How funny it is though that a self proclaimed "photographer" ultimately got busted because of a camera.
Cue Alanis Morrisette.
How funny it is though that a self proclaimed "photographer" ultimately got busted because of a camera.
Cue Alanis Morrisette.
[9. The defendant was at least eighteen years of age at the time the offense was
committed, and the murdered person was under fifteen years of age, or was seventy
years of age or older;] [The murdered person was an unborn child in the womb at any stage
of its development;]
Sadly at one time the courts did not consider an unborn fetus when charging someone with murder. Keeler vs superior court of California is a prime example. ((lol you say your memory is bad? I just helped my daughter with this case for her criminal law class. She's got an awesome memory, I had to text and ask ;)
Ha! Found the act. Lacy and Connor act
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unbor...f_Violence_Act
Always appreciated! If it was shown a person forcefully made with their own abortion they would be charged with murder? Even if they were only 8 weeks along? There must be something more to that.
I'll have to look up Keeler vs California. I know today the defense was trying to cry mistrial again.
The defense will ask for a mistrial if someone farts out of tune lol. I know we've had cases in the office that I've questioned my boss ( he passed last november :( ) about why he did this or why he did that... His reply, " just doing my job, protecting their rights and setting it up for appeal."
My brother is an attorney, but not defense. I know a lot of his defense attorney friends and my bro is a HUGE advocate of righting the wrongs (he's in civil law so arguing for the rights of people is his thing) in the judicial system and otherwise whether the defendant is guilty or not. Everyone is entitled to a fair defense and although this won't be a popular opinion here, I hope the mistrial is granted. What the prosecution did was wrong, Jodi being guilty notwithstanding.
I just finished watching that part. It's much baloney. Former defense lawyers in 2009 asked for evidence that didn't exist yet (thousands upon thousands text messages extracted from T's phone -- they didn't have an expert who could extract the files and manually photographing each phone screen would take a single person months to do it). Later, in 2010, the prosecution was able to find technology to extract the messages and they turned them over to Jodi's defense. So, Jodi's had these for over two years. The basis of the defense's argument is one of semantics. The detective in 2010 said that the extracted messages didn't exist instead of saying they didn't exist yet. It's retarded, and not going to fly.
Last edited by bryanwasdrunk; 01-14-2013 at 09:16 PM. Reason: quote the wrong post
Yea, you gotta play by the rules.
I remember when Casey Anthony ws found innocent, and I was happy that "I have a feeling" wasn't enough to send someone to the electric chair.Well, not in recent history anyway.
I once heard someone say that short of there being videotaped evidence or a cop that watched you do it, if you hire a good enough attorney you're gonna go home.
Most people that get into a jam (innocent or otherwise) are broke and usually ignorant of their rights, and they either plea or have an overburdened public defender.
I got offered a plea that was a pretty sweet deal, and I would have taken it if I were guilty. But since I was innocent I went to trial. But at that point I was facing a lot of time. It's all bullocks.
I couldn't watch the trial today and didnt see the mistrial request or the reasoning for it. I missed a lot today! I am going to have to watch it on YouTube.
Ron, Since you are posting, I am assuming you kicked butt on your trial! Good for you :)
Yeah and that's the problem with the system today. The poor black man that shot an intruder gets life, but the rich white man that killed his wife goes home. True story. I hate to put it in black and white terms, but it's the truth. You get a public defender against a highly paid attorney, (a lot of prosecutors have a private practice in addition) do NOT think there isn't judicial misconduct because there is. Not always, of course, but it happens a lot. Public defenders aren't going to fight the system to right a wrong, they aren't paid enough. That's just the way it is.
When someone's life is on the line there's no room for mistake. SO many people sit on death row right now due to shitty counsel and crooked judges. It's a buddy system inside courtrooms and unless you have someone with your interest genuinely at heart, you're fucked.
/rant off
Haha. Thanks. I actually didn't do anything, so it was quite a relief. It was susch nonsense. What a waste of time, and money (for all parties involved).
One bonus, I'm NEVER going to serve on a criminal trial jury for the rest of my life. Once they ask if anyone has been on trial before, I am gone.
As far as I'm concerned voir dire is French for "go home early."
But yea, they don't want me back there telling...no...explaining to people that prosecutors will go after people even when they know they're innocent, if they think they can build a case.
Between my own shit, and my former-ADA ex-girlfriend, I know all too well.
Lol I usually don't get picked for the jury on criminal matters either. Prosecution usually flips out when I say I work for a criminal defense attorney. Of course the defense gets all happy! One time the judge even asked me how long I thought I'd be there that day" not very long your honor lol. Sure enough, I was one of the first to go. ;)
That's one of my peeves with Law & Order. Every time a cop, prosecutor and/or judge said "I would love to, but my hands are tied" I would scream BULLSHIT! Oh, and my personal favorite, things getting thrown out. Happens? Sure, but fucking rare!
It's not some fair and balanced system, it's everyone against you (including your defense attorney if counsel was appointed to you).
Yea, I mean, I hate it cause I could totally be impartial. I am the person who would be sitting there thinking "OK, prove to me this innocent person did something" instead of "this guy better have a good alibi."
You know, doing it right.
The csi murder photos on http://pysih.com/2009/06/21/jodi-ann-arias/ were horrible. It brings a whole new level of horrible to her evil.
We're agreed on this point. Barry Scheck's work with the Innocence Project is deeply commendable. That doesn't give Kirk Nurmi's renewal of a three year old motion any weight, though. The evidence in question was in Jodi Arias' hands before either defense council was assigned to this case, and the previous judge had already ruled on it. I seriously doubt this judge is going to overturn the decision of the previous one, and to me it looks like Kirk Nurmi is simply continuing to try squirming out of defending this case.
and for that I don't blame him
Last edited by bryanwasdrunk; 01-14-2013 at 09:51 PM.
It's sad because the law says the burden of proof is on the prosecutor, but the reality is the burden of proof (of innocence) is on the accused. And what adds to that is the fact that the human mentality is automatically believing someone accused of a crime is guilty without ever having heard the first shred of evidence.
I don't know what she will do, but I hope it's a mistrial simply because the courtroom shenanigans need to be stopped. If she were innocent you would want a mistrial based on this, right? It's the same thing to me. The rights of the people are the rights of the people. JMO.
Question; were Jodi's lawyers appointed to her? I wasn't aware.
Exactly. That is precisely why a prosecutor doesn't want someone who went to trial and was acquitted back there in the deliberation room. You wanna talk about being able to look at someone as innocent before guilty? The first hour of deliberation would literally consist of me telling my story. Of how easy it is for "wrong place, wrong time" to happen. And when it does, cops just arrest everyone and figure it out later (they don't sit there and hold a mock trial outside of a police car). And how it's our job to see if the prosecution built a case, not if the defendant proved their innocence.
This is why I saw the Casey Anthony verdict coming when other people were 150% positive she was guilty. They never proved shit and reasonable doubt was all over that motherfucker. I mean, they did their job properly, but who could predict that? Just saying that I saw what equaled to justice in that case, and they happened to do it.
What are you talking about? If she had another trial, the facts of 2009 wouldn't change and there would be nothing different in a future trial than today. Both defense council have had the content of the text messages since the beginning of their involvement. Nurmi is bringing up an old motion from different defense council in front of a different judge!
ETA: Glasshat, are you actually watching this thing? The lady lawyer has been sooooooo bad that I can't figure out which side she's on, and the male lawyer just seems desperate to get out of defending this case through any means possible. Neither one of them is really defending her, and I imagine that if there's an appeal in the future it won't be on this motion but on the utter suck of her council.
Last edited by bryanwasdrunk; 01-14-2013 at 10:27 PM.
Right. Without going into the debate of CA, I was pleased she got off and on the grounds you've stated, plus I didn't feel they charged her accurately. I believe she killed Caylee accidentally and then covered it up. Just my belief based on the evidence, but I thought that from the jump. My faith in humanity was momentarily restored when the jury came back not guilty. And the sweetest part of that was the fact that the jury felt in their heart that Casey played a role in Caylee's death, but because the proof wasn't there, they found her not guilty. That is justice in my opinion.
I sat on a jury once for a sex assault case. It was a father against his own daughter. Right from the get go my fellow jurors were ready to send him away for 25 years before ever having listened to ANY evidence. Long story short, the case ended with a not guilty. It was a case of the ex-wife was attempting revenge on her husband for him leaving her. There was no fucking evidence, zero. But, when we got to the jury room for deliberations there were 8 of us that wanted to send him up the river without question. I told them we'd sit in that motherfucker all night long, he wasn't guilty and my vote wouldn't be swayed. He walked, but not only does a client have the uphill fight of the system, but also pansy ass jury members who won't fight for what's right.
There are currently 11 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 11 guests)