Law and Order Trial By Jury
I don't think I should watch court TV shows ever again. LOTBJ is a terrible show regarding legal ethics! From this first episode I watched, the defense attorney contrives a legal defense by treating his clients like idiots to be led around into unethical /perjurious behavior. The defense is all about suborning perjury! The insanity defense he contrives is so half-baked, and anyway, these rarely work. And the perjury that is suborns is not even effective because the attorney cannot properly direct his own hostile witness (the mother of his client, a woman who pays the client's bills).
The prosecutor is just as bad. When the prosecution has gets an expert that gives her the wrong opinion, she tries to hide her and then gets upset when the defense uses the expert. They both ask objectionable questions without any basis in reason at all, simply to make a statement which they then withdraw. Its all about asking impermissible questions and then withdrawing them.
In the second episode I watched, the prosecutor describes how she was going to ignore the ruling by the judge and ask the question anyway, saying that the judge 'favors us, she's just hamstrung by the law.' Man, that's horrible! Then the judge is seen discussing with others how she is so disappointed about having to follow the law.
The judge makes editorial comments regularly during trial, ug! It's not like Judge Judy, but getting there. When the defense attorney objects to the prosecutor making a statement of fact, the judge berates him. What a horrible situation.
The prosecutor asks a witness 'can you tell me if this corrupt detectivewith a common last name spoken about by the defendant is the same person murdered by the defendant?' Geez, sure, if the prosecutor would be able to decide whether a murder occurred, this would be simpler, but they aren't!
Then the defense attorney says 'ethically, I'm supposed to talk you out of risk?' Huh? What is that about? A lawyer is not obligated to talk a client out of taking a risk, but is simply supposed to ensure a client is aware of a risk and makes an informed decision. When a client of mine wants to take a plea, I talk up the best parts of their case to make sure they know there are options. When a client wants to go to trial, I talk to them about the weakest part of the case.
Man, I was watching when the defense attorney says to his client "Oh, you better make it one hell of a story." Are there no defense attorneys who don't suborn perjury? Like all defense attorneys, I demand that candor from my clients and of course I can't put them on if they are not telling the truth. I do believe them, but if they say something fantastic, I try to question them to determine if they are lying and just so they can be aware how crazy what they are saying sounds. Again, the perjury suborning is so stupid, it didn't even take into account that the facts were clearly in contradiction of the facts. So, no duh, the client loses. That's exactly why I demand the truth from my clients. If they lose because they lie, that's understandable.
Admittedly, it is sad when clients lose because state witnesses perjure themselves, but on the other hand, catching the state's witnesses and the prosecution in a lie is usually the best way to win.
The prosecutor is just as bad. When the prosecution has gets an expert that gives her the wrong opinion, she tries to hide her and then gets upset when the defense uses the expert. They both ask objectionable questions without any basis in reason at all, simply to make a statement which they then withdraw. Its all about asking impermissible questions and then withdrawing them.
In the second episode I watched, the prosecutor describes how she was going to ignore the ruling by the judge and ask the question anyway, saying that the judge 'favors us, she's just hamstrung by the law.' Man, that's horrible! Then the judge is seen discussing with others how she is so disappointed about having to follow the law.
The judge makes editorial comments regularly during trial, ug! It's not like Judge Judy, but getting there. When the defense attorney objects to the prosecutor making a statement of fact, the judge berates him. What a horrible situation.
The prosecutor asks a witness 'can you tell me if this corrupt detectivewith a common last name spoken about by the defendant is the same person murdered by the defendant?' Geez, sure, if the prosecutor would be able to decide whether a murder occurred, this would be simpler, but they aren't!
Then the defense attorney says 'ethically, I'm supposed to talk you out of risk?' Huh? What is that about? A lawyer is not obligated to talk a client out of taking a risk, but is simply supposed to ensure a client is aware of a risk and makes an informed decision. When a client of mine wants to take a plea, I talk up the best parts of their case to make sure they know there are options. When a client wants to go to trial, I talk to them about the weakest part of the case.
Man, I was watching when the defense attorney says to his client "Oh, you better make it one hell of a story." Are there no defense attorneys who don't suborn perjury? Like all defense attorneys, I demand that candor from my clients and of course I can't put them on if they are not telling the truth. I do believe them, but if they say something fantastic, I try to question them to determine if they are lying and just so they can be aware how crazy what they are saying sounds. Again, the perjury suborning is so stupid, it didn't even take into account that the facts were clearly in contradiction of the facts. So, no duh, the client loses. That's exactly why I demand the truth from my clients. If they lose because they lie, that's understandable.
Admittedly, it is sad when clients lose because state witnesses perjure themselves, but on the other hand, catching the state's witnesses and the prosecution in a lie is usually the best way to win.
posted by ACS at 8:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home