Page 1 of 1

The Lousiana Supreme Court is nuts

Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 12:13 pm
by Bob78164
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

Re: The Lousiana Supreme Court is nuts

Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 6:20 pm
by BackInTex
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.
"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.

Re: The Lousiana Supreme Court is nuts

Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 6:32 pm
by Bob78164
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.
"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

Re: The Lousiana Supreme Court is nuts

Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 7:27 pm
by Estonut
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."

Re: The Lousiana Supreme Court is nuts

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:58 am
by BackInTex
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.

Re: The Lousiana Supreme Court is nuts

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:22 am
by Bob78164
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

Re: The Lousiana Supreme Court is nuts

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:56 am
by BackInTex
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.

Re: The Lousiana Supreme Court is nuts

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:41 pm
by Bob78164
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

Re: The Lousiana Supreme Court is nuts

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 1:01 pm
by silverscreenselect
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.

Re: The Lousiana Supreme Court is nuts

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 1:07 pm
by BackInTex
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.

Re: The Lousiana Supreme Court is nuts

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 2:02 pm
by littlebeast13
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

Re: The Lousiana Supreme Court is nuts

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 2:19 pm
by silverscreenselect
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.

Re: The Lousiana Supreme Court is nuts

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 2:34 pm
by BackInTex
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.

Re: The Lousiana Supreme Court is nuts

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 2:41 pm
by Bob78164
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

Re: The Lousiana Supreme Court is nuts

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:06 pm
by silverscreenselect
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.

Re: The Lousiana Supreme Court is nuts

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:17 pm
by Bob78164
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

Re: The Lousiana Supreme Court is nuts

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 5:18 pm
by Bob Juch
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

Re: The Lousiana Supreme Court is nuts

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:09 pm
by jarnon
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.

Re: The Lousiana Supreme Court is nuts

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:30 pm
by Bob Juch
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.

Re: The Lousiana Supreme Court is nuts

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:46 pm
by Bob78164
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

Re: The Lousiana Supreme Court is nuts

Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 9:07 pm
by TheCalvinator24
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.

Re: The Lousiana Supreme Court is nuts

Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 9:50 pm
by Bob78164
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

Re: The Lousiana Supreme Court is nuts

Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:10 pm
by Bob Juch
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.

Re: The Lousiana Supreme Court is nuts

Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:25 am
by silverscreenselect
Bob Juch wrote:It's "lawyer, dog". "Dog" meant the cop.
Maybe, maybe not.

Image

Re: The Lousiana Supreme Court is nuts

Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:41 pm
by Bob78164
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