tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925765946042638459.post2936961908739852541..comments2024-03-18T02:22:56.392-04:00Comments on Disgusted Beyond Belief: Tidy Guilty Verdicts on Law and OrderDBBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17805375811782552873noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925765946042638459.post-11628016042982379962009-03-24T20:32:00.000-04:002009-03-24T20:32:00.000-04:00Now maybe this isn't entirely unreasonable, as tha...<I>Now maybe this isn't entirely unreasonable, as that seems to often be the attitude expressed by prosecutors and maybe there is a certain need to feel that way to be able to continue to do that job.</I><BR/><BR/>In my experience, that <B>is</B> how prosecutors think. They have to be utterly convinced of the guilt of the accused. It's a survival mechanism for them. The good ones . . . well, that's how you get things dismissed . . . by getting them to doubt.<BR/><BR/><I>I wonder how many juries actually take that to heart and conclude that someone very likely did the crime but that, because of reasonable doubt, vote not guilty.</I><BR/><BR/>Very, very few. <BR/><BR/>If any.armagh444https://www.blogger.com/profile/07082915043493514495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925765946042638459.post-79183915298499013962009-03-22T08:20:00.000-04:002009-03-22T08:20:00.000-04:00Perry Mason was a bit before my time, though I pro...Perry Mason was a bit before my time, though I probably saw bits in reruns. I have read about it in law writings, and there is a general consensus that it was totally bogus, because (and I only know this from reading about it, not watching it) each case they'd get the real perp to get on the stand and confess, or something like that. (This is usually mentioned in classes on direct and cross examination). The reality is, no one confesses on the stand. And odds are, even if someone else did do it, the guy on trial will be the one convicted. The deck is stacked.<BR/><BR/>I may get the opportunity to be on a jury. I've been called to go in for tomorrow. It will be interesting to see if anyone wants to put a lawyer in the box.DBBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17805375811782552873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925765946042638459.post-4513392605045202672009-03-22T08:15:00.000-04:002009-03-22T08:15:00.000-04:00Do you remember the old Perry Mason shows? Perry M...Do you remember the old Perry Mason shows? Perry Mason never lost a case. At least on L&O there is an occasional loss. And there was one several years ago which ended when the foreman stood up to give the verdict. I can't remember exactly what the case was, but it was one in which I kept going back and forth between believing the defendant was guilty or not guilty. So, at the end, the audience didn't know the outcome.<BR/><BR/>I've been on jury duty several times. In one civil case, the jury unanimously thought the lawyer should never have let his client file a claim. There was clearly no case. The other time (criminal case) it seemed like everyone involved (on both sides including the witnesses) was guilty of something ---lying, if nothing else. Even physical evidence is not always as clear cut as it appears to be on CSI. Some people may enjoy the power they have to hold someone's future in their hands, but I don't like it at all.C Woodshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13053858627632648020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925765946042638459.post-56782494894785709202009-03-16T22:40:00.000-04:002009-03-16T22:40:00.000-04:00I think I vaguely remember that episode - or maybe...I think I vaguely remember that episode - or maybe they've gone after defense attorneys more than once. That upsets me too. What is even more outrageous is that real prosecutors do that sort of thing now too - federal prosecutors go after defense attorneys. I remember one famous mob lawyer was taken out that way. Prosecutors just have way too much power. I don't know if you've read my prosecutor rants here, but I have all sorts of ideas for how to level the playing field. I'm sure none of them would actually get implemented. <BR/><BR/>As for LO - I freely admit I'm addicted to Law and Order as a TV show, despite how often I want to scream at the screen how unethical the prosecutor's conduct is.DBBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17805375811782552873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925765946042638459.post-52319015989730656072009-03-16T10:03:00.000-04:002009-03-16T10:03:00.000-04:00I have refused to watch L&O since an episode s...I have refused to watch L&O since an episode several years ago in which Jack McCoy prosecuted a defense attorney as accessory to murder for refusing to tell Jack where the bodies were buried. When the guy was sentenced to 20 years, I vowed never to watch another episode again. I have never been so upset by an hour of television as I was by that episode.<BR/><BR/>Raising the Bar is much better suited to me. I am the main character. Like him, I can't just go hang out for drinks after work with prosecutors without stating (strongly) how I feel about certain bad prosecutions or tactics.Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12429147325673256508noreply@blogger.com