Can Somebody Clear Something Up For Me?

[ezra]

Yes, they have to follow the law in gathering evidence. US courts are courts of law, not courts of justice. Judges are only allowed to rule based on the laws as written.

i agree but to be honest the things i have seen over the years makes me wonder a lawyer has a way with questions example did you see my client do this? reply yes. lawyer what kind of jeans did they have on what color shirt. how close was you etc. in jury trial they create doubt . then the judge has to rule based on the laws.

 

[ezra]

Private investigators, mock juries, jury selection pros, hiring expert witnesses. It is a team effort by many different specialists.

Joe average can't afford this.

bingo your so right----------> money talks

 

[Michael74]

Some lawyers are much better at asking questions in a courtroom.

A falsely accused rich man can hire an entire team of experts to defend him. A poor man may have to rely on a public defender, who he might not even talk to until the day of his trial. The system has gotten so expensive that localities often don't have the resources to provide public defenders with much lucre. Many are overbooked, and have to rush through preparation.

A rich man who violates the law will still go to prison. Assuming solid evidence that was legally gathered. Bernie Madoff is an example. They can't simply buy their way out of it. Its mostly an honest system, just prohibitively expensive for the bottom 50%.

 

[WIP]

Some lawyers are much better at asking questions in a courtroom.

A falsely accused rich man can hire an entire team of experts to defend him. A poor man may have to rely on a public defender, who he might not even talk to until the day of his trial. The system has gotten so expensive that localities often don't have the resources to provide public defenders with much lucre. Many are overbooked, and have to rush through preparation.

A rich man who violates the law will still go to prison. Assuming solid evidence that was legally gathered. Bernie Madoff is an example. They can't simply buy their way out of it. Its mostly an honest system, just prohibitively expensive for the bottom 50%.

I agree with this. My point is that I will not categorically assume any one particular segment of society is less than honorable, such as attorneys, law enforcement, politicians, etc. It is not the Christian thing to do because to do so, is bearing false witness. If I go so far as to say someone is crooked, I have to have the intimate knowledge to make that claim and it has to be more than just a gut feeling or opinion.

I remember when I went to my 10-year high school class reunion and learned that one of my classmates had chosen to go to law school. I asked her what her ambitions were, defense or prosecution. She said, "Neither. I'm going into business law. I thought about it and realized I could not live with myself if as a defense attorney I was helpful in obtaining an acquittal only to find out later that the defendant was actually guilty or if as a prosecutor I was helpful in obtaining a guilty verdict only to find out late that the defendant was actually innocent."

In this country attorneys are not hired to determine the truth. They are hired to seek out and present the evidence before a judge and/or jury on behalf of those they represent and to do it to the best of their ability. It is up to the judge and/or jury to seek out and identify the truth based on the evidence provided. I'm sure there are times when judges and/or juries believe in their heart that a defendant is guilty or innocent but are forced to rule based on evidence that says otherwise.

 

[ezra]

I agree with this. My point is that I will not categorically assume any one particular segment of society is less than honorable, such as attorneys, law enforcement, politicians, etc. It is not the Christian thing to do because to do so, is bearing false witness. If I go so far as to say someone is crooked, I have to have the intimate knowledge to make that claim and it has to be more than just a gut feeling or opinion.

a lawyer uses the law to his advantage. in a jury trial its guilty beyond any reasonable doubt . they question the testimony of the witness . they ask about how the evidence was collected . but yes the legal system is out of whack and i still dont trust lawyers

 

[HeIsRisen2018]

a lawyer uses the law to his advantage. in a jury trial its guilty beyond any reasonable doubt . they question the testimony of the witness . they ask about how the evidence was collected . but yes the legal system is out of whack and i still dont trust lawyers

After my own personal experiences with the legal system, I don't either.

 

[ezra]

After my own personal experiences with the legal system, I don't either.

if you had the money to hire a good lawyer .he might get a reduced sentence ..with state appointed lawyer they get you a fair plea bargain..federal court has pretty good court appointed lawyers.. they have private investigators. something else you need understand %99 of all inmates are innocent . not kicking against your b.f just telling ya the truth.. its a long road to victory

 

[Michael74]

In this country attorneys are not hired to determine the truth. They are hired to seek out and present the evidence before a judge and/or jury on behalf of those they represent and to do it to the best of their ability.

Yes, that's true. The adversarial system works okay if both sides can hire equal talent. If the prosecutor has dozens of well paid investigators, lawyers, experts, etc... working for him, and the defendant can't afford more than a few hours of a single lawyer's time, both sides of the case may not get equal representation.

That's where making the system unaffordable to the majority comes in. It can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to present a proper defense.

Still, its a step up from the inquisitional system, where the defendant is presumed guilty unless he can prove his innocence. A better way might be for both sides to be motivated to determine the truth.

 

[ezra]

. It can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to present a proper defense.

yes it can and thats why in the fed cases in Washington D.c there getting convictions . federal prosecutor has unlimited sources.. the defendant is limited

 

[Razeontherock]

Yes, that's true. The adversarial system works okay if both sides can hire equal talent. If the prosecutor has dozens of well paid investigators, lawyers, experts, etc... working for him, and the defendant can't afford more than a few hours of a single lawyer's time, both sides of the case may not get equal representation.

That's where making the system unaffordable to the majority comes in. It can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to present a proper defense.

Still, its a step up from the inquisitional system, where the defendant is presumed guilty unless he can prove his innocence. A better way might be for both sides to be motivated to determine the truth.

You raise a significant point: the presumption of innocence. That is mostly gone, replaced with what a cop says is true and a defendant needs to prove otherwise.

 

[Michael74]

Modern police forces didn't exist when the Constitution was written.

It was not until the 1830s that the idea of a centralized municipal police department first emerged in the United States. In 1838, the city of Boston established the first American police force, followed by New York City in 1845...

 

[WIP]

a lawyer uses the law to his advantage. in a jury trial its guilty beyond any reasonable doubt . they question the testimony of the witness . they ask about how the evidence was collected . but yes the legal system is out of whack and i still dont trust lawyers

The lawyers don't determine guilt or innocence. The prosecuting attorney's responsibility is to present the evidence to support the accusations that have been presented. The defense attorney's responsibility is to provide a defense for each accusation brought forth.

It is the judge or jury (if a jury trial) that will determine guilt or innocence.

If charges were filed against you, you would want an attorney to exercise due diligence to provide to defend you as best they can. You have that right in the United States.

 

[WIP]

Yes, that's true. The adversarial system works okay if both sides can hire equal talent. If the prosecutor has dozens of well paid investigators, lawyers, experts, etc... working for him, and the defendant can't afford more than a few hours of a single lawyer's time, both sides of the case may not get equal representation.

That's where making the system unaffordable to the majority comes in. It can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to present a proper defense.

Still, its a step up from the inquisitional system, where the defendant is presumed guilty unless he can prove his innocence. A better way might be for both sides to be motivated to determine the truth.

So then, are you advocating for controlled compensation for all attorneys? How do you guarantee that all sides are equally represented? In a civil suit, each side hires their own attorneys. When the state files the charges, the prosecuting attorney hired by the state is either appointed in some states or elected. You can bet they are not as well paid as a top notch independent attorney. Likewise the public defender is appointed by the state and I'm willing to bet his/her salary too is nothing compared to a top notch defense attorney.

 

[WIP]

One thing that has been proven many times over is that we are typically our worst defense attorney.

 

[ezra]

The lawyers don't determine guilt or innocence. The prosecuting attorney's responsibility is to present the evidence to support the accusations that have been presented. The defense attorney's responsibility is to provide a defense for each accusation brought forth.

It is the judge or jury (if a jury trial) that will determine guilt or innocence.

If charges were filed against you, you would want an attorney to exercise due diligence to provide to defend you as best they can. You have that right in the United States.

i am more than aware of our so called court justice system what lawyers do what P.A DOES and the judge . i have been in federal court not a fun thing to do.. they play hard ball . i have had to testify in court .i have had my testimony discredited . yes even the judge agreed with my testimony but the jury was convinced other wise.. so yes i am more than aware of how it works.. hopefully this will help.................

 

[WIP]

i am more than aware of our so called court justice system what lawyers do what P.A DOES and the judge . i have been in federal court not a fun thing to do.. they play hard ball . i have had to testify in court .i have had my testimony discredited . yes even the judge agreed with my testimony but the jury was convinced other wise.. so yes i am more than aware of how it works.. hopefully this will help.................

Why did you hire the attorney or if it was a public defender, why did you accept him/her to represent you? I'm trying to understand why someone would accept an attorneys assistance when they can't be trusted.

 

[ezra]

Why did you hire the attorney or if it was a public defender, why did you accept him/her to represent you? I'm trying to understand why someone would accept an attorneys assistance when they can't be trusted.

duhhhh i m not stupid! to help you understand i had a court appointed lawyer that was a member of the fed bar a private practice attorney . the arresting officer a christian man put in a good word for me to the fed p.a .the only thing my lawyer done was made sure his name as on the paper work so he would get paid.. i had very little communications .. so see I BEEN THERE DONE THAT seen others in my heathen days i have explained in great detail several times yet you have yet to . understand bit of advice stay out of criminal court .. its a 50/50 gamble depending on the evidence did the law read you your Miranda rights.

 

[Razeontherock]

Modern police forces didn't exist when the Constitution was written.

Does this mean the Constitution doesn't pertain to them? I ask because it certainly seems as if they think that way. Maybe they're right?

 

[Razeontherock]

If charges were filed against you, you would want an attorney to exercise due diligence to provide to defend you as best they can. You have that right in the United States.

And if you happen to have 5 to 10 grand laying around, you may even get to exercise that "right." Otherwise, fuggedhaboutit!

 

[Razeontherock]

One thing that has been proven many times over is that we are typically our worst defense attorney.

You can be your own defense attorney, and be a very good one; however, your client is a fool.