Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Galapagos Islands -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: quote 007 who wrote (1381)	9/18/2002 2:58:22 PM
From: Alan Smithee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57110

The fundamental problem here arises from the issue of burden of proof. The prosecutors have to establish guilt in a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt. Couple that with the 5th Amendment which provides that no one can be compelled to give incriminating testimony against himself and you have an interesting situation. Even the guilty have the right under our system to put the prosecution to their proof. The criminal defense attorney has an ethical obligation to represent his or her client and provide a zealous defense. He or she also has an obligation not to present perjured testimony to the court, so a criminal defense attorney cannot allow a defendant to testify if he knows the testimony is perjured. That is far different from believing one's client did the act charged or even knowing that he did it (some criminal defense attorneys make it a point not to ask their clients whether they did the crime or not) and nevertheless presenting arguments (as opposed to facts) that can be supported by the evidence in an attempt to try to show that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof. I personally would not be comfortable trying defending a case by questioning the parents' lifestyle. But, many criminal defense attorneys would tell you that's part of their job. I'm not aware of anything in the ethical rules that precludes such a defense. It all comes down to the fact that the prosecution has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and it's the defenses' job to try to establish that the prosecution didn't meet its burden. If the facts support an argument that a trained chimpanzee that escaped from the zoo did it, then the defense attorney would likely have to make that argument. Like it or not, its the system we have. I prefer it to what they have in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and a lot of other places on earth.

To: quote 007 who wrote (1381)	9/18/2002 4:12:47 PM
From: SmoothSail	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57110

Much of the uproar is about one juror, I think. This person was a hold out believing the possibility that one of the people the parents invited in could just as easily have kidnapped the little girl. The same juror was a hold out for the death penalty and left the courtroom during (or shortly thereafter) the reading of the verdict. I only catch snippets of what happened because I'm not always in my car. One little snippet I heard was that Feldman said to the jury: "Please don't convict my client because of my abrasive style or because you don't like the way I defended him." (or words to that effect). One member of the jury is going to appear on Fox tonight (I think it's Fox). The tone of the 3 stations I was listening to this morning was the same thing - that Feldman should be disbarred for misleading and/or lying to the jury. (sorry jorj, I know this is a stock thread - but it's after hours now)