Is it permissable to say
"I can see no violation of his rights, neither can I see a reasonable argument in his defense."?
(
Lord Keeps meaning to procrastinate., Mon 9 Jul 2012, 18:00,
Reply)
There are always rights to defend. Even if it's as simple as a jurisdictional question, impropriety in initial questioning, or that the sentence handed down was excessive or not supported by evidence in the record.
It was not easy. I had to read reams of police, victim and medical testimony, which was sickening. But, as an officer of the court, you put those things aside and focus on assuring that under the law, all rights are defended.
Now, this is in no way to defend shyster lawyers who will say or do anything to get a client off. Ethics runs both ways.
(
BrokenCoccyx doesn't mind if you grope on, Mon 9 Jul 2012, 18:07,
Reply)
I've seen all those American court room films, you lot get every guilty person off scot-free.
Morals, pah!
(, Mon 9 Jul 2012, 18:09, Reply)
Funny thing is I can't even watch most of those movies/films because they're inaccurate.
A good example is The Firm. He was soo worried about not violating attorney-client privilege, but the Rules state that if you know your client is lying or testifying falsely, you must report it to the court.
Now, had the script been changed to: "It was the mob, they kill people, I'm a people, I don't want to be killed", I could have enjoyed it more.
(
BrokenCoccyx doesn't mind if you grope on, Mon 9 Jul 2012, 18:24,
Reply)
I never watch courtroom stuff either
as it makes me so cross. Did you know judges in Britain have never used gavels? No? Neither do tv producers.
(
t0ria has forgotten how this all works, Mon 9 Jul 2012, 18:59,
Reply)
Hahahaha.
They do in the states, but it's like every doctor wearing a stethoscope. Without them, they just couldn't be a doctor.
(
BrokenCoccyx doesn't mind if you grope on, Mon 9 Jul 2012, 19:33,
Reply)