an obvious Democrat

an obvious Democrat
~VERNON

Knee jerk Vernon Strikes!

Ok Vernon which one of these players is the Dem and why?

Oh sorry to reply might require a full reading.

Good one, Zap. The guy with the conscience surely was the Dem. Consciences are usually in short supply among Reps. The rigid judge must have been a Rep. Maybe on first name terms with Jesse Helms. herm

It is plain to see we have a legal system, not a justice system.

God. Why does everything have to be Democrat or Republican? How fucking juvenile. Grow up, get a clue, and realize there there are all kinds of people on boths sides of the political spectrum.

Hillary is a lawyer and Obama is a lawyer!

What does this tell you about lawyers.

The judge actually threatened to have this lawyer disbarred for speaking out even after his client had died.

This is what is wrong with our legal system. It is not about justice or truth. If it was then he would have spoke out 22 years ago.

The law actually says that if you as council know your client is guilty then you cannot defend him as innocent yet lawyers every day ignore this part of the law.

A perfect example of this is they guy in CA a couple of years back who killed a girl and was willing to tell authorites where the body was for a reduced sentence. When the deal fell through his lawyers acted like they never knew his admitted guilt. Even worse no disciplinary action was ever taken against them.

Bee Swell

God. Why does everything have to be Democrat or Republican? How fucking juvenile. Grow up, get a clue, and realize there there are all kinds of people on boths sides of the political spectrum.

Posted by goatman

Well said.

During the course of the past 7+ years I've developed a burning aversion to anything GOP.

Conversely, I recognize a very fine individual in our son-in-law... a Republican by birthright, and a prosperous middle aged American.

God. Why does everything have to be Democrat or Republican? How fucking juvenile. Grow up, get a clue, and realize there there are all kinds of people on boths sides of the political spectrum.

Indeed.

"I prefer to draw the line at the life-and-death situation," said Monroe Freedman, who teaches legal ethics at Hofstra.


First we have the oxyMohrOn: Legal Ethics.

Second, anyone expressing these views should spend some time in prison where they can better judge where to draw the line. I suspect the first time they got beaten up or raped they've have a different perspective.

In the UK - and I don't say much nice about it - the Barristers are intent on finding the facts and pursuing the truth of the matter. Sure beats an adversarial system where the state has the power to both investigate and prosecute, and without a decent defense and perhaps an investigator, you are screwed.

Even in civil court the judges tend to favor the silk stocking firms, and outside the limits of small claims court, erect arcane barriers to pro se litigants.

It may be a "legal system" but true justice is an anomaly.

I see the Garbage has blown in again. Someone needs to hire a Heil and haul it away.

Larry Mohr

Legal stupid stuff...karma always wins

karma always wins

Karma isn't good and bad it just is, it isn't the great cosmic equalizer.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Unfortunately this is one of those times when both sides are (sorta) right.

That said I agree with Judge Thompson for denying the attorney's testimony but I'll be happy to buy Mr. Hughes a drink (Scotch of course) for pushing the issue in an attempt to save an innocent man.

This story made the rounds in a lot of Public Defender offices. It is like one of those hypothetical questions we are asked back in law school. It points out a paradox inherent to legal practice: The law is supposed to be about justice, but being a lawyer means following the law.

The law actually says that if you as council know your client is guilty then you cannot defend him as innocent yet lawyers every day ignore this part of the law.

That's not the case, but I can see where many people might misunderstand it. You simply cannot knowingly violate the law. You cannot allow a client to give what you KNOW to be false testimony, otherwise you're suborning perjury.

Everyone is entitled to a defense, that is part of our legal system.

Legally speaking, guilty people aren't "allowed" to go up on the stand and lie either, that's another crime if they do. And very few lawyers care enough about their client to risk being disbarred for them.

As horrible as a situation like this is, confidentiality...absolute legal confidentiality exists under very specific circumstances because the benefits outweigh the problems. A spouse needs to be able to be free to talk to their spouse, thus one cannot be compelled to testify and what one tells a spouse is usually not admissible (under certain circumstances). We need to be able to talk freely to our doctors, unless we present an immediate threat to someone else or ourselves, it's needs to be protected. Religion enjoys the same protections.

Unfortunately it means that some people have information that could save another. But that's the price paid for the benefit.

I don't like that price, but that's the price. And in this case, the price was 26 years of an innocent man's life, which is why the rest of the justice system used to be tailored around the idea that it was better 12 guilty go free than one innocent person suffer.

Another question people should be asking and demanding answers to is when the innocent are convicted, WHY this happens, and how that can be avoided.

The justice system in this instance failed.

This dosen't matter until your the one incarcerated unjustly.

If thats the case, the law needs to be changed yesterday.

Ludicrous what American Justice as been reduced to.

Class, Money, political correctness are more important than truth or justice.

"Why does everything have to be Democrat or Republican?"

Because that's how it is. People are either FOR people, in which case they're Dems, or AGAINST people (and for corporations); they're Reps. A fascist, a nazi, by any other name still smells. herm

A defense attorneys job is never to suborn perjury. In fact, often on the most horrendous of cases, it is not even a defense attorneys job to "win". Rather, it is to insure that the State meets it's burden of proof before a client is convicted, and to point out all the weaknesses in the State's case. Where evidence of innocence exists it is incumbent on us to investigate fully and present the favorable evidence. So long as we insure our clients are being treated fairly under the Constitution we are doing our job. And it is an extremely noble and under appreciated one.
Unfortunately, some defense attorneys, especially ambitious or inexperienced ones lose sight of our true function. In part it's because there is more money in acquittals than convictions. In part it's because the human ego hates to ever "lose". Which is why often the best and most experienced defense attorneys spend most of their energy resolving a case (plea bargaining) to save a guilty client the most onerous consequences of their crimes.

"Because that's how it is. People are either FOR people, in which case they're Dems, or AGAINST people (and for corporations); they're Reps. A fascist, a nazi, by any other name still smells. herm

Posted by herm"

How fucking juvenile.

Posted by goatman

The law is supposed to be about justice, but being a lawyer means following the law.

Posted by moder8

That being the case, the law is stupid.

another example of why lawyers should never be in charge of anything important.

Common sense, in the legal profession, is uncommon.

Charles Dickens (181270)
QUOTATION: "If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, ... "the law is a ass--a idiot.

right on nmg.

Herm,

I know Nazis and fascists smell bad, but why would you keep pointing out that this inevitable endpoint of socialist governemnts stinks? We anti-socialists already know that....that's why we're anti-socialists.

The writ of Habeus Corpus used to mean something. someone is in jail and they shouldn't be....

It is plain to see we have a legal system, not a justice system.

Posted by Sniper

This is true. Emphasis on System.

The writ of Habeus Corpus used to mean something. someone is in jail and they shouldn't be....

Posted by Lipzoidial

But if the evidence can't be presented in court, it doesn't exist.

Emphasis on System.

"an obvious Democrat

Posted by vernon at 2008-05-04 03:17 PM"


"God. Why does everything have to be Democrat or Republican? How fucking juvenile. Grow up, get a clue, and realize there there are all kinds of people on boths sides of the political spectrum.

Posted by goatman at 2008-05-04 07:57 PM"

No shit, Goatman. And what's weird is that juvenile Vernon is our resident septugenarian. An ancient juvenile - go figure.

The Goat's "how fucking juvenile" (quoted in full) would score few points in a debate contest, but if he has any REAL rebuttal I'll listen.

Ryker weighs in with "I know Nazis and fascists smell bad, but why would you keep pointing out that this inevitable endpoint of socialist governemnts stinks? We anti-socialists already know that....that's why we're anti-socialists." I've tried to explain that nazis and fascists are right wing, not left, but he seems to be blind.

Or deaf, if someone's reading to him.

How sad to go through life merely labeling yourself as "anti" something. herm

Maybe "anti-something" means that you want to exclude that "something" from the status quo. It doesn't mean that you are not for "something."

We create our fictions and values, and then defend them as if they were holy writ.

Remember when therapists were not permitted to report certain information from patients, information whose none-disclosure might result in harm to others. Well, those "rules" were changed, and now some reporting of patient confidences to avoid harm to others, is compulsory.

Quite possibly, these "values" set up in our legal system, require review, and possibly change. The therapy "system" managed to survive this change in values.

The idea that even revealing statements of a dead person, who is impervious to harm, and who in this particular case did not even have a reputation to protect, was subsidiary to maintaining "rules" that resulted in continued long-term incarceration of a possibly innocent man, tortures the idea of "justice." It certainly outrages the consciences of people not in thrall to "rules" as values superior to the living of his life by an individual human being.

Maybe we should enact a "rule" requiring that a certain number of members of the bar in each state be hung each year. It would be relatively simple to justify to the populace. Justifications may be specious, but they're easy to formulate. Maybe Chairman Mao had some valid social insights when he conducted his purge of the pious bureaucrats in China.

The piety of lawyers and their willingness to sacrifice a man to the maws of "the justice system" and perpetuate an injustice, is quite demonstrative of moral bankruptcy.

To take that one step farther, the looser that brings fourth a frivlous lawsuit should have to pay for all the legal costs of that suit.

the looser that brings fourth a frivlous lawsuit should have to pay

The cause of action is termed Malicious Prosecution.

Prove it and you can be awarded all costs and damages.

The Goat's "how fucking juvenile" (quoted in full) would score few points in a debate contest,...Herm

Maybe as few points as your sophomoric "they're Reps. A fascist, a nazi, by any other name still smells." If you are going to accuse your opponent of weak debate tactics, you may want to avoid doing it yourself in the same thread

Takes a whole bunch of Socratic brain-power to call the other side Nazis and then bail.

Pretty weak, Herm. And tired.