Jury duty over the past 2+ weeks

[mmckown]

Hey dave,

Have asked the same question anout the felony murder charge on MGO. Found this seaching for a news article on the trial.

Mike

[Travis In Austin]

Rather than digress into any conceptual areas of which I am obviously poorly equipped to discuss, I have never seen you poorly equipped to discuss any subject, whether it be the human respritory system or otherwise.

I'll pose a simple question. Why do defense attorneys do their utmost to defend or minimize the crimes of people they know are guilty?

This has a very simple answer: Because our rules of ethics require us to. We are mandated to "zealously defend" our client within the bounds of ethics. The State has the burden of proof, beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. Our mandate is to hold them to their proof, to require them to meet this proof in each and every case we take to trial. It does not matter if we think, or even know, that a person is guilty, we are required to make the State meet this burden.

That is the crux of my frustration. The system we have to defend the innocent seems to have warped into a system to get the guilty off scott free if at at possible.

The system it to protect the innocent. The founding fathers framed our constitution on the premise that citizens need protection from their governement, not that the government needed protection from it's citizens. Sometimes people who are "guilty" get found not guilty, but that is built into the system.

To assure that a citizen is protected from the governement the sixth amendment requires the assistance of counsel and a trial by jury. The system recognizes that it is imperfect and it was decided long ago that it was better to allow nine guilty people to go free then have one innocent person lose their liberty or life. That ideal is contained in the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. We as a people felt, based on what the alternative was, that it was better to have a system where it was more likely to have the guilty get off scott free then to have an innocent person found guilty.

Unfortunately, people are under the misconception that a criminal trial is a search for the truth, or to determine whether someone is guilty or innocent. That is not the purpose of a criminal trial in any way, shape or form. Anyone who has served on a criminal jury knows there is nothing in the jury instructions given to them by the judge that asks what they believe is the truth, or whether the defendant is guilty or innocent. What they are asked, and this is the fundamental concept that everything else revolves around, is whether the State has proven, beyond and to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt that the defendant did X. If they so find they are to signify by returning a verdict of guilty, and if the State has not, to return a verdict of not guilty.

Now I know commentators like Nancy Grace and other idiots want people to try and believe a trial is about something else, it isn't.

What is on trial is the State's case. If the system is working, what a trial is about is whether the State was able to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt. Sometimes they can, and sometimes they can't. The system is working perfectly when a jury finds someone not guilty even if they think he might have done it, or even if they think he probably did it, because the State failed to meet it's burden.

Travis

[Travis In Austin]

Double post

[Travis In Austin]

You sure do raise some good issues and questions. Let me try and answer these as simply as I can. Our legal system was defined when indeed it was word versus word. That is true, and as I mentioned before, the founding fathers were aware of these limitations. They were aware there were going to be cases where there was just not going be enought evidence to convict someone. Some systems, such as France, found that society was best served if the doubt was resolved in favor of the government, others that a judge or a king alone could decide. The founding fathers, after much discussion and debate, and after deciding to omit these provisions in the original constitution, added them as the Bill of Rights, with the approval of the people by the ratification process, decided it was better to give the benefit of the doubt to the citizen. The citizen needs protection, not the government. Not only did the government have to prove it's case, it had to convince 12 fellow citizens, not 3, like an appellate court, not 9 like a supreme court, but 12. If any one juror is not convinced, we start all over try and make a deal. The whole system is built upon the premise of protecting the innocent, even if it means that a "guilty" person walks.

Today there exists a battery of tools available which can support innocence or guilt. This is very true, however, these tools (fingerprints, DNA, fly maggots, bite marks) don't exist in most cases. Unfortuantly, based on shows like CSI, people expect this stuff to exist in every case that comes to trial. This is starting to work against prosecutors who are frequently told by potential jurors in jury selection that it would take more than the word of an eyewitness to convict, they would have to have some scientific evidence. The state is not required to have scientific evidence to convict, but people are almost coming to expect it.

2 hypotheticals involving a case or rape. In both instances the defendant told their attorney they were guilty.

In case 1 the attorney reports the guilty plea to the courts We have to stop right here, because in real life, that attorney would be disbared, the defendant would be appoinnted a new attorney, and nothing the original attorney said about the defendant admitting the crime could be used in any proceeding or trial fo the defendant. I think part of where your frustration comes from thinking that a lawyer has the discretion whether they want to tell the court what the real facts are. They don't. They have to take their client's secrets to the grave, unless their client waives the privledge. but notes that none of the evidenced collected in the case supports the guilty plea. The scientific evidence does not identify this person and so forth. So the case should proceed to trial. You have actually touched on a very old doctrine of law here, corpus delecti. The purpose of this doctrine was to prevent people from making a false confession. So, for example, a person who comes into the police station and says "I killed Billy Jo." The law used to require a dead body, the corpus delecti. The law has evolved and held that a body is no longer necessary to establish corpus delecti, it only requires some cooberating evidence, such as a blood stain, etc.

In case 2 the attorney reports the guilty plea (again, he is disbarred, and a new attorney is either appointed or hired to defend the defendant) to the court and all the evidence collected does support that situation. There is no evidence to support any other plea but guilty. The state should have no problem taking this case to trial, but they need more evidence then that which would "support" a verdict of guilty, they need evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt. Many, if not most, criminal cases have that kind of evidence against the defendant, and the issue is not guilt or innocence, but what the punishment should be. Case over.

The idea is not to immediately accept a guilty plea but to make certain through evidence that it is accurate. That is the most succint description of what the purpose of a jury trial is. To test the states witnesses and evidence as being accurate, and sufficient, beyond a reasonable doubt. Not cop, not a judge, not a prosecutor, but a jury, listens to the evidence and says, "yes you have convinced me, despite the presumption of innocence, this person did what you say he did."

As it stands now defendants can rely upon their attorney to combat the system even if their attorneys know fully well that they have confessed and are indeed guilty of their crime.

Before you suggest that we do away with attorney client privledge, that won't work either. As soon as client's know that their lawyer will tell the court about any confession they won't tell their client's anything, that is the whole idea about attorney-client privledge.

Now here is another key point to remember in all of this, and an area where there are a number of misconceptions. If the client confesses to the lawyer, the lawyer cannot put the client on the stand knowing that he will lie. He could be disbarred, and so the attorney advised the client that they cannot take the stand in their own defense because if they get up there and lie the lawyer is duty bound to inform the court. There are a couple of procedures for this that we don't need to detail here.

Are there lawyers who violate this rule? I am sure there are. But they usually end up going down with the client sooner or later. I have never lied for a client. The truth is that you don't need to in order to be a good advocate for the client.

By the way, pleading "non guilty" does not mean that you didn't do what the state says you did, it means either that you have nothing to lose and you want your right to a jury trial, or it can mean that you just don't think that the state has enough evidence to prove you did it beyond and to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt.

Other attorneys abuse the system to lessen the penalties their clients may be subject to. There is no "abuse" in doing this. If the law provides a range of punishment, then that is the lawyer's job to argue why the defendant should get the minimum and why, and it the prosecutor's job to argue why the defendant should get the max. For example, the range of punishement for murder in Texas is a minimum of 5 years, up to 99 years, or life with the possibility of parole, or probation. The jury can chose any number between 5 and 99, or life with, or probation. Some cases there is no way on earth you would even argue for probation, but there are others, where I have argued and got a jury to give someone probation for murder. In Texas the defendant decides whether he wants the judge or jury to decide punishment. Regardless of how he chooses, the judge or jury hears the evidence and the aguments of counsel and decides.

There is currently a case in my city of a pedophile who predated upon a family. He attacked the family murdering the parents and older siblings with a claw hammer. He abducted a young boy and girl whom he raped and tortured. He murdered the little boy. I do not say alleged because he has admitted his crimes. He videotaped some of these crimes and they have those tapes. His defense attorney told the prosecution not to request capital punishment or he would insist upon putting the little girl on the stand and subjecting her to "detailed cross examination". I

There is something missing here. The State does not need the girl to present it's case, the rape is not a capitol offense, the murder is (unless the only agravating circumstance is murder in connection with the kidnapping of the girl, or murder in connection with the sexual assault of the little girl) they have a confession, video tape, and I'm sure a ton of scientific evidence. If the state does not call her to the stand there can be no cross-examination of her. It seems that the State would have many ways to prove an agravating circumstance, (which is required to have capitol murder, murder plus something else) without the needing the testimony of the little girl. It sounds to me like the state is worried about their "confession" because with that there is no need for the girl to testify and be cross-examined.

n other words they would plead not guilty keep in mind that by pleading not guilty, he is not saying that he did not do those things, he is saying, in part, the state cannot prove an aggravating circumstance to justify the death penalty, and if they can, there are mitigating circumstances that weigh in favor of life w/o parole. A jury than makes that decision. and subject the courts to the expense The expesne is factored in when the State elects to proceed with the death penalty. They usually have a group in the D.A.'s office to review and make reccomendations, with the D.A. making the final decision. When he decides he or she is factoring in the expense, so it is the D.A. who decides what cases are worth the time and expense, not the defendant. If the death penalty is sought it triggers numerious additional safe guards, and these shoot the cost way, way up, but this is known going in. and this little girl to the horrors of such testimony There is no way around this. If it was just the girls' case, torture, and sexual assault of a child, with kidnapping, with no confession and no video tape they are either going to have to have the testimony of the girl, or solid DNA evidence. Some courts will allow to the child to testify by video to help, but the defendant has the right to confrontation, and there is just no way around it. I don't take sexual assault cases, of children or otherwise, but defense attorneys use the fact that the victim will have to testify and be subject to cross-examination to their advantage, there is no doubt about that. But there is no way around it. if they did not get assurances for the lessor penalty.

That is the sad state of our current justice system. Well I respecfully disagree, it is a system of advocacy working. The folks in the D.A.'s office are big boys and girls, or at least they should be, and it's a game of chicken. If they want the death penalty they are going to have to get it. I have never heard of anyone pleading guilty to capitol murder and agreeing to the death penalty. I have heard of defendant's waiving all appeals to speed up the death penalty (Gary Gilmore), but no one goes in and pleads guilty to capitol murder and says they want the death penalty. This is because there are several complex issues the jury has to decide, and they have to consider mitigating evidence. If they don't have problems in their case, and they really want to seek the death penalty, this "threat" of calling the girl would be laughed at by any prosecutor worth his or her salt. If they do have problems with their case, or if they are not big gung ho death penatly people, then the defense attorney is doing his job and posturing for a plea to spare his client's life.

I realize that our justice system is to protect the innocent. I believe that with modern crime science that those who profess innocence can prove their innocence. Well as I said, the cases are few and far between where you have the forensic evidence that they show in CSI. For example, every date rape case is pretty much a he said, she said type of case, the issue is consent. Now, absent a showing of drugs or something, it is going to come down to credibility. DNA proves nothing, the guy admits it is his, but says it was consensual. A SANE exam is not necessarily going to show anything abnormal. As Americans, we said long ago, we are going to presume innocence and require solid proof, even if it means allowing a rapist to go free. It is important, becasue that premise is co-equal with, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, freedom of religon. Collectively they make up our values. You can't pick and choose which ones you like. Can you imagine our country without any one of those rights.

We never shift the burden in this country (except with DWI), the Defendant is presumed innocent, unless and until proven guilty. Now it is true that sometime evidence works in favor of the defendant and they can show their innocence.

Those who are guilty should not be able to rely on the system to find ways out of their guilt. This goes back to the definition of guilty. You are talking about moralyy guilty, which is not the same as legally guilty. The law and the system recogonize that is not perfect, it cannot convict (legally guilty) everyone who may have commited an act that constitutes a crime (morally guilty) for a variety of reasons. It is by no means perfect, but the safeguards are in the constitution for a reason. A jury trial is not provided by statute that can be granted or repealed as congress and the executive see fit. It was deemed so fundamental it was incorporated into our constitution, and therefore into our values. It is something we share as citizens.

It is more than forcing someone to plead guilty and then executing the sentence. You can't force anyone to plead guilty, they have the right not to incriminate themselves under the 5th amendment. You can never get around this and it will never go away. This stuff is all interconnected.

The guilty plea would require some objective corroboration for validation. You can't get the guilty plea, the attorney cannot rat out his client, and there has to be some incentive for a client to plead guilty (plea bargin)

Criminals should not view the justice system as something full of holes that a good attorney will be able to navigate for them to an innocent verdict.There is no "innocent' verdict, it is not guilty and it should really be "not proven." Criminal may view the system as "full of holes", but I don't think many do. The defense bar views it as a system that requires the state, if they choose to charge a fellow citizen with a crime, to prove it.

Please pardon my naivete. But, in my view the system has been around for over 200 years and it merits some re-examination and modernization. I think it can be accurate, more efficient and till retain excellent protection for the innocent.

Folks are trying to do that all the time, be more efficient, be more modern, etc., which is all fine and good. I'm all for it, right up to the point where people say it would be more efficient to dispense with a jury trial. The fact is we can modernize all we want, and be efficient as we want, as long as we remain within the requirements of the Constitution.

I think maybe another way to look at it would be that the reason that we still have the system we do, even with all of its problems and imperfections, it is the best system on earth and no one has been able to come up with anything better.

It is nice to remind oneself why we do what we do, I'm glad you raise these questions becasue they are important. I wish I was a better student of history, as a good historian could point you to the specific individuals who favored one system over another, which federalist papers talked about which subject, the give and take that went into the bill of rights, why where were left out of the original document to be added later, etc. All of these historical facts shed light as to why we ended up with what we did, and more importantly, what alternative were rejected.

But I get the best part in all of this, I get to put these ideals, protections and safeguards into use everyday, and I do it without ever forgeting the sacrafice of those argued, negotiated, fought and died for what we have. People need to be reminded why we have the right to a jury trial, and I get to remind them every time I pick a jury.

Travis

[oldenough]

Travis, Good Morning, just a quick question.... Were there anything that you COULD change regarding the legal system, what would it be?

[Jeff Matthews]

Following up a little, there was a recent segment on either 60 Minutes or 20/20 that did a very good job of revealing that a witness's positive ID of a suspect is very likely to be wrong in all kinds of regular, run-of-the-mill cases. Very spooky! The victim takes the stand and believes in all his/her heart that the defendant was the one that did it. He/she says, "I am definitely sure he did it. No doubt in my mind." Many, many convictions are had by just that testimony alone.

Frankly, what Travis does is to be commended, despite the fact that he might help many thugs run free. He describes the intended and ethical workings of the legal system properly. And he also points out the reasons why this is not a flaw, but an intentional design.

I, for one, could not do it. I have labored some over far lesser ethical issues in the civil context. I have tried a few, petty criminal cases, though.

The one good thing that Travis has going for him is that criminals will rarely admit to the lawyer they did it. I guess, like most humans, they need to conceal the truth from their attorney in order to make the lawyer believe he is fighting for a just cause.

[oscarsear]

I cannot thank you enough for the time you have taken to contemplate and answer my questions. You have adequately answered many of them. As you all understand I hail from the medical profession. The country now contemplates configuring a new approach to medical management so that it will be accessible to more people, for less. The size and complexity of that proposition is enormous. The consequences of getting it wrong will also be enormous. Just deciding what is the right goal challenges many intelligent people. This endeavor is taking place more for social reasons than economic ones. IMHO a system that will genuinely work will not be less costly and one that does not work right will be a disaster.

Obviously the country is in some very dire times fiscally. Yet, I do not see where anyone is examining where dollars might be saved in our judicial processes. Unnecessary trials, mistrials, endless trials and so on. There must be some substantial potential savings to be obtained from streamlining procedures or something. Travis wrote that the gov't devised this system to protect the people from the gov't. What many feel has happened is that the gov't now fails to protect law abiding people from the criminals. It seems only logical that this 200+ year old system merits a rethink not to change its goals but to enhance how it works. That is a nebulous expectation to be certain. But it is no less nebulous than providing better healthcare for everyone, for less which is the oft stated ethereal goal for tomorrows medicine.

A marvelous discourse and I thank each of you. You may not send me a bill.

[Jeff Matthews]

Oscar, ask Amy to give you privileges to the BS Section, and you will see more discussion of the medical issue. Dee posted a pie chart in this regard. I have posted a 60-Minutes segment featuring observations by David Walker, former chief of the USGAO. Legal issues are important as regards criminal law, but in the grand scheme of socialism, the expense is trivial. Hope to see you there....

[dkp]

Lost my entire post....GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

[Jeff Matthews]

Over where?

I guess it doesn't matter because they are all around me, wherever I go.

[Jeff Matthews]

I am trying to flame a controversy over judicial activism and the blatant Constitutional mistake of the Social Security Act. Come on over. The water's fine. []

[Islander]

The only simple and relatively non-controversial way to speed up the legal system is to appoint a lot more judges and run the courts sixteen or twenty-four hours a day, two or three shifts instead of the current day shift only. That would eventually clear up any backlog and might even save some money.

People might complain about having to attend court after midnight, but if they got to trial a few months earlier that way, it would seem worth it, don't you think?

[Jeff Matthews]

Or perhaps better law school training and a more well-versed bar. The endless supply of crap that emanates from so many lawyers that don't seem to get what issues should be litigated never ceases to amaze me.

[BigStewMan]

I am trying to flame a controversy over judicial activism and the blatant Constitutional mistake of the Social Security Act.  Come on over.  The water's fine. 

 

I'm trying to imagine the controversy? What are judges for if not for their activism? I mean, it doesn't take a judge to read black letter law, if that's all there was to it, right? I better see if I can get a hall pass for over there......

took a few law classes years ago (not a lawyer though) but, I've been taught that judges were to only "interpret" the law. Interpreting seems to be a neutral position, as the law has already been decided. so if one can interpret while and be an activist , both while in the performance of his duty, you will have to explain that one to me, i don't see how that is possible.

[BigStewMan]

Or perhaps better law school training and a more well-versed bar.  The endless supply of crap that emanates from so many lawyers that don't seem to get what issues should be litigated never ceases to amaze me. 

so with all of the lawyer t.v. shows, which is the influence over the other? I wonder if some of the lawyers that you refer to are trying to pull stuff that they see on Boston Legal.

[BigStewMan]

took a few law classes years ago (not a lawyer though) but, I've been taught that judges were to only "interpret" the law. Interpreting seems to be a neutral position, as the law has already been decided. so if one can interpret while and be an activist , both while in the performance of his duty, you will have to explain that one to me, i don't see how that is possible.

 

There is a reason we have an appellate court system with its own judges. In trial courts, you are right, the judge simple interprets the law as written. But appellate courts are there to hear appeals of the trial judge's interpretations. And beyond the appellate court is the Supreme Court with which to judge the appellate court rulings. 

Here's an example. In 1894 many states practiced educational segregation. Suits were brought under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Trial Courts and apellate courts ruled in favor of the segregationists "as long as the seperate educational facilities were equal." In 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education, the S. Court reversed this "interpretation" of the 14th Amendment, and declared unanimously that "separate education faccilities was inherently unequal." This requires more than a simple reading and interpretation of the 14th Amendment which lower courts did in "supporting the idea of separate but equal."

Thus, the Supreme Court had to go beyond the flat reading of the law and reach for the purpose and intent of what "equal protection" really meant. They concluded it meant something other than the lower courts. 

Other "activism" on the S. Court has made corporations into persons, also under the 14th Amendment. Now, if you want a real stretch of hyper-activism, imagine what it takes to read the 14th Amendment and conclude that it covered corporations! From there, they gained the right to free speech, protection from search and seizure and other things intended for human beings. That's an active court! 

Most activism has occurred supporting corporate rights over human ones. The S. Court has been very anti-human over its history, with a few exceptions which have been important. But by no means is "activism" limited to one political spectrum or the other. 

Whether you like activism or not I suppose depends on which results you enjoy. I think overall, I want an appellate court to see the modern world as it is, and adjust actively and accordingly.  We used to hold slaves, bar women from voting, and support segregation. All of those were considered "right" and "unassailable" at one time. I am very happy we have a system that provides adjustments for change. Activism is one such adjustment.

I see your point and of course there are ridiculous extremes in both directions. What i refer to is judges that actually make laws. For instance, i think it was prop 22 here in california that was overwhelmingly passed; yet four supreme courts justices overruled the vote of the people and legalized gay marriage. Regardless of your view on the issue, we should see some danger in their "activism." (1) They are not elected; but, appointed If they make law, they have become unelected legislators and we have lost the control to govern ourselves. That should scare anyone--regardless of where one is on the political spectrum. (2) Judges are experts in LAW, not necessarily in the topic that they are now creating law about.

The 14th Amendment is a fun topic to discuss though. As you are well aware, prior court decisions had ruled that segregation was legal as long as equal facilities were offered to other races. Homer Plessy is probably the most famous case. The court ruled that blacks were offered the same conditions as whites. Yet, there were other cases, some law school in texas i believe, that denied a black student entry, claiming that there was a ***** black law school available to him. In that case, the courts decided that the two schools were not equal in quality. PLEASE don't think I'm for segregation, I'm not. But, being treated equally doesn't necessarily mean that we are treated the same, and I think that is what some of those lower courts based their decisions on.

[Travis In Austin]

There is currently a case in my city of a pedophile who predated upon a family. He attacked the family murdering the parents and older siblings with a claw hammer. He abducted a young boy and girl whom he raped and tortured. He murdered the little boy. I do not say alleged because he has admitted his crimes. He videotaped some of these crimes and they have those tapes. His defense attorney told the prosecution not to request capital punishment or he would insist upon putting the little girl on the stand and subjecting her to "detailed cross examination". In other words they would plead not guilty and subject the courts to the expense and this little girl to the horrors of such testimony if they did not get assurances for the lessor penalty. That is the sad state of our current justice system.

Oscar

I can understand your frustration about system as it relates to the case you mention in your quote above. I take this is the Duncan case, it must be, as the facts of the case are the worst of the worst. This case has apparently gone on for years, recently ending in the death penalty being imposed in the federal case last summer. The case is procedurally complex, and it is easy to see where news accounts could give the a wrong account of things.

I don't know all of the detalis about the case, but from what little I read, it doesn't seem like there was any problem with the system with the exception of the time it took to get the case to trial. Some of the perceived problems with the criminal justice system we have discussed in this thread don't really appear to apply to the Duncan case. Just some quick observations, again, my knowledge on this case is very limited and it would take a whole summer to get up to speed on this case.

• This is the perfect case if you are in favor of the death penalty
• This would not be the case to choose as an example if you have complaints about the criminal justice system or criminal defense attorneys
• The defendant, Duncan, received the death penalty in federal court
• He pled guilty in the federal court in Boise and then the jury was required to determine whether there were aggravating factors and intent factors (a defendant cannot plead guilty to that in the federal system, it must be proven).
• Defense attorneys did not have anything to do with whatever any problems in the federal case, Duncan represented himself.
• The girl's father was adament that he did not want his daughter to have to testify, even if it meant not being able to go after the death penalty, and he made the County Attorney, Bill Douglas, very much aware of this fact
• Family of the other victims were equally adament that they wanted the death penalty even if it meant the girl had to testify
• Kootenai County Commissioners were getting very worried about what it was going to cost for a death penalty case, they were apparently pressuring Douglas to try and resolve the case without a trial
• Douglas (and this was a stroke of genius on this part, never seen this done before) worked out a plea deal where Duncan would plead to the state court charges of murder and kidnapping. Duncan received 3 consecutive life without parole sentences on the kidnapping charges, sentencing on the 3 state murder charges would be delayed until after the federal death penalty trial. If Duncan was given the death penalty in the federal case he would receive 3 more life without parole sentences on the state murder charges. If Duncan did not receive the death penalty in the federal case the Douglas would be free to go for the death penalty on the state murder charges if he wanted to.
• Idaho doesn't really enforce the death penalty, the last time someone was executed there I believe was in the mid 70s, and that person waived all rights to any appeal. This may be the reason why federal charges were filed and why the federal case was allowed to go forward. It is very unusual for the federal case to go forward first unless it involved a federal agent or federal property.
• It appears to me that system worked the way it was supposed to in this case (setting aside the issue of the penalty, I have been doing everything I can to avoid any discussion about that as it doesn't really pertain to the questions and concerns you raised earlier). The only trial that had to go forward were on the special issues on the death penalty, and the acutal imposition of the death penalty and those you can't plead guilty to. There has to be a trial on those issues. He pled guilty to everything else.
• He apparently has waived any appeal rights he has, his automatic death penalty appeal has been waived and he is probably headed for the federal death chamber in Indiana

It appears that there was a lot of good newspaper coverage on the case, here is a link. I don't know what the tv news coverage was, or what quality it was. There could have been a lot of misinformation about things. Again, there were a lot of complex legal issues involved in tragic event, in two seperate proceedings, state and federal court. The victims were not in agreement over whether the death penalty should be sought if it meant the little girl had to testify, The County did not really want to foot the bill for the cost of a death penalty trial, and there were politics going on between the prosecutor's office and the County Commissioners. I can see where local tv media could play up a lot of sensationalism over these topics and somehow the system or defense attonreys would be where people would try and lay the blame.

Here is a link to the paper where there is tons and tons of information.

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/sections/duncan/

Travis

[oscarsear]

Travis..... Yes I was referring to the Duncan case. It is illustrative of exactly why I feel the system needs re-examination. The crimes were the worst. The man pled guilty. There was tons of evidence including video tapes of him committing the crimes.

Now I will quote you. You say the "case was procedurally complex". Why? What could be more clear cut than a video tape of the crime? A case that should have taken 15 minutes in court took years. It cost our state millions to prosecute a man whose guilt was 100% clear and certain from day number one.

Something is amiss. I do believe that our justice system could be streamlined to ensure better protection for the innocent and expedite the process for the guilty.

[Tom Adams]

Man-oh-man......you guys are slick.

There's no doubt that I can't hang with some of you.

I mean......a couple of you guys have managed to ever so slyly introduce religion AND politics into a thread about civic duty.

Niiiiiiiiice.

'Course it doesn't suprise me since some here (and you know who you) always seem to look for threads like this to drag out their soapboxes to pontificate about various injustices.

Until your post there, everyone was having a gentlemenly discussion.

Thanks though for the generous "contribution."

How nice of you to edit out the rest of my post - which, BTW was ON TOPIC of the original post and NONE of yours has been - in order to take a cheap shot with that "generous "contribution"" comment.

KISS MY AS* Mark!

I have completely lost all respect for you. Hope you're happy.

Tom

[Islander]

Well, Tom, this was a polite and informative discussion...