Question for the lawyers, defense of a paedophile

[Rube_E.Tewesday]

@Gfactor

Good point. Yes, he could have been trying to impeach the witnesses (I gather there was more than one kid testifying).

Excellent point. A lot of things that happen in a trial can seem strange if you’re not used to them. I once read a book by a couple of academics that included a chapter on the Saccho/Vanzetti case. They had sought the advice of a criminal lawyer, and were glad that they had, because many aspects that had totally flabbergasted them were in fact the routine parts of the trial.

[hotflungwok]

@Noel Prosequi

However, one possibility that occurs to me is that hotflungwok has missed the purported significance of the issue - it might have been intended to go to credit. (This is not a criticism of hfw). It may be that the kid/s had given contradictory statements about whether they consented or not, or did things supposedly inconsistent with their jury evidence, and the defence lawyer was trying to demonstrate that their evidence was not worthy of belief.

It is common enough for complainant children to adapt to an abusive environment, sending the abuser (frequently a family member) cards, hugging and showing affection, etc. This is frequently used against them, following a line of argument that involves getting the kid to agree that the abuse was terrible, that they hated it, hated being with Uncle Joe or whoever, and then whipping out the family happy snaps, holiday cards,etc, where the kid seems not to be troubled.

I know that that is not the same as running an argument that the kid consented, but it is a common enough argument, the significance of which might be readily misunderstood by an observer who was not familiar with the common patterns of trials. I profer it as a further possibility and no more.

I can assure you that at no point did the victims do anything you describe. As far as I know, none of them ever contradicted themselves. In fact, it was their testimony and answers to questioning that negated this argument.

I’m favoring the last ditch defense, or the defense lawyer repeating his client’s argument. pravnik pretty much nailed it. The defendent was caught in the act with all the victims, confessed at first, but changed his mind later, and gave the legal system a lot of trouble with insanity pleas and other demands. They had lots of testimony from the victims, from the witness, and from the doctor.

He was found guilty, and received life with parole for all 16 counts. He was originally given the death penalty, but the victim’s mother argued against it. The judge said that because he showed no remorse, did not ask for forgiveness, admitted to doing nothing wrong, and for other behavior during the trial he would not have a chance for appeal. If he had been given the death penalty he would have had a chance for appeal, and the victims would have to go through it all again.

[Gfactor]

@hotflungwok

The judge said that because he showed no remorse, did not ask for forgiveness, admitted to doing nothing wrong, and for other behavior during the trial he would not have a chance for appeal. If he had been given the death penalty he would have had a chance for appeal, and the victims would have to go through it all again.

Wait . . . . . what?

[hotflungwok]

@Gfactor

Wait . . . . . what?

This is what I was told the judge said. I’m getting all of my information 3rd hand, so it wouldn’t surprise me if I’m getting something wrong.

[Gfactor]

While the Supreme Court recently repeated that “The Federal Constitution imposes on the States no obligation to provide appellate review of criminal convictions.” http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-10198.pdf

I’m unaware of any state that doesn’t offer some form of criminal appeal to a defendant convicted after a trial.

So I’d say someone probably misheard the judge.

[vetbridge]

@Rube E. Tewesday

Yuck. Lawyerly incompetence sounds like a good guess.

Q. What do they call the guy who finishes last in his med school class?

A. Doctor.

[Caffeine.addict]

@John DiFool

I often wondered if there should be a 3rd party at a trial, a lawyer-type who will object to any statement or question which does not adhere to previously-established facts, and who is devoted in a disinterested neutral way to uncovering said facts when they may be relevant. Or am I just being a naive utopianist again?

Is this a whoosh? I think it is, but I was up late last night and haven’t had enough coffee today.