[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley]
What a crock. I am saying that lawyers lie to me all the time. I don’t have to go to law school to know when I’m being lied to. That’s like saying if I’m not Peyton Manning, I’m unqualified to determine whether his last pass was complete or incomplete. I don’t have to know a god damn thing about the legal profession to know that the asshole in front of me is lying to me.
Of course they’re too slippery to come right out and lie, they always disguise it with “I recall that you said X” or “I don’t recall you saying Y.” So when I call them on it they can always say that that’s what they recall. But when that exact same thing happens over and over again for years you have to conclude that they are either lying or they have the worst memory ever, which doesn’t seem likely since they remember anything beneficial to them in minute detail- it’s only the detrimental stuff they “can’t recall.”
[/QUOTE]
When I was a PD, I worked with a number of the folks whose job is was tp prepare PSI’s – pre-sentence investigation reports – which sounds somewhat along the lines of what you do.
Most of those guys were professionals. A few were bullshit artists, who couldn’t be arsed to double-check whether Jesus Martinez Seville was a different person with a different SSN and DOB than Jesus Seville Martinez, and even after I provided clear evidence that they were different people, would “accidentally” leave detrimental information from the wrong guy on the PSI. They were also famous for not confirming that a previous conviction had been reduced on appeal froma felony to a misdemeanor, or that a DWI was scrubbed by a probation before judgement. They did the absolute minimum work they possibly could and everyone else had to clean up their messes… and that often meant that someone had to stay in jail an extra day while “mistakes” were corrected.
I would never think to generalize my experience with a few bad apples to an entire profession, though.
[QUOTE=ivan astikov]
My “dirty little crimes” go back before 1991, so the legal system may have really cleaned up its act since then. Thanks for not being too judgmental!
[/QUOTE]
To be correct, it was the judge/jury that judged you.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
When I was a PD, I worked with a number of the folks whose job is was tp prepare PSI’s – pre-sentence investigation reports – which sounds somewhat along the lines of what you do.
Most of those guys were professionals. A few were bullshit artists, who couldn’t be arsed to double-check whether Jesus Martinez Seville was a different person with a different SSN and DOB than Jesus Seville Martinez, and even after I provided clear evidence that they were different people, would “accidentally” leave detrimental information from the wrong guy on the PSI. They were also famous for not confirming that a previous conviction had been reduced on appeal froma felony to a misdemeanor, or that a DWI was scrubbed by a probation before judgement. They did the absolute minimum work they possibly could and everyone else had to clean up their messes… and that often meant that someone had to stay in jail an extra day while “mistakes” were corrected.
I would never think to generalize my experience with a few bad apples to an entire profession, though.
[/QUOTE]
That’s very interesting. For my first two years at this job I did nothing but write PSIs. What you describe would not have flown here for two seconds. At the sentencing hearing, the judge always asked both attorneys if there were any mistakes in the PSI to be corrected on the record. The judges did not like for there to be any corrections- some of the judges would even get upset over typos- and something like a missed reduced sentence would definitely have resulted in an angry email from the judge to my boss. The four of us that wrote PSIs would kind of compete to see who could have the fewest corrections made on record.
I can’t imagine a public defender coming to me with the information you provided here like reduced sentences or mistaken identities. I just wouldn’t expect them to do that kind of legwork. Perhaps my experiences are farther from normal than I thought.
[QUOTE=don’t ask]
Coincidentally, this thread being about an Australian crime, last night on TV in a documentary about Schapelle Corby her lawyer revealed that and in response bolding mine.
Heh, that article is quite disingenuous - designed to sensationalize and support the same prejudices so startlingly on display in this thread. It is the reporter who is claiming that Ms Mahon is “defending” this guy’s tactics as “not unusual or unacceptable”, using an ambiguous quote to put those words in her mouth.
Which is odd, because the same reporter in the same article provides an actual quote that directly contradicts that insinuation:
[emphasis added]
Way I read it is that this particular lawyer’s infamous conduct has led to criticism of lawyers generally, which this Ms Mahon is attempting to rebuff.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
I’m paraphrasing a bit here, but Jefferson once said something to the effect that “it’s better that 100 guilty men go free than that one innocent man be punished.”
And he was right.
[/QUOTE]
If Jefferson said it, he was riffing on Blackstone :
[QUOTE=Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book IV, ch. 27]
FOURTHLY, all prefumptive evidence of felony fhould be admitted cautioufly: for the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty perfons efcape, than that one innocent fuffer.
[/QUOTE]