This Casey Anthony case has me wondering about lawyers

the media does not put out all of the information. If we were not in the court room, #@%%.

Spoiler [+]
sigh.. just getting this out. people just getting to me today
 
the media does not put out all of the information. If we were not in the court room, #@%%.

Spoiler [+]
sigh.. just getting this out. people just getting to me today
 
Originally Posted by ServeChilled81

Originally Posted by TennHouse2

Originally Posted by ServeChilled81


just edited my previous reply.  But i'm not bashing criminal defense lawyers or saying someone shouldn't be represented, just how do the lawyers feel after it's done?
Sure we all can say only those involved know what happened, but what would be the point any investigation or evidence or trial, to prove guilt or innocence

if that was all it came down to?
Click to expand...
thats now it all comes down to because we dont know whether the person is lying or not, which is why we use evidence and etc...not what we believe......and again the lawyer doesn't know for a fact whether the person there defending did or not, for all he knows he just helped an innocent person get off..and in the end whether he thinks she did it or not he should be happy to know he did his job to make sure that everyone gets a fair trial. 
Click to expand...
bruh, we're going in circles here, just wondering about their thoughts on a personal level, 
after investigating, evidence etc... someone who signs point to guilty, are they now just trying to convince the jury of something that may not be true, rather than prove actual innocence
 My comment from the beginning was never meant to be deriding.
Click to expand...
Defense doesn't "prove actual innocence." The defense defends the accused of the prosecution TRYING to prove their guilt.
It doesn't matter what the defense personally believes happened. They must defend each client equally. That's just how it goes.
 
Originally Posted by ServeChilled81

Originally Posted by TennHouse2

Originally Posted by ServeChilled81


just edited my previous reply.  But i'm not bashing criminal defense lawyers or saying someone shouldn't be represented, just how do the lawyers feel after it's done?
Sure we all can say only those involved know what happened, but what would be the point any investigation or evidence or trial, to prove guilt or innocence

if that was all it came down to?
Click to expand...
thats now it all comes down to because we dont know whether the person is lying or not, which is why we use evidence and etc...not what we believe......and again the lawyer doesn't know for a fact whether the person there defending did or not, for all he knows he just helped an innocent person get off..and in the end whether he thinks she did it or not he should be happy to know he did his job to make sure that everyone gets a fair trial. 
Click to expand...
bruh, we're going in circles here, just wondering about their thoughts on a personal level, 
after investigating, evidence etc... someone who signs point to guilty, are they now just trying to convince the jury of something that may not be true, rather than prove actual innocence
 My comment from the beginning was never meant to be deriding.
Click to expand...
Defense doesn't "prove actual innocence." The defense defends the accused of the prosecution TRYING to prove their guilt.
It doesn't matter what the defense personally believes happened. They must defend each client equally. That's just how it goes.
 
I'm not criticizing lawyers. I'm saying that the general public tends to view them as immoral because a small percentage fights cases when they know full well their client was guilty. Yes, they are doing their job. But for these people, they are often in full knowledge that their client violated the law and still chooses to defend them. It's kind of like an assassin - they do their job, but are they doing the right thing?

I'm aware that many lawyers defend innocent people. In every case there are guilty people and there are innocent people. For those lawyers who choose to defend a guilty person, they most likely are doing it for money, cause damn straight they know their client broke the law.
 
I'm not criticizing lawyers. I'm saying that the general public tends to view them as immoral because a small percentage fights cases when they know full well their client was guilty. Yes, they are doing their job. But for these people, they are often in full knowledge that their client violated the law and still chooses to defend them. It's kind of like an assassin - they do their job, but are they doing the right thing?

I'm aware that many lawyers defend innocent people. In every case there are guilty people and there are innocent people. For those lawyers who choose to defend a guilty person, they most likely are doing it for money, cause damn straight they know their client broke the law.
 
Only thing I dislike is how the jury makes the final verdict in many court cases. Humans are not impartial by nature, their compassion and sympathy often causes them to favor the victim even if all the circumstances are against the victim. Not to mention race and gender also plays a huge role in many cases.

If a young black male is driving and an older, attractive white woman t-bones his car and she gets severely injured while the male is alright, you can bet your mortgage the jury is going against the black guy.
 
Only thing I dislike is how the jury makes the final verdict in many court cases. Humans are not impartial by nature, their compassion and sympathy often causes them to favor the victim even if all the circumstances are against the victim. Not to mention race and gender also plays a huge role in many cases.

If a young black male is driving and an older, attractive white woman t-bones his car and she gets severely injured while the male is alright, you can bet your mortgage the jury is going against the black guy.
 
Originally Posted by scshift

I'm not criticizing lawyers. I'm saying that the general public tends to view them as immoral because a small percentage fights cases when they know full well their client was guilty. Yes, they are doing their job. But for these people, they are often in full knowledge that their client violated the law and still chooses to defend them. It's kind of like an assassin - they do their job, but are they doing the right thing?

I'm aware that many lawyers defend innocent people. In every case there are guilty people and there are innocent people. For those lawyers who choose to defend a guilty person, they most likely are doing it for money, cause damn straight they know their client broke the law.
Click to expand...
What would you have then? No defense for those deemed guilty by the majority? What kind of justice system is that?
 
Originally Posted by scshift

I'm not criticizing lawyers. I'm saying that the general public tends to view them as immoral because a small percentage fights cases when they know full well their client was guilty. Yes, they are doing their job. But for these people, they are often in full knowledge that their client violated the law and still chooses to defend them. It's kind of like an assassin - they do their job, but are they doing the right thing?

I'm aware that many lawyers defend innocent people. In every case there are guilty people and there are innocent people. For those lawyers who choose to defend a guilty person, they most likely are doing it for money, cause damn straight they know their client broke the law.
Click to expand...
What would you have then? No defense for those deemed guilty by the majority? What kind of justice system is that?
 
I always wanted to know if the defendants tell their lawyers the real side of the story before the attorney represents them in the trial.
 
I always wanted to know if the defendants tell their lawyers the real side of the story before the attorney represents them in the trial.
 
Actually you can admit and are SUPPOSE to admit to your lawyer if u did the crime. The admission is between the both of you. Your suppose to be 100% with your lawyer so they can represent you correctly. Why pay a lawyer dumb amount of money if you dont trust him
 
Actually you can admit and are SUPPOSE to admit to your lawyer if u did the crime. The admission is between the both of you. Your suppose to be 100% with your lawyer so they can represent you correctly. Why pay a lawyer dumb amount of money if you dont trust him
 
Originally Posted by HankMoody

Originally Posted by hongcouver604

Originally Posted by scshift
Click to expand...
 one of the least respected professions out there. 
Click to expand...

roll.gif
roll.gif
roll.gif
roll.gif
roll.gif
Click to expand...
roll.gif


Originally Posted by bxbadboy90

I always wanted to know if the defendants tell their lawyers the real side of the story before the attorney represents them in the trial.
Click to expand...

This, being that I'm used to legal shows it is really hard to say since i don't know the facts for sure.
I remember being under the impression if the defendant confessions the crime to their attorney, doesn't the lawyer have to report that confession? From the legal shows I have seen the lawyer has said don't tell me or something along those lines so the client wouldn't confess, directly or indirectly.
From other shows it seems as though the lawyer just wants to know their story and the evidence presented and play off of that.
Legal heads please chime in!

At the end these people are doing their jobs, not so much different from a doctor treating a drug/criminal. Not all the people that they defend are bad or not innocent. 
 
Originally Posted by HankMoody

Originally Posted by hongcouver604

Originally Posted by scshift
Click to expand...
 one of the least respected professions out there. 
Click to expand...

roll.gif
roll.gif
roll.gif
roll.gif
roll.gif
Click to expand...
roll.gif


Originally Posted by bxbadboy90

I always wanted to know if the defendants tell their lawyers the real side of the story before the attorney represents them in the trial.
Click to expand...

This, being that I'm used to legal shows it is really hard to say since i don't know the facts for sure.
I remember being under the impression if the defendant confessions the crime to their attorney, doesn't the lawyer have to report that confession? From the legal shows I have seen the lawyer has said don't tell me or something along those lines so the client wouldn't confess, directly or indirectly.
From other shows it seems as though the lawyer just wants to know their story and the evidence presented and play off of that.
Legal heads please chime in!

At the end these people are doing their jobs, not so much different from a doctor treating a drug/criminal. Not all the people that they defend are bad or not innocent. 
 
Attorney/client privilege will basically protect everything you tell a lawyer unless you tell him you are planning to commit a serious crime in the near future.

Not sure what the exact rule is but confessing a past crime to a lawyer, or the crime you're charged with, is DEFINITELY protected under the privilege.
 
Attorney/client privilege will basically protect everything you tell a lawyer unless you tell him you are planning to commit a serious crime in the near future.

Not sure what the exact rule is but confessing a past crime to a lawyer, or the crime you're charged with, is DEFINITELY protected under the privilege.
 
pacmagic2002 wrote:
I would say ask Johnnie Cochran, but he is no longer with us.

O.J. got off, CELEBRATION *!+!#%+!!!!!!!!!!!

White girl gets off, its a problem.

She didnt have the body sitting outside of her house...........and the only reason the body was where it was, is because somebody moved it there.

SMH, not everyone was celebrating when OJ "got off", but he didn't do it, so I fail to see the analogy. The evidence is far more definite in this case. In civil court OJ lost, just like she will. He had a lot more to lose though.
I mean there was one thing consistent with her behavior: LYING.
Click to expand...
 
pacmagic2002 wrote:
I would say ask Johnnie Cochran, but he is no longer with us.

O.J. got off, CELEBRATION *!+!#%+!!!!!!!!!!!

White girl gets off, its a problem.

She didnt have the body sitting outside of her house...........and the only reason the body was where it was, is because somebody moved it there.

SMH, not everyone was celebrating when OJ "got off", but he didn't do it, so I fail to see the analogy. The evidence is far more definite in this case. In civil court OJ lost, just like she will. He had a lot more to lose though.
I mean there was one thing consistent with her behavior: LYING.
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted by scshift

Only thing I dislike is how the jury makes the final verdict in many court cases. Humans are not impartial by nature, their compassion and sympathy often causes them to favor the victim even if all the circumstances are against the victim. Not to mention race and gender also plays a huge role in many cases.
Click to expand...
Pray tell... if humans are not reliable, what is your suggestion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom