- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Defense Attorneys, have you ever represented a client that you knew was a colossal POS?
Posted on 3/26/26 at 11:06 am to RFK
Posted on 3/26/26 at 11:06 am to RFK
quote:
I know, right?
We should want a society where the cops who are paid to protect us get to just to whatever they want.
Did you glean over the part of your own post where you admitted the cops/state had the evidence, or that the client told you they were guilty, so you tried to get guilty people off on technicalities?
1
Posted on 3/26/26 at 11:07 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
That was my job.
I would have done it for you, too.
I would have done it for you, too.
Posted on 3/26/26 at 11:09 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
How exactly do you determine who gets no defense?
Who said they don't get a defense? What justice is being obtained if someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and an attorney tries to or gets them off on a technicality?
Posted on 3/26/26 at 11:10 am to RFK
quote:
We should want a society where the cops who are paid to protect us get to just to whatever they want.
But there is absolutely a difference between making sure a defendant is granted a fair trial and exploiting technical procedures or digging into a cop’s employment file or conjuring up some theory of prejudice that you know didn’t really exist.
I’m not saying attorneys who do these things are doing anything wrong. They’re doing their jobs. It’s just the part of the job that can be tough for a lot of people to accept.
This post was edited on 3/26/26 at 11:12 am
Posted on 3/26/26 at 11:15 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
What justice is being obtained if someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and an attorney tries to or gets them off on a technicality?
You have to define "technicality" for me to answer.
What kind of "technicality" would work in the scenario you presented?
Posted on 3/26/26 at 11:15 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
What justice is being obtained if someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and an attorney tries to or gets them off on a technicality?
Its not the defense attorney's job to judge. The attorney's job is to defend their client. If there is a technicality that exists, then that is on the detectives and prosecutor.
Posted on 3/26/26 at 11:23 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You have to define "technicality" for me to answer.
What kind of "technicality" would work in the scenario you presented?
Use the example of your colleague where the client tells him that he's guilty and that the state has the evidence, so he attemtps to attack procedure to gain his client's "innocence"
Posted on 3/26/26 at 11:23 am to Ingeniero
quote:
This is an insane opinion of how the justice system should work. Of course the state should have to prove its case, no matter how heinous the crime. In fact, the most heinous crimes deserve the best defense. Those crimes are the ones most at risk of being decided through emotions rather than facts, and a solid defense ensures that the case has been proven and no avenues for scrapping a guilty verdict exist.
The alternative is to determine someone who does XYZ crime is beyond defense and is guilty based on accusation alone. No way that could go wrong.
Most of the people posting in this thread are clearly very low iq.
I bet liz was ready to lock up ole boy George Zimmerman. Shame he had a trial. Would have been one less POS out there amiright?
Posted on 3/26/26 at 11:26 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
Use the example of your colleague where the client tells him that he's guilty and that the state has the evidence, so he attemtps to attack procedure to gain his client's "innocence"
You did not answer the question
You just changed "technicality" to "procedure", effectively.
What "procedure" could overcome those facts?
Posted on 3/26/26 at 11:27 am to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
Most of the people posting in this thread are clearly very low iq.
I bet liz was ready to lock up ole boy George Zimmerman. Shame he had a trial. Would have been one less POS out there amiright?
Don't forget Trump getting cases thrown out on "technicalities" and/or "procedure"
Posted on 3/26/26 at 11:27 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They're using emotions instead of logic.
And they're the first to claim people on the other side use emotions while they think logically.
Everybody reacts emotionally as their default. It's why advertising in general and political advertising in particular, is so effective. It's designed to make you feel instead of think.
Posted on 3/26/26 at 11:28 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
Use the example of your colleague where the client tells him that he's guilty and that the state has the evidence, so he attemtps to attack procedure to gain his client's "innocence"
I'm not SFP (nor am I a lawyer) so my answer may not align with his, but that situation exists to keep guardrails on the state. Otherwise tyranny would be the default and we'd have to excuse any kind of infringement as long as it's in the name of getting the bad guy. Why have a Bill Of Rights, right? You shouldn't get any kind of privacy and the state should be able to look through whatever they want, whenever they want, and force you to testify on your own behalf, all in the name of justice. Wouldn't want any "technicalities" to get in the way of searching your shite.
Posted on 3/26/26 at 11:29 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You did not answer the question
You just changed "technicality" to "procedure", effectively.
What "procedure" could overcome those facts?
Ask the attorney who said that when he had no defense, he would attack cops not following procedure. To me, that's "yeah he's on camera killing that guy, but the CSI on scene picked up a casing without gloves on". Something like that isn't reasonable doubt, it's fishing for technicalities
Posted on 3/26/26 at 11:29 am to SlowFlowPro
These retards think criminal law practice is like the movies or TV.
Don't most prosecutors have a incredibly high conviction rate?
Don't most prosecutors have a incredibly high conviction rate?
Posted on 3/26/26 at 11:31 am to Ingeniero
quote:
I'm not SFP (nor am I a lawyer) so my answer may not align with his, but that situation exists to keep guardrails on the state. Otherwise tyranny would be the default and we'd have to excuse any kind of infringement as long as it's in the name of getting the bad guy. Why have a Bill Of Rights, right? You shouldn't get any kind of privacy and the state should be able to look through whatever they want, whenever they want, and force you to testify on your own behalf, all in the name of justice. Wouldn't want any "technicalities" to get in the way of searching your shite.
Holy tangent. We are talking about lawyers using whataboutisms to defend obviously or admittedly guilty people. I'm not talking wiretaps in innocent people's homes fishing for crimes
Posted on 3/26/26 at 11:32 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
To me, that's "yeah he's on camera killing that guy, but the CSI on scene picked up a casing without gloves on". Something like that isn't reasonable doubt, it's fishing for technicalities
Has something like this ever happened?
Should the state ever get dinged for not following the law?
Posted on 3/26/26 at 11:32 am to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
These retards think criminal law practice is like the movies or TV.
Isn't My Cousin Vinny used as an example of how to create reasonable doubt?
Posted on 3/26/26 at 11:33 am to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
Don't most prosecutors have a incredibly high conviction rate?
Yes
quote:
These retards think criminal law practice is like the movies or TV.
The funny thing is media like this turns the process into another version of a detective story and it's not like actual law at all.
Posted on 3/26/26 at 11:33 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
Isn't My Cousin Vinny used as an example of how to create reasonable doubt?
Where'd you hear that?
Posted on 3/26/26 at 11:34 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:But that's not how it works. In that scenario, that's likely to be a harmless error and a conviction would be upheld. Because you've got other evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ask the attorney who said that when he had no defense, he would attack cops not following procedure. To me, that's "yeah he's on camera killing that guy, but the CSI on scene picked up a casing without gloves on". Something like that isn't reasonable doubt, it's fishing for technicalities
Maybe a better scenario for you is where the only evidence a DA has is a potentially coerced confession. Or a confession without the guy being Mirandized. Those are probably the "technicalities" you're referring to.
But do we want to convict people with that evidence alone? If the government has some other clear cut evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, then put it up.
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News