fuc*ing break. ******! Kite! Honkey! Spic! Polack!

This is why I hate liberals. They don't think rationally. They think with emotion. "That poor Osama Bin Laden didn't wish the twin towers would fall" "He only wanted to make a staement"
 
Chewystick69 said:
This is why I hate liberals. They don't think rationally. They think with emotion.

Ironic statement of the year, so far.

Melon
 
melon said:


Ironic statement of the year, so far.

Melon

Well the year is short.

But it is not irony if there is truthfulness behind my remarks my bearded friend. By the way, does your hat and beard make you more intelligent? I can read you like a book. I'd bet that you are a gay non-catholic.

michael moore or barbara streisand has spoken recently. Keep following them. You keep thinking like hillary clinton, good luck in 2008!
 
Chewystick69 said:
But it is not irony if there is truthfulness behind my remarks my bearded friend. By the way, does your hat and beard make you more intelligent? I can read you like a book. I'd bet that you are a gay non-catholic.

My hat and beard tell me that you should look up the definition of "irony" sometime. If you're going to burst into a thread and call all liberals irrational and emotional, don't precede it with a bunch of irrational and emotional generalizations yourself.

michael moore or barbara streisand has spoken recently. Keep following them. You keep thinking like hillary clinton, good luck in 2008!

Ah...and there you go. Making too many incorrect assumptions. So forgive me if I question the wisdom of those in our criminal justice system. You're not infallible, and DNA testing has released some of the fruits of your labors in recent years.

But that's besides the point. This thread was about limiting criminal defense, not presuming that their defense is correct. A strong prosecution will see through a flimsy defense; but flimsy prosecution solely on circumstantial evidence is always vulnerable. After all, prosecutors have been complaining about the "CSI effect," countering that 3/4 of all cases are based on circumstantial evidence, their reasoning that being the lack of concrete evidence should not be an automatic acquittal in their view. But again, circumstantial cases are always vulnerable.

Just as a side note, I actually studied criminal justice for a year myself. I enjoyed the slides of murder victims, particularly when it came to insects and corpses.

Melon
 
Last edited:
melon said:


Just as a side note, I actually studied criminal justice for a year myself. I enjoyed the slides of murder victims, particularly when it came to insects and corpses.

Melon

not surprising coming from the zombie of Orson Welles
Zombie.gif
 
melon said:


So forgive me if I question the wisdom of those in our criminal justice system. You're not infallible, and DNA testing has released some of the fruits of your labors in recent years.

DNA testing has revealed some wrongful convictions. However, many convictions have been overturned based solely on that the defendant's DNA was not found on the scene. Which is not an accurate assumption as to being guilty or innocent.

The ex-governor of Illionis pardoned all death-row inmates a few years ago because many of them were later found innocent. And rightfully so. But, DNA is not the tell-all of cases. Most evidence technicians never processed crime scenes 10-15 years ago looking for DNA. So it's unfair to judge a case nowadays without that evidence.

By the way, the jury is deliberating this week regarding our ex-crooked gov who pardoned all those killers. I'll celebrate once that GUILTY is read. May he rot in prison despite his multi-million defense.

Melon
 
My only point coming into this thread was to say that I don't believe that defense cases should be further limited. Our system is flawed, yes, but it's better than the system before it back in the colonial days. I'll agree that a lot of defense cases can be really flimsy, particularly when we start getting into insanity defenses/excuses. I must admit that I don't always buy the idea of "temporary insanity," but I'm also not a judge or legal professional.

So, really, I'm arguing procedure here over substance. Maybe I should have been a lawyer myself. :wink:

Melon
 
I agree with melon. Based on my experiences, which I admit are somewhat limited compared to others (I've taken courses in law and criminal investigation, my uncle runs the county jail, I have a good family friend who is a defense attorney, have had a peer whose father was tried and convicted for killing his mother, and I've gone through the jury selection process and been selected for a jury myself), I believe the system we currently have in the US is what works. Of course it's not perfect, but I can't think of any way to make changes that would come back to bite millions of people in the ass later on. A lot of defense cases are pretty laughable, but it's up to the jury and judge to see past that. We've got plenty of other aspects to trials than just the prosecution vs. the defense. Grand juries, pre-trial motions, objections, etc....there are plenty of chances for checks and balances on either side. Also, I think there are already enough appropriate limitations on criminal defense (can't win mental insanity unless you can prove the defendend doesn't understand right from wrong, can't win self defense unless you can prove the defendent acted as a result of his/her life being in imminent danger, etc). Often there's much more to a conviction/acquittal than a jury simply deciding whether to convict or acquit. In a lot of cases, the judge will have to instruct the jury based on the charge and the prosecution not only has the burden of removing reasonable doubt, but also proving things like intent, premeditation, etc.

As for the OJ Simpson case, I was still pretty young when it actually happened, but from what I've studied looking back, there were fatal flaws made by the prosecution and if I had to sit on that jury....boy that would be a difficult call to make.
 
melon said:
My only point coming into this thread was to say that I don't believe that defense cases should be further limited. Our system is flawed, yes, but it's better than the system before it back in the colonial days. I'll agree that a lot of defense cases can be really flimsy, particularly when we start getting into insanity defenses/excuses. I must admit that I don't always buy the idea of "temporary insanity," but I'm also not a judge or legal professional.

So, really, I'm arguing procedure here over substance. Maybe I should have been a lawyer myself. :wink:

Melon

I agree with Melon that the system, with its flaws, is still a very good system. I would be extremely difficult to make a change that would increase the percentage of appropriate convictions without increasing the percentage of inappropriate convictions.
 
nbcrusader said:


The basic premise of our judicial system is a trial by peers (instead of "the Crown" handing down judgment).

Theoretically, you would pull jurors from all aspects of life. However, you lose people who do not respond to jury notices, or who find an excuse for not serving. It is a job that most people would rather not do.

Let's just say I've heard more than one attorney refer to jury pools (the group of potential jurors) as the people not smart enough to get out of jury service.

Ah, thank you. I think your system is very similar to ours but the jury aspect differs only slightly. I actually dont know for certain as I've never been called up, even though I've been on the electoral roll for 12 years and do not have a criminal record! :angry:
 
I look at all the tools the prosecution has at its disposal and even so, how often they don't play fair. I look at the police chemist whose "expert" testimony helped lead to wrongful convictions and see not just a mistake in lab evidence, but a lab worker who was overeager to please the DA's office. I look at dubious witnesses to whose advantage it is to testify the way the state would like them to testify. I look at exculpatory evidence that must be presented by law and is not. Expert witness whores. And sometimes police officers lie.

The deck is still stacked against the defendant, no matter what the conventional wisdom is, even when the prosecution plays fair. Presumption of innocence is a legal term. Outside of the courtroom, we are not bound by a presumption of innocence. And I suspect that what we call presumption of innocence for the jury is mostly in all practicality the willingness to suspend our presumption of guilt while the jury sees whether the prosecution proves its case.

Sometimes I think a professional jury is codeword for a prosecutor's jury. For all its flaws, I believe in the jury system as it is, because I think when it is a once or twice in a lifetime event, the jury takes their responsibilities seriously. I think their power weighs heavily on them particularly in serious crime cases. They do not want to make a mistake.
 
BonosSaint said:

Sometimes I think a professional jury is codeword for a prosecutor's jury. For all its flaws, I believe in the jury system as it is, because I think when it is a once or twice in a lifetime event, the jury takes their responsibilities seriously. I think their power weighs heavily on them particularly in serious crime cases. They do not want to make a mistake.

I agree. When I had to serve, we first spent 6 hours being selected. They asked some people some pretty serious questions. Luckily the questions they directed at my specifically were thrown out by the judge. Out of a pool of around 50 that day, our jury ended up with only FIVE people because so many were excused for different reasons and the defendant agreed to a five person jury in order to not have to wait through another selection. Then when it was time for a trial, we spent about 3 hours being prepared for the trial. It wasn't even a signficant trial, a charge that was barely felonious.
 
Back
Top Bottom