D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
You get that from Joseph Heller? Catch-22 says they can do whatever they want to do. Why don't you just say it.
- Thread starter Maggot
- Start date
I'm glad someone thinks this is still America. You are of course correct that the DA must prove the case. In this case the video and the testimony of other police on the scene should make that pretty easy. It is a common tactic of the defense to cast doubt on some element of the case. For example: "If the glove don't fit you must acquit." Tell me more about America. In America can the police in your town come to your house and kill you as part of a prank. In my America people get a little angry when that happens.
The defense needs to introduce enough reasonable doubt. That typically involves introducing evidence, both physical and testimonial. I hope you're not a lawyer......
Wrong. A criminal defendant does not need to introduce evidence or prove anything. A jury can find reasonable doubt simply from a lack of the State's evidence on one or more elements of the crime. A defense attorney has absolutely no obligation to put on evidence or prove anything.
I am a lawyer who does this for a living. I have tried more cases to verdict in a single year than most lawyers do in an entire career. I guarantee you that if you live in a community that has a crime problem, you would be very happy to have me there. Even I'm shocked when I reflect on some of the horrible degenerates I've had a part in putting away.
That said, this is still America, and due process is alive and well. I embrace the burden of proof. I'm pleased to prove the case for the jury; that's my job. And I have and will continue to do so regardless of whether the defendant testifies, puts on evidence, or sits there doodling for the entire trial. I do not care. If he is guilty, my duty is to strike hard blows (but not foul ones).
Everyone who took grade school civics should understand that a criminal defendant has no burden other than to show up on time.
This stuff reminds me of people walking into the doctor's office and being so sure the doctor doesn't know what he's doing. Somehow it's more acceptable in this context than that one.
Yeah - that always pissed me off too. A doctor, like a lawyer, is trying to get you out of a bad place.
THAT said I don’t think either Doctors or lawyers should be paid unless they win...
If I took my car to the mechanic and he couldn’t figure out what was wrong, made shit massively worse, and dropped my car back off with 3 new bullet holes I don’t think his demand for payment would be reasonable.
THAT said I don’t think either Doctors or lawyers should be paid unless they win...
If I took my car to the mechanic and he couldn’t figure out what was wrong, made shit massively worse, and dropped my car back off with 3 new bullet holes I don’t think his demand for payment would be reasonable.
Dude, you need a new mechanic...
Not joking, though. Society sucks, even people whose medical cases were handled as best they could be handled, they'd still, a large percentage of the time, find a way to try to sue the doctors. I mean, there's some things you can't fix 100%. Hell, pretty sure they're doing that already.
I think what needs to change in a big way is the whole lawsuit procedure. Needs to be less genius-level, and more common-sense level. IMO, only the illiterate and those with a ridiculously low IQ should need a lawyer for most things.
This whole "my case is x", "no your case is not x because of subsection whatever clause whichever that was amended on whenever to say whatever which goes back to some case where they ruled however", "no, it is x because blah blah"... stfu children. Have some damned honor and integrity for God's sake.
Similar threads
