Comments on: The Constitution is a wet blanket http://apublicdefender.com/2010/01/31/the-constitution-is-a-wet-blanket/ Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:29:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: spo http://apublicdefender.com/2010/01/31/the-constitution-is-a-wet-blanket/comment-page-1/#comment-54055 spo Fri, 12 Feb 2010 02:17:18 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/?p=2775#comment-54055 By the way, this is why many people absolutely despise defense attorneys: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/11/jaycee.dugard.journal/index.html?hpt=C1 The defense attorney is trying to help this scum revictimize the victim. She can rot in hell. By the way, this is why many people absolutely despise defense attorneys:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/11/jaycee.dugard.journal/index.html?hpt=C1

The defense attorney is trying to help this scum revictimize the victim. She can rot in hell.

]]> By: spo http://apublicdefender.com/2010/01/31/the-constitution-is-a-wet-blanket/comment-page-1/#comment-53921 spo Sat, 06 Feb 2010 18:11:31 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/?p=2775#comment-53921 Mark your post is completely obtuse. First of all, let's not forget that with respect to victims' families, they didn't ask to be in the position they're in. I'm sure the Newsoms and the Christians felt duty-bound to attend the trial of that subhuman scum that killed their children. (The facts of that case are about as bad as you can get.) So your "well, they can leave" is a pretty disgusting comment. Additionally, people aren't exactly jazzed about bogus insinuations of drug use or what have you with respect to their dead kids even if they're not there. As for the idea that the poor defense attorney is going to expose himself to criminal liability for "defending the accused", please. There may be loads of cases where the victims' conduct is relevant to the guilt of the accused, and, of course, the evidence has to come in (unless it is more prejudicial than probative), but irrelevant casual asides? There's no need for it--unless you're just trying to get the jury to hate the victim, and in that case, there should be no protection. I wouldn't go so far as criminal liability, but the bench, I think, has an obligation to discipline lawyers who play this little game. Mark your post is completely obtuse. First of all, let’s not forget that with respect to victims’ families, they didn’t ask to be in the position they’re in. I’m sure the Newsoms and the Christians felt duty-bound to attend the trial of that subhuman scum that killed their children. (The facts of that case are about as bad as you can get.) So your “well, they can leave” is a pretty disgusting comment. Additionally, people aren’t exactly jazzed about bogus insinuations of drug use or what have you with respect to their dead kids even if they’re not there.

As for the idea that the poor defense attorney is going to expose himself to criminal liability for “defending the accused”, please. There may be loads of cases where the victims’ conduct is relevant to the guilt of the accused, and, of course, the evidence has to come in (unless it is more prejudicial than probative), but irrelevant casual asides? There’s no need for it–unless you’re just trying to get the jury to hate the victim, and in that case, there should be no protection.

I wouldn’t go so far as criminal liability, but the bench, I think, has an obligation to discipline lawyers who play this little game.

]]> By: Mark in Jersey http://apublicdefender.com/2010/01/31/the-constitution-is-a-wet-blanket/comment-page-1/#comment-53873 Mark in Jersey Fri, 05 Feb 2010 02:34:51 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/?p=2775#comment-53873 Relatives of crime victims can <b>choose</b> not to attend trial if they are so sensitive that "unproven insinuations" would upset them. They can leave court during that portion of cross-examination. A defendant, however, has <b>no choice</b>. He <b>has</b> to be there to hear the prosecution <b>vilify</b> him (if innocent), or to hear his <b>sentencing</b> (if guilty). Relatives of crime victims can choose not to attend trial if they are so sensitive that “unproven insinuations” would upset them. They can leave court during that portion of cross-examination.

A defendant, however, has no choice. He has to be there to hear the prosecution vilify him (if innocent), or to hear his sentencing (if guilty).

]]> By: spo http://apublicdefender.com/2010/01/31/the-constitution-is-a-wet-blanket/comment-page-1/#comment-53861 spo Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:40:28 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/?p=2775#comment-53861 Perhaps, guys, you ought to think about what is generating such a proposal. Perhaps, guys, you ought to think about what is generating such a proposal.

]]> By: John S http://apublicdefender.com/2010/01/31/the-constitution-is-a-wet-blanket/comment-page-1/#comment-53788 John S Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:41:30 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/?p=2775#comment-53788 Wow is all I can say. I can't believe that a senator is actually advising attorneys to "quit wrapping themselves up in the Constitution." Maybe judges and police officers should stop wrapping themselves up in the Constitution as well? This sounds like a direct call for anarchy. Wow is all I can say. I can’t believe that a senator is actually advising attorneys to “quit wrapping themselves up in the Constitution.” Maybe judges and police officers should stop wrapping themselves up in the Constitution as well? This sounds like a direct call for anarchy.

]]>