View Single Post
Old 03-30-2015, 04:39 PM
Do Not Taunt is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,184
Originally Posted by brickbacon View Post
Again, you are incorrect. Jay's attorney wasn't a public defender, and thus would in most cases not be paid at all. The DA did not arrange for pro bono representation, he asked a lawyer he knew to meet with Jay. Jay's lawyer testified that she didn't agree to represent him until after meeting with him. To quote the Jay's testimony from Adnan's initial appeal:

The above is largely the reason his appeal claims on that issue were rejected. That and the fact that the jury was told about this fact during the trial.

First, "received a benefit" doesn't mean he was "paid".
Wait, so you acknowledge that he received a benefit? Or are you stating this as a hypothetical?

And are you parsing "paid" as meaning "received cash"? Because I've been clear that I meant he was paid by receiving a thing of value, namely an arrangement with an attorney to which he was not entitled.

Did you read the TRIAL transcripts? If not, why do you feel qualified to judge this?
Look, if I wanted to straw man your position, I'd say you would feel that no one can make a judgment without perfect information. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: you realize you have to make judgments all the time with imperfect data. So what's the minimum to have an opinion here? Is it reading the transcripts in their entirety? What about being briefed on the undisputed facts of the case? Not enough?