WWTBAM Bored

A home for the weary.
It is currently Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:36 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 12:13 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15811
Location: By the phone
This story from reason.com illustrates just how far the Louisiana Supreme Court is willing to go to deny the right to counsel. I find this story utterly depressing. The defendant's recourse now is either direct review from the U.S. Supreme Court (and this case is so egregious he might just get it) or habeas corpus from the federal courts.

But either way he's going to spend an awful lot of time in jail after an absolutely clear deprivation of his constitutional rights. And it emphasizes to me the importance of federal habeas review -- some states simply don't want to do the right thing. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 6:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 8961
Location: In Texas of course!
If he wanted counsel he should have asked for it. I understand even child molesters constitutionally are guaranteed their sixth amendment rights, but we shouldn't have to force them to use them. And stupidity is not a defense.

Quote:
"If y'all, this is how I feel, if y'all think I did it, I know that I didn't do it so why don't you just give me a lawyer dog cause this is not what's up."


No where in that does he request a lawyer or even a lawyer dog.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 6:32 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15811
Location: By the phone
BackInTex wrote:
If he wanted counsel he should have asked for it. I understand even child molesters constitutionally are guaranteed their sixth amendment rights, but we shouldn't have to force them to use them. And stupidity is not a defense.

Quote:
"If y'all, this is how I feel, if y'all think I did it, I know that I didn't do it so why don't you just give me a lawyer dog cause this is not what's up."


No where in that does he request a lawyer or even a lawyer dog.
That's willful blindness. "Why don't you give me a lawyer" is a really clear request for a lawyer. And the reason we insist on lawyers is because we don't know that he actually is a child molester without a fair trial, which includes having a lawyer when he asks for one.

As I said, it wouldn't shock me if the Supreme Court takes this on direct review. It would shock me if this survives habeas review. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 7:27 pm 
Offline
Evil Genius
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Posts: 8562
Location: Garden Grove, CA
Bob78164 wrote:
That's willful blindness. "Why don't you give me a lawyer" is a really clear request for a lawyer.
Your article states, "Chricton notes that under current legal precedent in Louisiana, if a suspect makes an "ambiguous or equivocal" reference to a lawyer—one where a "reasonable" cop could conclude that that the suspect only "might" be invoking his right to an attorney—police can continue their interrogation. "Maybe I need a lawyer," for example, is considered too ambiguous."

I don't see "If y'all, this is how I feel, if y'all think I did it, I know that I didn't do it so why don't you just give me a lawyer dog cause this is not what's up" as ANY LESS ambiguous than "Maybe I need a lawyer."

_________________
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 8961
Location: In Texas of course!
Bob78164 wrote:
"Why don't you give me a lawyer" is a really clear request for a lawyer.


No, it is more of a taunt. You clearly put child molesters ahead of children.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:22 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15811
Location: By the phone
BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
"Why don't you give me a lawyer" is a really clear request for a lawyer.


No, it is more of a taunt. You clearly put child molesters ahead of children.
If we already know he was a child molester, why are we bothering with a trial at all?

The answer is that we don’t know that until he’s received a fair trial. As I’ve repeatedly said, the criminal defense attorney’s role is quality control for the criminal justice system. Why would you want a criminal justice system that lacks adequate quality control? —Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 8961
Location: In Texas of course!
Bob78164 wrote:
As I’ve repeatedly said, the criminal defense attorney’s role is quality control for the criminal justice system.


Maybe in the minds of the framers of the Constitution. But we know that is not the case in reality. Defense attorneys work to get their clients off, guilty or innocent. That is not quality control, that is sport.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:41 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15811
Location: By the phone
BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
As I’ve repeatedly said, the criminal defense attorney’s role is quality control for the criminal justice system.


Maybe in the minds of the framers of the Constitution. But we know that is not the case in reality. Defense attorneys work to get their clients off, guilty or innocent. That is not quality control, that is sport.
It is quality control and it's exactly what the Framers had in mind. That's why we require proof beyond a reasonable doubt and why the Bill of Rights enshrines the right to counsel. If the prosecution can convict the defendant notwithstanding the best efforts of counsel, we can be confident as a society that the defendant is guilty. If you don't make competent counsel available (and given the funds made available through much of the South to public defenders, you often don't), you have things like the Innocence Project, that has uncovered a number of convicts on Death Row who turned out to be factually innocent. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 1:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 13862
BackInTex wrote:
Maybe in the minds of the framers of the Constitution. But we know that is not the case in reality. Defense attorneys work to get their clients off, guilty or innocent. That is not quality control, that is sport.


And in a lot of cases, prosecutors work to gain convictions, guilty or innocent. That isn't quality conrol, that is politics.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com
Our Silver Screen Central blog is now live. Check it out (and join the discussion): http://www.silverscreenvideos.com/central


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 1:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 8961
Location: In Texas of course!
Bob78164 wrote:
If you don't make competent counsel available (and given the funds made available through much of the South to public defenders, you often don't), you have things like the Innocence Project, that has uncovered a number of convicts on Death Row who turned out to be factually innocent. --Bob


You'd rather 100 kids get molested by a child molester who was released, deemed "not guilty" because of a technicality, than for one "factually" innocent person to be imprisoned. Got it, quality control.

And I'm not accusing you of wanting any children to be molested, so don't go there. You just have your situational preference, but situations have consequences.

And I understand the "slippery slope" argument about an out of control government, but then, I'm a 2nd Amendment supporter. Checks and balances.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 2:02 pm 
Offline
Dumbass
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:20 pm
Posts: 29147
Location: Between the Suavitel and Fabuloso
BackInTex wrote:
You'd rather 100 kids get molested by a child molester who was released, deemed "not guilty" because of a technicality, than for one "factually" innocent person to be imprisoned. Got it, quality control.



Ask that to the factually innocent person who is getting ass raped in prison everyday by inmates who love a convicted child molester. I know what my answer would be...

lb13

_________________
Thursday comics! Squirrel pictures! The link to my CafePress store! All kinds of fun stuff!!!!

Visit my Evil Squirrel blog here: http://evilsquirrelsnest.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 2:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 13862
BackInTex wrote:

You'd rather 100 kids get molested by a child molester who was released, deemed "not guilty" because of a technicality, than for one "factually" innocent person to be imprisoned. Got it, quality control.


So, if the crime's bad enough (child molesting, terrorism, etc.) and we're pretty sure they're guilty (and that "pretty sure" is based almost exclusively on the information the police and prosecution want to provide), let's throw them in prison and if a couple of innocent people get caught, well, that's just the price of justice.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com
Our Silver Screen Central blog is now live. Check it out (and join the discussion): http://www.silverscreenvideos.com/central


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 2:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 8961
Location: In Texas of course!
silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote:

You'd rather 100 kids get molested by a child molester who was released, deemed "not guilty" because of a technicality, than for one "factually" innocent person to be imprisoned. Got it, quality control.


So, if the crime's bad enough (child molesting, terrorism, etc.) and we're pretty sure they're guilty (and that "pretty sure" is based almost exclusively on the information the police and prosecution want to provide), let's throw them in prison and if a couple of innocent people get caught, well, that's just the price of justice.


I'm a Moneyball fan.

Yes, I'd rather two innocent persons spend time in prison than 100s of innocent persons be molested or worse. We'll never get it perfect so we should shoot for "best case". Of the two cases, a couple of innocents is better than hundreds. Your opinion may be different.

But getting back to the case at hand. The guy did not ask for counsel. Was he read his Miranda rights and did he acknowledge he understood them? If Yes and Yes, then he knew better than to continue saying stuff that could be used against him. If he did not want to talk without an attorney, then he should have shut up. Period.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 2:41 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15811
Location: By the phone
BackInTex wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote:

You'd rather 100 kids get molested by a child molester who was released, deemed "not guilty" because of a technicality, than for one "factually" innocent person to be imprisoned. Got it, quality control.


So, if the crime's bad enough (child molesting, terrorism, etc.) and we're pretty sure they're guilty (and that "pretty sure" is based almost exclusively on the information the police and prosecution want to provide), let's throw them in prison and if a couple of innocent people get caught, well, that's just the price of justice.


I'm a Moneyball fan.

Yes, I'd rather two innocent persons spend time in prison than 100s of innocent persons be molested or worse. We'll never get it perfect so we should shoot for "best case". Of the two cases, a couple of innocents is better than hundreds. Your opinion may be different.

But getting back to the case at hand. The guy did not ask for counsel. Was he read his Miranda rights and did he acknowledge he understood them? If Yes and Yes, then he knew better than to continue saying stuff that could be used against him. If he did not want to talk without an attorney, then he should have shut up. Period.
Your view is squarely contrary to the Constitution. That's why we use proof beyond a reasonable doubt as the standard for a criminal conviction.

And as I said before, the guy clearly asked for a lawyer. Believing otherwise in the face of that transcript is willful blindness, and no amount of reasoned argument will penetrate that, as the Louisiana Supreme Court just demonstrated. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 13862
BackInTex wrote:

Yes, I'd rather two innocent persons spend time in prison than 100s of innocent persons be molested or worse.


So what's your standard for whether a crime is "bad" enough that we toss out the Constitution? Child molesting pretty clearly makes the list. How about terrorism, bank robbery, financial fraud, sexual assault (guess Donald Trump wouldn't have made the White House under that standard), jaywalking, littering? And who makes that decision? The cops, the prosecutors, Congress?

And how many innocents have to get convicted before it's no longer acceptable? Pretty clearly two is okay with you. How about 5% of those arrested, 10, 49% ?

After all, it's only Moneyball.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com
Our Silver Screen Central blog is now live. Check it out (and join the discussion): http://www.silverscreenvideos.com/central


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:17 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15811
Location: By the phone
silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote:

Yes, I'd rather two innocent persons spend time in prison than 100s of innocent persons be molested or worse.


So what's your standard for whether a crime is "bad" enough that we toss out the Constitution? Child molesting pretty clearly makes the list. How about terrorism, bank robbery, financial fraud, sexual assault (guess Donald Trump wouldn't have made the White House under that standard), jaywalking, littering? And who makes that decision? The cops, the prosecutors, Congress?

And how many innocents have to get convicted before it's no longer acceptable? Pretty clearly two is okay with you. How about 5% of those arrested, 10, 49% ?

After all, it's only Moneyball.
Let's not forget how much closer to a police state this proposed regime would bring us.

It baffles me that someone could trust the government enough to take away physical freedom but not enough to require registration of gun owners. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 5:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Posts: 20700
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Does the Louisiana constitution provide for recall?

Louisiana Supreme Court: Priests Don’t Have To Report Child Abuse
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressiv ... EmRsJw2.99

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Posts: 3482
Location: Merion, Pa.
Bob Juch wrote:
Does the Louisiana constitution provide for recall?

Louisiana Supreme Court: Priests Don’t Have To Report Child Abuse
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressiv ... EmRsJw2.99
Do you read the stuff you post? The article says priests don't have to report child abuse that they learn about in a confession. Everybody knows that confessions are confidential. It doesn't say priests themselves are permitted to abuse children.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Posts: 20700
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
jarnon wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:
Does the Louisiana constitution provide for recall?

Louisiana Supreme Court: Priests Don’t Have To Report Child Abuse
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressiv ... EmRsJw2.99
Do you read the stuff you post? The article says priests don't have to report child abuse that they learn about in a confession. Everybody knows that confessions are confidential. It doesn't say priests themselves are permitted to abuse children.

Of course I read it. I didn't say priests are permitted to abuse children. I think you have a reading comprehension problem, not me.

Many states do not allow an exemption from mandatory reporting for crimes against children heard in confessions.

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:46 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15811
Location: By the phone
Bob Juch wrote:
Does the Louisiana constitution provide for recall?

Louisiana Supreme Court: Priests Don’t Have To Report Child Abuse
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressiv ... EmRsJw2.99
I would never support recalling a judge merely based on disagreement with the judge's decisions.

This is an exercise in statutory interpretation. If the people of Louisiana don't like the rule as construed by the Louisiana Supreme Court, they can get the Legislature to change it. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 9:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:50 am
Posts: 4826
Location: The Great State of Texas
As confident as Bob#s is that this case would not survive a habeas review, I am equally confident that it would.

The defendant's words were not a clear invocation of his desire to have an attorney present during questioning.

"why don't you just give me a lawyer[,] dog" is a question, not a statement of intent or desire.

_________________
It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities. —Albus Dumbledore


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 9:50 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15811
Location: By the phone
TheCalvinator24 wrote:
As confident as Bob#s is that this case would not survive a habeas review, I am equally confident that it would.

The defendant's words were not a clear invocation of his desire to have an attorney present during questioning.

"why don't you just give me a lawyer[,] dog" is a question, not a statement of intent or desire.
"You don't believe me but I didn't do it, so why don't you get me a lawyer" is a perfectly clear statement to anyone who is not willfully looking for an excuse to deny the defendant his right to counsel. Hell, the Louisiana Supreme Court feigned inability to understand the (mistranscribed) phrase "lawyer dog" in order to justify its indefensible decision. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Posts: 20700
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Bob78164 wrote:
TheCalvinator24 wrote:
As confident as Bob#s is that this case would not survive a habeas review, I am equally confident that it would.

The defendant's words were not a clear invocation of his desire to have an attorney present during questioning.

"why don't you just give me a lawyer[,] dog" is a question, not a statement of intent or desire.
"You don't believe me but I didn't do it, so why don't you get me a lawyer" is a perfectly clear statement to anyone who is not willfully looking for an excuse to deny the defendant his right to counsel. Hell, the Louisiana Supreme Court feigned inability to understand the (mistranscribed) phrase "lawyer dog" in order to justify its indefensible decision. --Bob

It's "lawyer, dog". "Dog" meant the cop.

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 13862
Bob Juch wrote:
It's "lawyer, dog". "Dog" meant the cop.


Maybe, maybe not.

Image

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com
Our Silver Screen Central blog is now live. Check it out (and join the discussion): http://www.silverscreenvideos.com/central


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:41 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15811
Location: By the phone
Let me put this another way. No one (not even a lawyer) thinks, "Honey, why don't you pick up some hot dog buns from the store" is an invitation to justify a reluctance to pick up hot dog buns from the store. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Americanized by Maël Soucaze.