|
|
#22
09-18-2007, 06:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
[ QUOTE ]
I have always had a little bit of a problem with this concept because it leads to the conclusion that if a defendent tells his attorney he did it, the attorney will recomend to his client that he still plead innocent if he thinks the case is winnable. [/ QUOTE ] This is moronic. How do I know? Well, one can't know the motives of every criminal defense attorney, so I don't anymore than you do. But, I happen to have 3 family members who are criminal defense attorneys with 20+ years experience each, one high up in Washington. Neither they, nor any other ethical attorney would recommend an admittedly guilty client to plead innocent. Not one. This is easy to see because if the opposition actually does pull off a rare victory (I say rare because you stated the case was winnable), it would mean guilt for both the defendent and the defense attorney. You clearly have little knowledge of the legal system. I mean are you really citing the National Inquirer to prove your case even with an "if this is true" caveat? 
|
|
#23
09-18-2007, 06:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
[ QUOTE ]
This is easy to see because if the opposition actually does pull off a rare victory (I say rare because you stated the case was winnable), it would mean guilt for both the defendent and the defense attorney. [/ QUOTE ] Maybe I am being a bit dunce, but I don't really see what you are saying here. Either that, or I get what you are saying, but I don't get what you are basing yout opinion on. This post is 100% genuinely not trying to be provocative, so please do not be cinycal in your reply. I genuinely am missing something. I don't see how you can make this arguement as stated fact without some kind of knowledge you are not sharing or I do not understand.
|
|
#24
09-18-2007, 07:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I have always had a little bit of a problem with this concept because it leads to the conclusion that if a defendent tells his attorney he did it, the attorney will recomend to his client that he still plead innocent if he thinks the case is winnable. [/ QUOTE ] This is moronic. How do I know? Well, one can't know the motives of every criminal defense attorney, so I don't anymore than you do. But, I happen to have 3 family members who are criminal defense attorneys with 20+ years experience each, one high up in Washington. Neither they, nor any other ethical attorney would recommend an admittedly guilty client to plead innocent. Not one. This is easy to see because if the opposition actually does pull off a rare victory (I say rare because you stated the case was winnable), it would mean guilt for both the defendent and the defense attorney. You clearly have little knowledge of the legal system. I mean are you really citing the National Inquirer to prove your case even with an "if this is true" caveat? [/ QUOTE ] I should have said that the defense attorney is sure that he did it rather than that the defendant admitted it to him. That technically matters in some places I guess. In any case it is an irrelevant fine point. Most attorneys tell their clients not to admit anything to them just to get out of this problem.
|
|
#25
09-18-2007, 07:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
I think you have to refine this concept DS:
your quote "Most criminal defense lawyers believe in the theoretical idea that a defendent that is guilty should still be given the best possible defense because of the overriding concern that people should not be convicted if the government can not prove their case." that people should not be convicted if the government can not prove their case---This is not their overriding concern though they would like to prevent it...Their overriding concern is that they upheld the constitutional right of any accused individual to a defense under the law... They are primarily concerned with this most basic of constitutional rights whether or not the defendant is guilty or not...
|
|
#26
09-18-2007, 07:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
[ QUOTE ]
Most attorneys tell their clients not to admit anything to them just to get out of this problem. [/ QUOTE ] In the uk you have a solicitor who you should tell the truth and he then briefs a barristor who defends you in court. The barristor cannot knowingly mislead the court and is not expected to know if the defendent is guilty or not. I think that's how it works, may be mistaken. personally I side with shakespear. chez
|
|
#27
09-18-2007, 07:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
[ QUOTE ]
He was supposed to be acquitted. And all those respectable lawyers (at least some of them were respectable) had few qualms about getting him acquitted. Because it was wrong to charge him with first degree murder. He committed second degree murder. (At the very end, the jury was instructed that they could in fact find him guilty of second degree, but I believe that even an unbiased jury would have trouble doing that when the prosecution case did not really admit that second degree murder was a reasonable alternative.) Any other opinion is moronic. [/ QUOTE ] What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
|
|
#28
09-18-2007, 08:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
[ QUOTE ]
personally I side with shakespear. chez [/ QUOTE ] Shakespear never said that, unless of course you also want to attribute that all "drugs should be sold to the coloreds" to F. Coppala.
|
|
#29
09-18-2007, 08:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] personally I side with shakespear. chez [/ QUOTE ] Shakespear never said that, unless of course you also want to attribute that all "drugs should be sold to the coloreds" to F. Coppala. [/ QUOTE ] nit chez
|
|
#30
09-18-2007, 08:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] personally I side with shakespear. chez [/ QUOTE ] Shakespear never said that, unless of course you also want to attribute that all "drugs should be sold to the coloreds" to F. Coppala. [/ QUOTE ] nit chez [/ QUOTE ] I think every lawyer winces inside when they hear this. my feelings, my feelings [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
