blank'/> Liberally Lean From The Land Of Dairy Queen: From A Criminal Defense Lawyer Message Board: Fair?

7.02.2010

From A Criminal Defense Lawyer Message Board: Fair?

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

What does fair have to do with it? The only thing for the client and attorney to do is campaign against the judge during the next election and see how far that gets them. Hint: not very far.

Welcome to America.

Anonymous said...

12:13, sure, getting rid of judges that apply punishment within the limits of the law is one option. Getting rid of laws would be an additional step that you might like. Then, anyone can do whatever they want to you and your family, including getting drunk and crushing their heads with a vehicle. Sound good to you? Heaven forbid anyone should validate the third option, which is for a person to not get passed out drunk and then behind the wheel.

David said...

"F" the defendant. He was drunk and passed out at a light. Luckily he didn't kill anyone. I'd say probation and fine is extremely light.

Anonymous said...

Don`t drink and drive thats it and this would not happen. What do they say righs right and wrong is wrong.

Anonymous said...

as you know this justice system may be the fairest of them all but if you have ever worked around lwa enforcement you know that 90% of the poorest people pay the most when when justice is delt out

Anonymous said...

Of course, if the guy didnt drink and drive he wouldnt be in that situation. He is lucky he got probation. I hate it when people complain about the outcome of their actions.

Anonymous said...

Your point is.................


Guilty As Charged

Anonymous said...

Barry I'm onto you...you've somehow tapped into google's stolen identity secret database, and having done so, you make these posts to smoke out people you want to have stricken from your juries. Based on the anti-defendant anti-5th Amendment sentiment expressed, you cross-reference the google stolen identity database to figure out who all of the "F the defendant" venire are, and then you add them to your venire panel watch list. Genius.

Anonymous said...

You've got me all wrong, 12:56; like many other commentators, I was not offended by the Defendant's punishment (although if I had to choose, I would prefer that he be passed out at a light, like Tony La Russa, rather than driving around town with his pregnant wife, like Chris Simms).

I was specifically addressing Barry's question (asked in the headline-"Fair?"), as I interpreted it, of whether the total outcome was fair, and the defense attorney's explicit question about whether the judge's conduct in being late herself and then exposing the defendant's tardiness at trial warranted an appeal (the obvious answer to which is a definite "no").

Sorry for using sarcasm so cryptically. Next time I'll stick to the "See Dick run" format.

Anonymous said...

1:04 I respectfully disagree with your point. Poor people may "pay" the most in terms of punishment however rich people "pay" the most in dollars to avoid the consequences of their actions. In that way our judicial system guarantees its highest and most regarded objective: Transferral of wealth to lawyers.

And interestingly enough the lawyers actions have nothing to do with their financial compensation. Oh, we won? pay me. Oh, we lost? pay me. Oh, nobody did a damned thing? pay me. Oh, court was cancelled? pay me. Oh, you don't understand? pay me. Oh, you never got to speak? pay me. Oh, i just thought about your case. Pay me. Oh, I saw your cousin while I was at the grocery store? pay me. Oh, my assistant prepared your bill? Pay me. As a matter of fact , why don't you pay me for the time it takes me to deposit your check that you used to pay me.

Anonymous said...

And did anyone else notice that he said the defendant had APPEARED IN 8 OTHER TRIAL SETTINGS????? GIANT red flag to me!! As a juror, I think that's not something that will persuade me in your direction!

Anonymous said...

Could any of us have made this day without this tidbit of court blah blah blah?

Anonymous said...

hey John M. Cook - didn't your mama tell you that life ain't 'FAIR'?

Anonymous said...

Do the crime....do the time...

Anonymous said...

If this report is factually accurate, then it was clearly done to get the jury mad at the Defendant for a matter unrelated to the charged criminal act.

If it was OK to do this, then she should have come right out on the record and told the Jury that they were waiting on the Defendant. It appears that the Judge did not have the guts to do it on the record or even allow objections to be lodged. That is an indication that she knew it was improper to do it, but just wanted to get in a shot of her own.

I have a feeling that no one here would want to be treated like that if they were a Defendant.

Anonymous said...

3:00 of course he appeared at 8 other settings. That is low. Sometimes it takes years to get to trial. Pull your head out.

Anonymous said...

The client did ask if he could just do the jail time instead of probation. Never the less if he can't pay the probation office every month when he reports he will most likely be able to though.

Anonymous said...

I am a lawyer with a big question mark over my head as I wonder how I missed out on this transfer of wealth deal.

Vince Dooley said...

Hey Barry, check out this on the Georgia AD DWI story. Looks like the Dawg Nation will have a new AD. BTW, I would be sobbing uncontrollably too if I knew I was going to lose my $500,000 job.

http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/incident-report-evans-tried-563333.html

Anonymous said...

3:00 why do you assume the need for eight other trial settings were caused by the defendant? Much of the time it is because his trial was less "important" than others on the docket. Sometimes it is because the prosecution isn't ready. Sometimes it's because of missing witnesses or previously scheduled events. There are many reason having noting to do with the defendant. Why are most on this blog so quick to assume the accused is always guilty?

Anonymous said...

Sounds like the defendant needs a good lawyer but isn't that an oxymoron?

Danny Boy said...

6:06, because he was found passed out at a stop light. That is why we assume he is guilty. What else do you need to know?

Anonymous said...

I say that the prosecutor should have stepped up and asked the judge. That way you get what you want (long probation or time) and you don't have to worry about it on appeal.

Anonymous said...

I like it!At least the judge was there first.He might as well do the time as he doesn't have much to look forward to.if he was as smart as a day old you know what he should have crawled into the back seat and claimed to be abandoned.

mzchief said...

1. Defendant was found guilty of DWI.
2. Judge hands down harsh sentence within the parameters of the law.
3. Defendant endures consequences of their own actions.

Fair? Yes.

Just a reminder, NO ONE is entitled to leniency, when they commit and are convicted of a crime that puts their future in the hands of an elected official especially one who is a self-important, vindictive bitch, so there is no reason to count on leniency.

wordkyle said...

The judge's sentence ? Likely fair.
Conviction? Fair, based on evidence presented.
Judge's prejudicing the jury? Unfair.
Overall result? Fair, despite judge's decision to influence the jury. Bummer that the guy lost his job, etc., but then if his job was that important to him he shouldn't have been D&D.
My opinion? No appeal.

Anonymous said...

5:56--my head is out. Please excuse me what you think is ignorance on my part for not having a great dedal of first hand knowledge of our legal/court system with regards to a matter such as this. Seems you have a great deal of information/knowledge in this area. Perhaps the difference here is that I stay out of those types of situations and you do not???? Hmmmmmm.....

Anonymous said...

He was "passed out" at a light. Everybody is jumping to conclusions. We do not have enough information. Could he have been tired? Was he drunk? Did he mess up his medications? "Passed Out" to me indicates asleep. Period.

Anonymous said...

World ends, poor and minorities hit hardests. Press condemns the evil rich and corporations.

Anonymous said...

All about money, money, money..... and if you don't have the money then jail time. If you don't have family help then jail time. Doesn't have anything to do with right or wrong.