Christ Centered Gamer

Have you ever duct taped one to your head and ran around in circles at night?

I have not.

You're missing out. Really. Just...don't put the tape over any place with hair. XD

Favorite sammich?

Turkey, bacon, and avocado.

I can respect that. I typically prefer Italian meats.

Why is there sleepy?

Do you mean the dwarf or the smurf?

I've never seen an episode of the Smurfs.

Smorgs?

Any particular area in law that interests you?

Choz, there are no smorgs.

AA, yes, criminal defense. I practiced it as a student for a year and while it is extremely challenging work and people in general have incorrect preconceived notions about it that can make you feel a little isolated, knowing what I now know I think I have a moral obligation to do it. There's a big difference between how our criminal justice system should operate and how it in fact operates.

So, if there's one preconception about it you could address, what would is it and how should it be viewed?

Truthseeker wrote:There's a big difference between how our criminal justice system should operate and how it in fact operates.

I hear ya.

There are many and I don't know how I could pick just one. One that I've given a lot of thought to—I'm not sure it's the most important one—is that people seem to think that the question in most cases is whether the defendant has done what he is accused of, and if you know that then you can objectively determine whether the person is guilty or innocent. I can tell you that I've worked on 6 cases, including one that actually went to jury trial, and in 100% of them the main issue was not what the defendant did but rather whether or not what the defendant did was a crime.

Here's something I don't think most people understand. The law is not written in precise terms. Pretty much every law has a term in it that's deliberately vague.

One that's well known, and one that proves this is true at every level of crime seriousness, is the definition of self-defense. If you kill someone and (1) you believe that person is about to kill you, and (2) your belief is reasonable, then then you have committed no crime. However, if your belief is unreasonable, then you've committed murder. A lot hangs on that word "reasonable." It's a hazy word, but in our legal system its a word you are required to bet your life on. Having a "reasonable" belief isn't the same as having a correct belief. If a stranger jumps out of an ally and points an unloaded gun at you, it might be reasonable for you to fear for your life because you don't know the gun is unloaded. If you kill the guy, you might have committed no crime because whether or not you were in fact in mortal danger is irrelevant. Whether or not your belief is reasonable depends on the surrounding circumstances that are known to you. In the example I just gave, all the circumstances point one way, but that's never the case. Imagine instead of a stranger it was your friend who you knew to be a prankster? But what if you also knew your friend had a twin brother who was a felon? But what if it was April Fool's day? In the moment, are you really going to balance all the factors and risk getting shot if you're wrong? What if your children are with you and in the line of fire? You can see how you can keep adding facts that make the right answer blurrier and blurrier, and the thing that's going to decide whether you made the right call is if a jury agrees with you under an undefined reasonableness standard. Note how this might be a tough call even though none of the concrete facts are disputed. It's how the facts apply to the law that's unclear.

Obviously, I haven't represented anyone on a murder trial as a law student, but I have done smaller cases and the same trend is present. I've seen laws containing words like "offensive," "unreasonably inconvenient," and "obstreperous." And these were relatively seriously laws, ones you could spend up to a year in jail for violating, and for that you have to argue whether or not an "inconvenience" was "unreasonable" and that would decide whether or not you have a criminal record and your life is ruined.

These laws also give prosecutors and police officers a lot of discretion on who to charge, and juries who to convict. If you think people exercise their discretion against the people least able to offer resistance, you're right. If you think people exercise their discretion in favor of people they can personally identify with, you're right. If you think people, when faced with law that gives them no real guidance on what to do, will make their decision based on emotion, you're right.

And I'm not saying all police officers are bad people and all prosecutors are bad people. But every police officer and prosecutor has a boss who is an elected official, and if you don't get the elected official the numbers he needs to get a good factoid for a campaign flier then you aren't going to advance very far. Getting numbers means taking the path of least resistance.

That's how our justice system in fact operates, to the detriment of the poor and unpopular.

What you said makes a lot of sense. I'd love to hear more on this and other preconceptions, but it's sounding like that might require a new thread: "What you don't know about the Law and why you're probably stupid, with your host, TruthSeeker."
Whenever my sister would fly back during breaks from law school, I always enjoyed reading the case studies and talking with her about it. Great thinking material and after getting a small glimpse into what it takes to be a lawyer, I have a lot of respect for them. Which of course, makes me wonder how lawyers like Charles Carreon get out there...

You mentioning the police and "numbers"," reminded of this lecture where a law professor insists that he will never talk to a cop and neither should you, and elaborates on the importance of the right to an attorney. He, too, said that cops aren't bad people, but it's their job to get someone. Now, I'm assuming you agree on these points, but do you think all the cop and court dramas give people the notion that requesting a lawyer is a sign of guilt? And did you find a decent number of people doing themselves a disservice by "cooperating" with the police instead of requiring an attorney?

I definitely think there's a perception that if you refuse to talk to the police without a lawyer then you have something to hide. But yeah, if you ever find yourself in a position where the police are asking you questions, don't ever, ever say one word to them without a lawyer. There's no way it can conceivably help you. Police are trained in making you think that its in your best interest to talk, but they are looking for statements they can use in court, and they know how to lure people into saying incriminating things. They're also allowed to lie. Lying is part of the job description of a police officer. That's a big difference between the police and lawyers. If a lawyer lies in any part of their lives, even if its not connected to their job as a lawyer, it's grounds for discipline.

I think I can only nod my head in agreement, lest I be dropping some QFT's and THIS's.

I did have a follow up question. If the police are questioning bystanders at the scene of the crime or questioning a witness, is it prudent to demand a lawyer immediately? Seems odd to do so, but I understand that the police are always looking out for suspects.

That's a good question. To be on the safe side I don't really want to say what I think is prudent, because I don't want to risk someone seeing this and thinking I've given unauthorized legal advice. I'm a little confused on where the line is between just talking about abstract hypotheticals and giving legal advice, to be honest.