7 ms·

> ‘I was simply not aware of the duties on a prosecutor to make sure an expert witness was fully aware of their duties.’ We cannot have a system where people c

by rlpb 2y ago

> ‘I was simply not aware of the duties on a prosecutor to make sure an expert witness was fully aware of their duties.’ We cannot have a system where people can be wrongly convicted while being denied a proper defence due to incompetence. Either incompetence cannot be a defence, or convictions must not be permitted to be made where incompetence might lead to an injustice. Or another way of looking at this: "the prosecution's case would fail if anybody involved on the prosecution's side turns out to be incompetent" should be an absolute defence in any trial and if that situation arises then it must always fail to result in a conviction.

RobotToaster 2y ago
If "ignorance of law excuses no one" is true, you would think it would be doubly so for a prosecutor.
cogman10 2y ago
Thankfully, this sort of action would get you a mistrial in the US. The prosecutors must disclose any exculpatory material to the defense. Heck even a secret meeting with the judge, while it might not result in mistrial, is highly unusual in the US and could be brought up on appeal. There are basically no circumstances where a judge should meet with representation of just one side. Especially when that side is the government.
- rahimnathwani 2y ago
  There was a recent case in the US where: 1. The judge had a secret meeting with the prosecution. 2. The defence attorney found out about it, and challenged the judge about it. 3. The judge demanded to know how the defence attorney found out. 4. When the defence attorney refused to say, the judge ordered the attorney to be jailed for contempt of court. https://www.billboard.com/pro/young-thug-trial-judge-denies-motion-step-down-secret-meeting/ https://www.billboard.com/pro/young-thug-trial-judge-denies-...
  - thereddaikon 2y ago
    Yes and its a big story in the news and everyone knows about it. The Judge is clearly corrupt and the state supreme court have already weighed in. It's pretty clearly an extraordinary situation.
    - rahimnathwani 2y ago
      "the state supreme court have already weighed in" Can you say more about this? The last I read, the state supreme court has accepted the case about the attorney's 'contempt of court' charge, but has not: - issued any opinion related to any of these issues, or - accepted any case about the judge being corrupt, recusing himself etc. Did I miss some news?
      - thereddaikon 2y ago
        Maybe I'm misremembering but did they not already get the defense attorney out of jail?
        rahimnathwani 2y ago
        The defense attorney is out of jail pending the supreme court's decision on the contempt case. This ruling has no bearing on the original case.
cj 2y ago
I was at traffic court yesterday and before they got to my ticket they were processing actual criminal cases with defendants walking in the courtroom in hands and feet cuffs. I was watching the public defender interact and process each case that walked in. I was extremely unimpressed with the public defender who didn’t appear to know basic details on any of the cases she was representing. It was a sad reminder that the justice system is still very much imperfect, and the outcome of many cases depends heavily on whether you have money to pay attorneys. The simplest “proof” of the preferential treatment you get with a paid attorney is you’re almost always the first case on the docket if you have paid representation. Then after the cases with paid representation they move on to the public defender cases. I would be terrified to face the US justice system without heavy weight defense attorneys - even if I’m completely innocent - because the system isn’t fair by default.
- Forgeties79 2y ago
  Sadly public defenders are in wildly short supply, some articles I’ve read even describe it as a crisis. They simply can’t keep up with the caseloads.
  - LgWoodenBadger 2y ago
    We should use the same mechanism we use to fill jury pools.
  - stainablesteel 2y ago
    which leads to another problem, if we can't supply them, we need to reinvent our court system to become more realistic for people to defend their own case without having to worry about the nitpicks of "oh you didn't just say that did you now you're in more trouble you should have had a lawyer" laws aren't difficult to read nor understand, its however very tedious to make sure you're not missing something important from some chapter of a book you were unaware of. understanding the history of how cases TEND to be prosecuted and dealt with is another whole cultural side of things that are just not obvious to the layman. and this kind of information can and should be more accessible to people currently being processed through the system i think in the age we currently live in this is a realistic goal for improvement that would also humanize the process quite a lot
batch12 2y ago
In the US my dad had something like this happen to him. His lawyer told him the charges were misdemeanors and it'd be better to plead out, so he did. After his prison term, almost a decade later, he successfully argued this in front of his state Supreme Court and was granted post conviction relief. At that point he'd lost almost a decade of his life, but he was now able to get a real job. Long way of saying I don't trust our legal system to be fair and I pity anyone caught in its gears. Edit: the details were fuzzy. Rereading the case, he plead nolo contendere and it was a PCR trial decision appeal. I updated those parts.
- cogman10 2y ago
  What happened? The prosecution lied to his lawyer and said they were only seeking misdemeanor charges? His lawyer lied to him? Do you by chance have a link to the decision? I'm interested in what went wrong here.
  - batch12 2y ago
    I debated not posting this, but what the hell: https://law.justia.com/cases/south-carolina/supreme-court/2000/25181.html https://law.justia.com/cases/south-carolina/supreme-court/20...
    - hattmall 2y ago
      That's wild, he got 10 years with a nolo plea just for threatening a school clerk over the phone?? Yeah, terrible lawyer.
      - batch12 2y ago
        He always insisted he hadn't threatened her- just used choice words, but it was reported as a threat. I remember that after this, every phone call he had was recorded. Every one.
        cogman10 2y ago
gklitz 2y ago
I think you’re misreading what he’s saying. Let me translate from lawyer speak to regular speak “Yes I knowingly broke the rules and got caught, but I don’t feel it was that serious, though I’ll admit the mistake if we can settle it with minor disciplinary action under the pretext that I just didn’t know any better”

by rlpb 2y ago

RobotToaster 2y ago

If "ignorance of law excuses no one" is true, you would think it would be doubly so for a prosecutor.

cogman10 2y ago

Thankfully, this sort of action would get you a mistrial in the US. The prosecutors must disclose any exculpatory material to the defense. Heck even a secret meeting with the judge, while it might not result in mistrial, is highly unusual in the US and could be brought up on appeal. There are basically no circumstances where a judge should meet with representation of just one side. Especially when that side is the government.

rahimnathwani 2y ago
There was a recent case in the US where: 1. The judge had a secret meeting with the prosecution. 2. The defence attorney found out about it, and challenged the judge about it. 3. The judge demanded to know how the defence attorney found out. 4. When the defence attorney refused to say, the judge ordered the attorney to be jailed for contempt of court. https://www.billboard.com/pro/young-thug-trial-judge-denies-motion-step-down-secret-meeting/ https://www.billboard.com/pro/young-thug-trial-judge-denies-...
- thereddaikon 2y ago
  Yes and its a big story in the news and everyone knows about it. The Judge is clearly corrupt and the state supreme court have already weighed in. It's pretty clearly an extraordinary situation.
  - rahimnathwani 2y ago
    "the state supreme court have already weighed in" Can you say more about this? The last I read, the state supreme court has accepted the case about the attorney's 'contempt of court' charge, but has not: - issued any opinion related to any of these issues, or - accepted any case about the judge being corrupt, recusing himself etc. Did I miss some news?
    - thereddaikon 2y ago
      Maybe I'm misremembering but did they not already get the defense attorney out of jail?
      - rahimnathwani 2y ago
        The defense attorney is out of jail pending the supreme court's decision on the contempt case. This ruling has no bearing on the original case.

cj 2y ago

I was at traffic court yesterday and before they got to my ticket they were processing actual criminal cases with defendants walking in the courtroom in hands and feet cuffs. I was watching the public defender interact and process each case that walked in. I was extremely unimpressed with the public defender who didn’t appear to know basic details on any of the cases she was representing. It was a sad reminder that the justice system is still very much imperfect, and the outcome of many cases depends heavily on whether you have money to pay attorneys. The simplest “proof” of the preferential treatment you get with a paid attorney is you’re almost always the first case on the docket if you have paid representation. Then after the cases with paid representation they move on to the public defender cases. I would be terrified to face the US justice system without heavy weight defense attorneys - even if I’m completely innocent - because the system isn’t fair by default.

Forgeties79 2y ago
Sadly public defenders are in wildly short supply, some articles I’ve read even describe it as a crisis. They simply can’t keep up with the caseloads.
- LgWoodenBadger 2y ago
  We should use the same mechanism we use to fill jury pools.
- stainablesteel 2y ago
  which leads to another problem, if we can't supply them, we need to reinvent our court system to become more realistic for people to defend their own case without having to worry about the nitpicks of "oh you didn't just say that did you now you're in more trouble you should have had a lawyer" laws aren't difficult to read nor understand, its however very tedious to make sure you're not missing something important from some chapter of a book you were unaware of. understanding the history of how cases TEND to be prosecuted and dealt with is another whole cultural side of things that are just not obvious to the layman. and this kind of information can and should be more accessible to people currently being processed through the system i think in the age we currently live in this is a realistic goal for improvement that would also humanize the process quite a lot

batch12 2y ago

In the US my dad had something like this happen to him. His lawyer told him the charges were misdemeanors and it'd be better to plead out, so he did. After his prison term, almost a decade later, he successfully argued this in front of his state Supreme Court and was granted post conviction relief. At that point he'd lost almost a decade of his life, but he was now able to get a real job. Long way of saying I don't trust our legal system to be fair and I pity anyone caught in its gears. Edit: the details were fuzzy. Rereading the case, he plead nolo contendere and it was a PCR trial decision appeal. I updated those parts.

cogman10 2y ago
What happened? The prosecution lied to his lawyer and said they were only seeking misdemeanor charges? His lawyer lied to him? Do you by chance have a link to the decision? I'm interested in what went wrong here.
- batch12 2y ago
  I debated not posting this, but what the hell: https://law.justia.com/cases/south-carolina/supreme-court/2000/25181.html https://law.justia.com/cases/south-carolina/supreme-court/20...
  - hattmall 2y ago
    That's wild, he got 10 years with a nolo plea just for threatening a school clerk over the phone?? Yeah, terrible lawyer.
    - batch12 2y ago
      He always insisted he hadn't threatened her- just used choice words, but it was reported as a threat. I remember that after this, every phone call he had was recorded. Every one.
      - cogman10 2y ago

gklitz 2y ago

I think you’re misreading what he’s saying. Let me translate from lawyer speak to regular speak “Yes I knowingly broke the rules and got caught, but I don’t feel it was that serious, though I’ll admit the mistake if we can settle it with minor disciplinary action under the pretext that I just didn’t know any better”