The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
4+ year ada taking questions/abuse
Poast new message in this thread
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:05 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Top 20 law school. Median roughly. No journal. Trial team. Specialize in arson now.
Thought I wanted to be an AUSA asap. Don't want that at all now.
Willing to comment on the idiot a week or so ago who was all butt hurt about trying misdemeanors, etc.
Trial record: 18-1. Lost a case with a fucking confession. Won a case with a lineup and surveillance ID suppressed. |
 |
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:09 PM Author: Wonderful Vermilion Nursing Home Jap specialize in arson??!?! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19655827) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:12 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Yup. It's pretty badass. Cases are a bitch to prove though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19655832) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:15 PM Author: Wonderful Vermilion Nursing Home Jap the evidence goes up in smoke hehehe (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19655843) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:17 PM Author: Primrose bossy national The defendants bring in liar experts to say it was an electrical fire and such too. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19655854) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:20 PM Author: Know-it-all geriatric keepsake machete stain oh noes, they put up a liar to contradict your liar. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19655870) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:35 PM Author: Indigo regret (criminal defense attorney) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19655937) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:37 PM Author: clear parlour http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Cameron_Todd_Willingham_Wrongfully_Convicted_and_Executed_in_Texas.php (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19655947) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:37 PM Author: Primrose bossy national He did not do this. That's widely acknowledged. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19655952) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:41 PM Author: clear parlour i'm just saying it's good to know that the science of forensic arson investigation has been perfected since then. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19655967) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:49 PM Author: Primrose bossy national I'm not going to say it has been perfected, but no investigative thing has been perfected. That's the beauty of my job. I have discretion to charge a case, and a jury has the ability to tell me I'm wrong, and the appellate process can review all of that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656017) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:55 PM Author: clear parlour 1)if an expert had gotten on the stand for the defense in the Cameron Todd Willingham case and contradicted everything the state's expert said, zealots like yourself would have called him a liar and a fraud. 2) juries vary. i practice criminal law in an extremely conservative jurisdiction, it is nearly impossible to get an acquittal. i havent tried a case yet where I didn't have to strike several jurors who insisted that I (the defense) had a burden of proving innocence. Often, judges will even refuse to excuse such jurors for cause, after giving them a lengthy on-the-record rehabilitation instruction *wink wink* about the state's burden of proof. maybe this is different where you practice. 3) lol @ appellate review. come on, you know appellate review is weighted in favor of affirming. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:02 PM Author: Primrose bossy national So you are a criminal lawyer who doesn't believe in the jury system? We should just leave everything, including credibility assessments, in the hands of the enlightened like yourself?
If his expert got on the stand and contradicted everything the state said, then it is a jury decision. If the expert got me a report before trial that I believed or believed I could not beat, I would dismiss the case. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:11 PM Author: clear parlour "So you are a criminal lawyer who doesn't believe in the jury system?" No, if you read what I said, my complaint was that if you practice in a place with a tough-on-crime jury pool AND judges who lean prosecution-friendly (off the top of my head, I'd say roughly 75% of the judges where I practice are former prosecutors), a jury trial isn't the "blind scales of justice ferreting out truth" nonsense that we are led to believe it is. In reality, when you practice where I practice, if the state presents a plausible theory of guilt, you're done for. In the end, I think the jury system is a decent one, though deeply flawed. I think more meaningful appellate review would go a long way to fixing the problems. As far as the arson expert thing, I am merely commenting on the fact that you characterize defense experts as liars, which leads me to believe you would have done the same thing even in a situation where you would have been completely incorrect (the Cameron Todd Willingham case). How do you know that in another 20 years, all these experts that you use to put people away wont turn out to be full of shit just like in the Willingham case? |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:21 PM Author: Primrose bossy national 1-I have never met a criminal lawyer who was happy with the judges in their jurisdictions. I hate some of my judges.
2-I don't think you have a full flavor of arson cases. Most are domestic violence and mental illness cases, where the arson itself is not in dispute. It is only the very rare case that usually involves insurance fraud where we play the case like complex civil litigation. There, experts who aren't state employees are usually total hacks. I know you don't like that, but that is just what I see. It is true for experts insurance companies hire as well, who often come to the conclusion that the fire was incendiary.
Today, compared to the days of Willingham, fire investigations have been standardized, NFPA 921 was written and revised 7 times. Electrical engineers are involved; chemists are involved, etc. So I guess I don't know that everything won't change in 20 years, but I am certainly willing to go to the mat with what I have, which is plenty. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:37 PM Author: Mischievous Senate Roommate I Prosecute in a liberal area. I understand what you are saying, but from a reverse perspective.
There's nothing that can be done about Juror perceptions.
Weed is against the law, but in my jurisdiction, a weed-case is a 1-way street to Acquitalville.
You just have to run with the hand yer dealt. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:39 PM Author: clear parlour I'm glad to hear it, I understand it is the same for you guys in liberal jurisdictions. It's tough, and it is made even tougher by these guys like OP who seem oblivious to it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656244) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:41 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Stop it. I'm not oblivious. I'm just really unsympathetic. It's just shit you have to deal with. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656255) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:48 PM Author: clear parlour you are oblivious. It is abundantly clear that you are a crusader. i have worked with a lot of great prosecutors who are reasonable and good to work with, and i have worked with a lot of lunatics and zealots who are on a personal crusade to put as many people away as possible for as long as possible. I can read the signs, you quite obviously lean towards the latter category. You don't see the justice system from both sides, therefore you are oblivious to many important truths about the system. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:51 PM Author: Mischievous Senate Roommate He didn't call Experts liars, he said they were paid hacks.
Which I believe is a 180 description of a good majority of them.
The non-state employees will say whatever you pay them to say.
That's not being a "zealot", that's just reality when you've had to deal with:
1. Paid Expert 2. Dumb jury |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:53 PM Author: clear parlour Date: December 28th, 2011 12:17 PM Author: dots and commas
The defendants bring in liar experts to say it was an electrical fire and such too.
http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19655854 |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:56 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Jesus fucking Christ. Here on autoadmit we joke sometimes. Libpedo, reptile, etc. Thar doesn't mean I categorically believe that every fire investigator a defendant hires is a liar. I just know the one I deal with most frequently has had his license suspended for lying on the application. I have great respect for the types such as John Lentini. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656360) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:42 PM Author: Mischievous Senate Roommate Wait, I'm not saying I DISAGREE with the OP.
I understand that he has a hard job when it comes to experts.
DUI experts get paid GUAP to get on the stand and stretch foresenic evidence to the far bounds of credulity.
The intoxiylzer 5000 is a credited machine, but in your typical DUI case, the expert will get on the stand and try to CONFUSE THE FUCK outta the jury just so a drunk driver can beat his 3rd in 5 years DUI charge.
Experts are paid whores, imo. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:44 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Isn't the 8000 the newest one now? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656285) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:47 PM Author: Mischievous Senate Roommate Yeah, but my jurisdiction sticks w/ the 5000.
However, if that case in Kentucky goes sideways and Defense Bros actually get the Source Code, then you can expect to see Intoxilyzer 5, 6, 7, 8000.
Shit, they might try to make a bullshit iPhone app just to discredit it even further. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:53 PM Author: Primrose bossy national I forget this because it was years ago, but are they still fighting over source code? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656350) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 4:33 PM Author: Mischievous Senate Roommate Yeah, it's all smoke-screen.
They want the Source Code so they can STALL all current DUI Prosecution involving the Intox5000 and so they can confuse jurors EVEN MORE by hiring software engineers to speak technobabble. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:52 PM Author: clear parlour It goes both ways. They shop for an expert who will say what they want, we do the same. I dont think anyone is lying, I think they're just speaking an opinion that is beneficial to whatever side is putting them up. Of course there are exceptions to this, and there are crooked experts out there, but to suggest that they are only put up by defense attorneys is nonsense. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656344) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:29 PM Author: ocher diverse area mexican What % of the time do you strike a plea or go to trial against a D when you really aren't sure if he did it?
What would your bosses do if you said "I think this guy is innocent, let's let him walk"? |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:33 PM Author: Primrose bossy national I don't charge a case if I have any sort of questions. I have never gone to trial when I wasn't 100% convinced he did it. I think juries know when you aren't sure.
If a boss tells me to drop a case, I do.
As far as plea, I plea 99.9% of my cases. The real skill is negotiation. Trial is just the more talked about skill. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:35 PM Author: ocher diverse area mexican My second question was more about when you think someone is innocent but your boss thinks they are a guilty. Do they ever just override you and tell you to charge them anyways, or is it your call? |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:45 PM Author: Mischievous Senate Roommate In my office, those are the more "political cases". S
ince he's the Elected Official, I usually step back and let him handle it in whatever fashion he chooses.
If I feel a person is "innocent" or there is insufficient evidence, why am I wasting taxpayers money on a trial when I'm not confident in it?
It'll embarrass myself, my office, and my reputation w/ the Court. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:48 PM Author: Primrose bossy national I've never had it happen.
I would probably try and cheap deal the case with an extremely favorable plea.
Second, I would try and create some sort of trial conflict so I would have to hand it off.
Third, I would probably just tell them I can't do it and I'm quitting if you force me to try it. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 5:48 PM Author: naked stage cuckold Do you have total discretion as to pleas? If so, does that mean that you can be a total hardass or lenient as hell? I'm just wondering what stops some DA from offering extremely lax punishments to everyone because he's just a kind dude. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19657455) |
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:06 PM Author: angry offensive foreskin who pays your bar dues and CLE fees? describe your first month/year as an ADA. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:09 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Office pays.
First month and year were terrible. I was assigned to prelims, where they did not preliminary hearings. So I sat there with my new degree and typed a plea if a criminal wanted one. If not I shuffled the paper up the ladder.
After that I did small time felony trials, drug possession etc, and after 2 years of that got promoted to my specialty.
But the first year was rough.
It's worse now because of ITE. No one quits, so no one gets promoted, meaning the people in prelims are there indefinitely. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:15 PM Author: angry offensive foreskin what kind of resources does your office have? lexis/westlaw or some third party bullshit? law library? decent offices?
|
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:19 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Westlaw but it is cases only. I can't tell you how many times I wanted to run a report on an expert but could not.
Starting off, we all just sat at a computer where there was a group of computers. Since then it has been an office with a window. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:08 PM Author: ocher diverse area mexican Why don't you want to be an AUSA?
Any plans to sell out and do boutique criminal defense for rich people and profit? |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:12 PM Author: Primrose bossy national I thought AUSA was the backdoor to biglaw. Now I just see them as risk averse patsies. Oh sorry special agent, we can't take that case with DNA and surveillance, we need color surveillance at the border, etc.
I'm here for at least another 6 years because of IBR.
After that, I won't do criminal defense, maybe some sort of civil stuff where I get to trial a lot.
My ideal job would be large firms do all the work and just have me as the closer.
Likely, I won't do law anymore. Coaching high school basketball would be a fun third career. Who knows? |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:14 PM Author: ocher diverse area mexican Any interest in politics? |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:16 PM Author: Primrose bossy national That was actually why I applied for DA jobs to start with. I really don't care about that anymore. I'm 5'6 and look like I'm 12, which is tough for a politician. I really lost the fire for politics generally. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19655847) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:18 PM Author: ocher diverse area mexican How similar are your cases / criminals / police contacts to the people on the wire?
In what ways is your job most like the wire, and in what ways is it most different? |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:20 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Don't watch the show. I do watch law and order, though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19655864) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:28 PM Author: ocher diverse area mexican Dood, you are missing out. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:20 PM Author: razzle-dazzle snowy prole Bro, you wanna coach HS basketball at that height? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19655868) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:21 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Point guard brain. Bench talent. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19655873) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 6:52 PM Author: glassy razzle school cafeteria Don't be a moron. Your height has nothing to do with why you won't succeed in politics. Lots of 5'6-5'8ish congressmen, governors, etc. Unless you want to be POTUS, I don't think it is a problem and even if you did want to be POTUS it couldn't be as big of a liability as being Black. So man up and run if you want to get into politics. You sound like a pussy honestly. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19658817) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:12 PM Author: pungent skinny woman gay wizard Have you had any offers to join privates? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19655831) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:14 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Nothing serious. I have had people I start with go private recently. They all either work together or do a lot of coverage for each other, so I could if I wanted but I don't. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19655836) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:17 PM Author: pungent skinny woman gay wizard Youre going to be a ADA for ten years? You must be in California. Anywhere else and you'd be living on like 50k. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19655855) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:20 PM Author: Primrose bossy national 56K hoss. But IBR and the office does loan repayment where you get 1K extra quarterly. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19655871) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:19 PM Author: Motley Theater cook county starts at 55k
do you not get raises every year as a DA? |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 5:53 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Nope salary freeze since I was 9 months in. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19657479) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:21 PM Author: Domesticated Market Mother Can you give an aspiring trial attorney some tips on cross-examination, other than the conventional ones (like don't ask a question u dont know the answer to)? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19655875) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:27 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Sure.
Two basic points. Ask only leading questions. And make only one point per question. Live by that.
Broader points for defense witnesses. They come in two types. High impact low credibility and low impact high credibility.
HILC is the defendant's girlfriend, mom, drug buddy etc. What they say, if believed, has high impact on your case. The key with them is to show their bias.
LIHC is usually someone like the defendant's boss at work. Usually a decent person. They will say, "I know Johnny and he would never do this." The key with them is to treat them with kid gloves and make the point that this person knows nothing about the facts of this crime.
|
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:30 PM Author: Domesticated Market Mother Your LIHC/HILC was something I never heard of. Who taught u this? Also, how does one retain composure during the questioning? Any intangible advice?And how do you close your closing argument? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19655920) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:37 PM Author: Primrose bossy national I learned this through a CLE. You keep composure by being prepared. With the leading questions, the witness should only be saying one word answers to the questions. That makes control better.
If they go off the track, I do this. "Mr Smith, I asked you went inside right. To my question of 'you went inside,' your answer is yes. Correct?"
Then I write what he said on a white board.
|
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:44 PM Author: Primrose bossy national For closing
First close Theme Facts of the case interweaving the theme Instructions Other relevant ones Reasonable doubt Elements of the crime Uncontested elements first Contested ones second Why contested ones resolve in favor of guilty Theme or gauntlet (where you ask the defense attorney a question and then sit down --- be very careful with this)
Rebuttal Theme or mock them for not responding to the gauntlet Review elements that were not contested Review what reasonable doubt instruction actually says Respond to the arguments that address the elements Mock the arguments that are distractions Theme Based on the evidence find him what you know him to -- guilty.
|
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:47 PM Author: Domesticated Market Mother My Trial Ad prof always emphasized making a "theme" for your case. But can you give me a cogent example of an effective theme in an armed robbery case for illustration purposes? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656004) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:52 PM Author: Primrose bossy national You are here today because that man Johnny Defendant (point at him) had a plan. He had a plan to get money the quick easy and violent way when he took this gun (hold it but don't point a jury) and shoved it in Sally Victim's face and stole not just the $20 she had on her, but stole her sense of security in her neighborhood, her sense of safety. With your verdict, you are going to tell that man if his plan worked. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656029) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:28 PM Author: Aphrodisiac Tan Travel Guidebook 1. primacy and recency -- start and finish with your strongest two points, chronology be damned. Jurors will remember best the first and last thing that was said.
2. Skip all the "Good afternoon Officer Jones, thanks for being here" shit. Youre wasting your precious first impression and building up the enemy's witness. The first thing out of your mouth should be a hard hitting declarative sentence. Don't ever call the witness "officer" or "doctor" or whatever unless its to be used ironically after you skewered him or he's being obstinate |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:30 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Disagree strongly with point number 2.
You need to get the things the witness will not fight you on out first. The things that he must admit or look stupid denying. After that go hostile. But after you go hostile, there's no coming back. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:34 PM Author: Aphrodisiac Tan Travel Guidebook Meh. Youre a prosecutor, you dont know how to cross, with all due respect. Just like we PDs can't direct to save our lives.
In cross you have to establish dominance right away. The wit already knows youre his enemy, don't play nice. Let him fight -- you already have the answers locked in, you are just forcing him to enunciate them. He can't have any wiggle if you have written a good cross. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:35 PM Author: Domesticated Market Mother When do you realize that cross might not be effective/pointless for a given witness? And what if your client strongly suggests that you engage in cross but you seem to think that it would counterproductive in the broader scheme of things? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19655939) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:45 PM Author: Aphrodisiac Tan Travel Guidebook The only times I would elect to back off a cross is if the state's wit really doesnt hurt us -- just let the direct stand, or if there's a compassion-based reason to go easy, i.e. an ancient person or a child. Sometimes you *have* to cross them, though, even if they are super sympathetic.
Remember, the cross really is just your own narrative. Its you the lawyer testifying. Youre telling your story, allowing the wit to occasionally say "yes". |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:46 PM Author: Primrose bossy national The PD above might be able to address this better, but the defendant doesn't have shit to say about any of that.
They get to decide whether to go to trial and whether to testify and that's it. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:34 PM Author: angry offensive foreskin how do you handle witnesses that continue to be mouthy and go beyond the scope of what you're asking "Yes, but...." "I already said that ...." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19655933) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:39 PM Author: Primrose bossy national See above.
Edit: Sometimes, if they are rude or mouthy I just let them go, but be careful with this. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:24 PM Author: jet preventive strike tanning salon http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/us/tough-sentences-help-prosecutors-push-for-plea-bargains.html?pagewanted=all (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19655885) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:29 PM Author: Primrose bossy national What's your point?
If some jackass wants to waste my time with a trial, I am more than happy to waste decades of his time. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:36 PM Author: clear parlour (zealot prosecutor) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19655942) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:47 PM Author: overrated theatre Holy fuck. This is a horrible sentiment. (I am a 1st year AUSA in flyover.)
Edit: Yes, I understand it's just how shit works. But I've been wrong enough times on issues where I was 100% sure I was right where the practice still makes me uncomfortable. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:58 PM Author: clear parlour prosecutors don't see defendants as real people. it's part of the culture. They think nothing of putting people away for a few extra decades simply for disagreeing about the strength of the state's case. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656048) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:04 PM Author: Primrose bossy national No. They would have saved the extra decade by taking the reasonable plea. If they don't like the plea, then they are gambling big time. And if they lose, then it's not my fault. You don't get to go all in in poker and get half your money back because it isn't fair you lost so much. Same logic here. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656067) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:21 PM Author: clear parlour stiffer sentences mean that "going all in" costs way more. don't you get that? and dont you see how it gives prosecutors more leverage? the legislature is giving prosecutors more "chips" to muscle people with. you don't think that higher sentencing guidelines/ranges will motivate prosecutors to push for stiffer sentences in plea bargains as well? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656148) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:23 PM Author: Primrose bossy national I get all of that. I just think of all the players in the system, they are the one who are directly accountable politically, so they should have the leverage. You just have to have the right people as prosecutors to make sure it is used properly. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656163) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:30 PM Author: clear parlour you mean the kind of people who say "meh, fuck the extra 20 years of his life, he wasted my time making me try the case"? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656195) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:36 PM Author: Primrose bossy national I will step back a little though. I guess the feds see primarily drug sale cases that have high sentences for comparatively minimal conduct. I deal exclusively with very dangerous people, so I'm probably jaded. I have no heartache over the guy who got 25 years for a firebombing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656221) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 5:02 PM Author: Mischievous Senate Roommate You mean, "meh, fuck the extra 20 years of his life, he wasted my time AND THE TIME OF THE VICTIM HE SHOT/STABBED by making try the case." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19657200) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:22 PM Author: jet preventive strike tanning salon Jesus you are fucking idiotic. It's not like if they get acquitted they get 30 years added to their life. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656154) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:27 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Who's fault is that? The message is simple. Do not fuck around with trial unless you are certain of acquittal. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656186) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:41 PM Author: clear parlour "DONT FUCK AROUND WITH YOUR DAY IN COURT, OR ELSE!!!!" (the American justice system) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656259) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:41 PM Author: jet preventive strike tanning salon That's disgusting. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656260) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:48 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Why? You know the stakes. It's that simple. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656326) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:08 PM Author: jet preventive strike tanning salon Are you pretending to be dumb?
"It's pretty unjust that prosecutors are extorting plea bargains using an array of draconian mandatory minimum sentences and enhancers." "Yea defendants are dumb not to take it so it isn't unjust." |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:10 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Who gets to determine it is draconian? An academic? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656423) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:12 PM Author: clear parlour knowing the stakes = fair? how about a completely unfair situation in which you know the stakes. you seem retarded now. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:16 PM Author: Primrose bossy national To what extent are we expected to paternalistically coddle criminals? They know the stakes yet chose to put the courts and the state through the cost of a trial. Despite all of the they still need yet more coddling because an academic who has never tried a case says it's unfair.
As I said above, make a reasonable plea, and if they don't take it, that's not my fault. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:17 PM Author: jet preventive strike tanning salon The thing is you don't make reasonable pleas because you have the unfair leverage. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656451) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:19 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Says who?
When you are facing 30 years and I give a plea of 5, that's reasonable. Your mom telling you probation is what you need is what is unfair, not my plea. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 5:04 PM Author: Mischievous Senate Roommate Says who?
Johnny was busted for trafficking 10 keys of cocaine.
He's looking at 10 yrs confinement if he goes to trial.
If he pleads, he'll do half in/half out.
He doesn't get the luxury of a "do over" just because he GAMBLED and lost at trial.
He did the crime.
He knew the offer
He made an ADULT decision.
The Pros. isn't to blame for him sitting in jail for 10 yrs. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:24 PM Author: clear parlour the way you describe it shows your twisted view. "chose to put the courts and the state through the cost of a trial" This is their constitutional right, it is not some burden they are placing upon the taxpayer. The state is not doing a defendant a favor by putting the case to a jury, it is their burden of proof. Criminal defendants can waive that right in exchange for a more lenient sentence, it is NOT the other way around, criminal defendants do not force anything, it is not their case or their burden. "Despite all of the they still need yet more coddling because an academic who has never tried a case says it's unfair." As citizens, we are all entitled to an opinion about what punishments are fair or unfair. Fine, it's your opinion that it is completely fair to put someone away for X number of years for Y crime, but you can't ignore the fact that *increasing* criminal penalties for any given crime puts more leverage in the hands of prosecutors, and thus makes more defendants waive their constitutional right to a trial by jury. As someone who thinks that prosecutors already have enough or too much leverage on that front (how many cases actually go to trial again?), I think this is a problem, and I dont need to be a practicing attorney to hold that viewpoint or justify it. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:29 PM Author: Primrose bossy national They absolutely have a right to go to trial, but that has consequences. If you are willing to finance the justice system where every case goes to trial, be my guest, but the real world does not work that way.
You can certainly have your viewpoint, and I can criticize how much value that viewpoint has. Yay America. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:19 PM Author: Thriller cruise ship old irish cottage because of the sixth amendment, you fucking zealot (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656455) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:22 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Look. Here's the deal. You can pay 20% more in taxes and we can have a Cadillac justice system, where prosecutors work hand in hand with sociologists to determine what is best for every poor soul. Until then, you have people doing this at significantly less than what they are worth, and if you want truly dangerous criminal prosecuted competently, you need prosecutors with leverage. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656470) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:25 PM Author: jet preventive strike tanning salon Prison is incredibly expensive. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656487) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:27 PM Author: Primrose bossy national So you have signed up for the 20% surcharge? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656499) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:27 PM Author: clear parlour typical disingenuous false dichotomy. how about you just stop thinking about a trial by jury as a big fucking favor you are doling out to the unworthy masses, that wont cost a penny. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:31 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Sure it will cost my employer (you). It's not a favor. It's their right. And if they chose to exercise it, game fucking on. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656516) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:30 PM Author: Thriller cruise ship old irish cottage It would be a lot cheaper to let every cop in America surveil whomever they want at any time and break into any private home if they have an inkling of criminal activity. But we have the Fourth Amendment, so we don't do that. (Although it's getting closer to that point every day.) Personal constitutional rights can be costly. That doesn't mean we just say fuck it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656512) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:32 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Exactly. They can have that right or they can plea. As such, I have little sympathy to what happens to them afterward. They made their bed, and they can sleep in it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656520) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:35 PM Author: clear parlour would you support harsher criminal penalties for people who refuse consent to search their home? or how about people who decline to be interviewed by police without a lawyer? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656528) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:36 PM Author: Primrose bossy national No (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656533) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:37 PM Author: clear parlour So why are you so hostile to one's constitutional right to trial? Why do you gleefully fuck over people who simply want you to prove the allegations you make? Why do you get off on making people pay for taking their case to trial? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656540) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:41 PM Author: Primrose bossy national I'm not doing the fucking over. They are doing it to themselves. Also, I don't do sentencing. The legislature determines the range and the judge determines the number. That is what society has determined the crime to be worth. If they want to face the full extent of possible punishment, be my guest and go to trial. If they want leniency, take a plea. But it is a waste of my time and the limited resources my job has to allow both a trial and the leniency that comes with a plea. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656559) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:44 PM Author: clear parlour Is it possible for criminal penalties to become so harsh that they effectively strip someone of their right to a trial by jury? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656570) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:46 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Theoretically sure. If hand to hand drug sale had the death penalty, I would say that's the case. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656585) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:52 PM Author: clear parlour right. so, surely then, sentences must exist on a continuum from lenient to harsh, where we have complete freedom of trial by jury on one end (if, say, the sentence did not vary between plea and conviction by jury) and complete obviation of that right on the other end (death penalty available for all crimes, for example). given that, it is useful to examine whether we are at a place on the continuum where the right is being *infringed* upon, but perhaps not entirely abridged. your posts display an attitude that is completely dismissive of that idea. what we are saying is that what you are admitting ITT (take the plea or go to hell, etc) clearly demonstrates that. You continue to respond with "well, they knew the stakes, fuck them," but the real issue is how much power you wield because of sentencing guidelines (which, by the way, is not something that 99% of laypeople have any fucking clue about). If you are sufficiently empowered by harsh sentencing guidelines, your impetus to negotiate or make reasonable offers diminishes rapidly. So, you may think you are dealing fairly with everyone, and that they all enjoy a robust constitutional right to a fair trial, but that may be an illusion. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:54 PM Author: Primrose bossy national It's just a line-drawing exercise. I think the sentencing schemes I have seen are on the fair, non-infringing side of the line. You disagree. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656624) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 3:02 PM Author: clear parlour so when, as the article above pointed out, an increase in sentencing guidelines precipitates a sharp decrease in the number of cases that go to trial, that doesn't send up any red flags in your mind? If all else remained the same (I know that's not the case IRL, just go with the hypo), and all we did was double all criminal penalties, and suddenly the number of cases going to trial plummeted by 90%, would you call that justice? |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 3:10 PM Author: Primrose bossy national I don't see any correlation between number of cases going to trial and "justice."
Justice is a fair consequence for the conduct. If we disagree on that, then the legislative process will pick a winner.
What is justice for you? The State loses X% of cases at trial, regardless of the circumstances.
I think in the last thread on this there was defendant sympathetic people complaining about prosecutors beating their chests over over winning trials with confessions, etc. I can say personally that's not the case. It feels best to win the hard, circumstantial case. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 7:47 PM Author: Bright bawdyhouse alpha pass, pass, pass the buck. fucking eichmann (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19660285) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:00 PM Author: Primrose bossy national The article makes it out to be this sob story of how people get screwed by going to trial.
I disagree with that is the strongest way. Trial is the 20-carat diamond of fairness. If they chose to go to trial, I'm not sympathetic to fairness complaints.
Their sentence is what the legislature has said their crime is worth. If they don't take my more than reasonable offer and get convicted, the sentence is not my fault. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:11 PM Author: ocher diverse area mexican But legislatures have jacked up sentences over decades to make it easier for you to bully people into pleading. Very few people actually think 19 year olds should go to jail for 30 years for low-level drug dealing or shit like that. They just want to have the hammer there just in case. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656087) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:15 PM Author: Primrose bossy national I agree. That's why it is very important for defense attorneys to get across to the 19-year old what he faces and not jut be someone else who tells him he is getting screwed. When mom and your attorney tells you how unfair you are being treated, horrible decision happen. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656108) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 5:10 PM Author: Mischievous Senate Roommate If THE PEOPLE don't like it, then they need to call their Congressman/State Legislator and make them change it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19657254) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:22 PM Author: overrated theatre Do you really think trial is completely fair? The government has a huge advantage in almost every single trial. I haven't met a single AUSA who thinks differently. I'm fine with that (I wouldnt be a prosecutor if I wasn't), but it's still something to acknowledge and think about when making "reasonable offers." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656155) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:26 PM Author: Primrose bossy national I think the government has the disadvantage in trial because of the burden.
I know as an AUSA you might see the government having a huge advantage, but that's what happens when you all cherry pick the cases the way you do. It's simply not the case where I work.
But that said, everyone has to evaluate a case for what it is worth and make an offer accordingly. That's what I do, and I assume you do as well. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:28 PM Author: clear parlour "I think the government has the disadvantage in trial because of the burden." LOL, just LOL Do you think you're 18-1 because you're some kind of genius? |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:32 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Not at all.
I understand a lot of what you are saying. People inherently trust the police etc.
I know the feds don't see a lot of DV cases, but watch a few of those and talk to me about advantages. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:37 PM Author: clear parlour yeah, I admit it must be tough to prosecute a case when you have an uncooperative DV victim. I have tried a bunch of those cases. But if you think making your case under those circumstances is tough, try cross examining a veteran cop (in uniform, of course) who is lying on the stand, then get back to me. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:29 PM Author: Domesticated Market Mother Have you ever worked on a collateral relief petition? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656188) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:32 PM Author: Primrose bossy national No idea what that is. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656203) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:33 PM Author: Domesticated Market Mother Habeas corpus? Never heard of it? WTF? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656211) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:37 PM Author: Primrose bossy national I have heard of it. I just don't do any appellate or federal practice. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656229) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 5:12 PM Author: Mischievous Senate Roommate Come to State COurt and prosecute a simple possession case, or (God Forbid) a fucking traffic offense.
Tell me how easy it is to get a conviction on an unsympathetic jury when you don't have:
1. Blood 2. Rape 3. Death 4. $$$ 5. Victims |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:37 PM Author: Domesticated Market Mother Have you worked on 2255 petitions, brother? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656230) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:39 PM Author: Primrose bossy national As an intern for USA in law school. PCR stuff right. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656238) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 7:09 PM Author: Chocolate harsh kitchen how the fuck did you get AUSA (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19659751) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 5:00 PM Author: Mischievous Senate Roommate You don't like it?
Hire more Judges and build more Courthouses.
Until then, how in the hell do you expect to handle the INCREASE # of crimes that are taking place?
In a perfect world, everybody Defendant would have their day in Court and Atticus Finch would give a stirring appeal for their freedom.
But we live in reality. Do you REALLY THINK the DA could try half of all the cases that come thru their office? My office has 15,000+ cases this year. There is no way in HELL we could have tried 1/4th of them if they were all pushed to trial.
If you did the crime/offense, work out a deal, but don't play around w/ the system just because you don't "want" to do time or pay a fine. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:47 PM Author: angry offensive foreskin have you ever done any other type of law? do you get any type of fulfillment from your job? im in shitlaw and this sprain and strain bullshit doesnt do it for me and even if the money were big i'd still feel lame to tell ppl im a PI lawyer. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:53 PM Author: ocher diverse area mexican The people need justice. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 12:55 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Never did anything else outside of internships in law school.
I like my job but it strains me too. I don't see how I will put a kid through a private school. I hate it when non-lawyers expect me to have money and such, but everyone has their calling. I'm pretty sure this is mine. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:27 PM Author: confused orchestra pit weed whacker are you sandy cohen? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656183) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:38 PM Author: Primrose bossy national No (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656236) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:27 PM Author: Motley Theater can you describe the pay structure of the typical DA/SA office? how much more are you making now than you started?
do all offices allow people to specialize and how much choice/ability do you have in picking your specialization? |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:30 PM Author: Primrose bossy national I make exactly the same as the day I started. ITE has fucked raises. There are people who have been around two years longer who make 30K more. It's depressing.
It's office politics as far as specialization. You tell you boss at trial group what you want, and you might get it, you might not. Needs of the office vs. openings vs. requested place etc.
But if you have some burning desire to be a dope prosecutor or sex crime prosecutor, you can do it if you are patient enough. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:32 PM Author: Motley Theater holy shit
you seriously make the exact same as when you started? that fucking sucks that some fresh faced first year brings home the same as you. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:31 PM Author: Mischievous Senate Roommate Hey Jackass,
I'm that "idiot from a week ago" that was butt hurt over misdemeanors.
I'd expect a fellow Prosecutor to understand how fucking annoying it is to have a non-cooperative opposing counsel who likes to waste YOUR TIME just for the Lulz.
Either way, keep up the good fight, Bruh. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:32 PM Author: clear parlour link? explain? |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:33 PM Author: Motley Theater does your office give yearly raises? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656207) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:33 PM Author: Mischievous Senate Roommate lolwut?
Raises?
I think I heard about thoses long ago before every Gov't employee was FurloughPWN'd. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:34 PM Author: Motley Theater fuck my ass man
so if one takes a job with an office that starts you at 36k you are pretty much stuck with 36k? fuck that |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:39 PM Author: Mischievous Senate Roommate Yup.
You trade off the RIDICULOUSLY LOW PAY for:
Gov't benefits reasonable schedule (non-trial weeks) a lot of trial experience |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:39 PM Author: Primrose bossy national It comes in waives. People at my office in 2003 had their salaries increase by 40% by 2007 but frozen since then. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656246) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:36 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Just joshing dude. You were getting it bad. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656224) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:40 PM Author: Mischievous Senate Roommate I've come to realize this:
1. People LIKE Public Defenders, but they don't respect them.
2. People RESPECT Prosecutors, but they don't like us.
I never tell people my job title unless I'm speaking to either other lawyers or other Professionals.
Other than that, you are going to get a bitchfest about SOMETHING that some Prosecutor did millions of miles away/years ago. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:46 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Sounds about right.
PD parties are much more fun. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:48 PM Author: Mischievous Senate Roommate PD's in my jurisdiction got the young spinners.
There's a couple that I sit in court just dreaming about bending them over that podium. . . |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:23 PM Author: Demanding sable rehab "There's a couple that I sit in court just dreaming about bending them over that podium. . "
why don't you do something about it? |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 4:36 PM Author: Mischievous Senate Roommate Prosecutor bangin' PD.
Wouldn't work.
Maybe if we operated in different Courts/sections and had no chance of ever working on the same cases.
But nah. . .plus my g/f wouldn't be too happy about it either.
. . .
. . . .
. . . . .
. . .she already said no to any kind of girl-on-girl action. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:56 PM Author: clear parlour an office full of tightly-wound authoritarians has shitty parties. no way. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656359) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:22 PM Author: Thriller cruise ship old irish cottage outed (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656467) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:41 PM Author: Domesticated Market Mother http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-571.pdf
thoughts on this case? |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:43 PM Author: Primrose bossy national They behaved very badly. I think he should be able to get $$$$$$$$$$ but that's more of an emotional feeling than anything else. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656276) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:48 PM Author: Domesticated Market Mother Thoughts on whether Judges decide motions on the basis of fairness (i.e. gut feeling) or whether they seriously attempt to ground their reasoning on the basis of law?
Also, how competent do you find these state elected judges? Are they well-versed in the intricacies of evidence and criminal procedure, and generally on top of the latest state supreme court and appellate decisions? |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:52 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Judges are all over the place.
Some are almost overtly political. You know who they vote for and how the motion will turn out before there is even a response.
Most are fair though. And I have lost a few major motions, but didn't feel screwed, which is the best outcome. I have also won some that I would have ruled the other way on if I were a judge.
My state has appointed judges for my county, who do a retention process every few years. I think it is better than direct elections, largely because the public knows jack shit about what makes a good judge. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:59 PM Author: clear parlour would you favor criminal liability for this sort of conduct? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656376) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:02 PM Author: Primrose bossy national On a knowingly mens rea. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656386) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:07 PM Author: clear parlour lol, as if prosecutors hide exculpatory evidence by accident (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656404) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:19 PM Author: Domesticated Market Mother Why do you prosecutors always withhold Brady evidence? Did you fuckers ever take PR or some sort of CLE course on abiding by basic norms of legal ethics? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656457) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:26 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Most likely because the prosecutor doesn't know what the police have. Some case agent leave the photos in the evidence room that we don't know about until after trial etc. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656497) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:30 PM Author: Domesticated Market Mother Stop being an apologist for prosecutorial misconduct. We all know you fuckers intentionally withhold exculpatory information and then hide behind civil immunity protections and enjoy the pervasively lax professional discipline shelling of sanctions (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656513) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:34 PM Author: Primrose bossy national I am not apologizing for it. I have never and have never met anyone intentionally withholding exculpatory evidence. That would get us disbarred. Simply not worth the risk. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656524) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:36 PM Author: clear parlour "That would get us disbarred." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAH AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAH WOW |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:37 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Am I wrong? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656539) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:39 PM Author: clear parlour not if the people who knowingly conceal evidence are too stupid to do it in a way that provides plausible deniability if caught. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656550) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 8:42 PM Author: Mischievous Senate Roommate u sound dumb.
I say that b/c in my jurisdiction, people have been DISBARRED for shit like that.
Hell, look over at NC for Mike Nifong, how well did that shit work for him? |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:37 PM Author: Domesticated Market Mother Ball v. State, 631 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. App. - Eastland 1982, pet ref’d): Error not to disclose picture of defendant with black eye at time of arrest when self defense claimed. Collins v. State, 642 S.W.2d 80 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth 1982): State did not tell defense material witnesses name or location. Cook v. State, 940 S.W.2d 623 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996): Withheld evidence that the defendant knew victim and had been to her apartment and failed to disclose material inconsistent statements of a key witness to the Grand Jury. Crutcher v. State, 481 S.W.2d 113 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972): Witnesses inconsistent statements. Ex parte Adams, 768 S.W.2d 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989): Crime victims prior inconsistent statement. Ex parte Brandley, 781 S.W.2d 886 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989): Inconsistent statement by witnesses. Ex parte Lewis, 587 S.W.2d 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979): Existence of doctors letter stating -10- defendant was insane. Ex parte Turner, 545 S.W.2d 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977): Fact that police officer aided in obtaining release of main witness. Flores v. State, 940 S.W.2d 189, 191 (Tex. App. - San Antonio 1996, no pet.): Witness statement that was material in corroborating defendant’s argument that victim shot herself. Granger v. State, 653 S.W.2d 868 (Tex. App. 13 Dist. 1983), aff’d, 683 S.W.2d 387 (Tex. 1984), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1012 (1985): Failure to disclose existence of a deal that changed witness’s sentence from death to lie. Ham v. State, 760 S.W.2d 55 (Tex. App. - Amarillo 1988, no pet.): Prosecution withheld doctors report which supported defense position and refuted prosecution. Jones v. State, 850 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth 1993): Prosecution failed to disclose in a timely manner exculpatory information in a victim impact statement which negated the evidence of defendant’s intent to shoot the victim. O’Rarden v. State, 777 S.W.2d 455 (Tex. App. - Dallas 1989, pet. ref’d): Failure to provide defense copy of Dept. of Human Resources report which indicated no sexual abuse occurred. Thomas v. State, 841 S.W.2d 399 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992): Witness statement to police that defendant was not in a physical position to have been able to commit the offense. Ex parte Masonheimer, 220 S.W.3d 494 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (double jeopardy barred a third trial of a defendant whose mistrial motions were necessitated primarily by state’s intentional failure to disclose exculpatory evidence under Brady with the specific intent to avoid the possibility of an acquittal). Harm v. State, 183 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Child Protective Services was not acting as a State agent, and thus knowledge of records from CPS that allegedly indicated that, in the -11- past, victim had made unfounded allegations of sexual abuse and had engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior, could not be imputed to State as a basis for asserting that failure to disclose such information constituted a Brady violation in prosecution for indecency with a child; records were created in the course of an non-criminal investigation that was unrelated to defendant, but within the duties of CPS to protect the welfare and safety of the children, and the records significantly predated the allegations against defendant. Keeter v. State, 175 S.W.3d 756 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Defendant did not preserve Brady claim for review when he moved for new trial on ground that evidence establishing innocence was withheld by material prosecution witness; the evidence allegedly showing preservation was relevant to claim of actual innocence, the defendant did not mention Brady in his motion or during the hearing on the motion and did not include any Brady-related cases in his post-hearing submission, and neither the state nor the trial court understood that the defendant was raising a Brady claim. Federal Cases Ballinger v. Kirby, 3 F.3d 1371 (10th Cir. 1993): Exculpatory photograph. Banks v. Reynolds, 54 F.3d 1508 (10th Cir. 1995): Fact that another person had been arrested for the same crime. Boone v. Paderick, 541 F.2d 447 (4th Cir. 1976): Prosecutor did not disclose deal with accomplice/witness for leniency. Bowen v. Maynard, 799 F.2d 593 (8th Cir. 1986): Evidence that former police officer was initial suspect in the murder for which defendant was convicted. Brown v. Borg, 951 F.2d 1011 (9th Cir. 1991): Knowledge by prosecutor that her theory of the case was wrong. Carter v. Rafferty, 826 F.2d 1299 (3rd Cir. 1987): Reports of polygraph test given to -12- important prosecution witness, but see Wood v. Bartholomew, 516 U.S. 1, 116 S.Ct. 7, 133 L.Ed.2d 1 (1995) (because polygraphs are inadmissable even for impeachment they are not subject to Brady). Chaney v. Brown, 730 F.2d 1334 (10th Cir. 1984): Conviction affirmed but death sentence reversed where withheld evidence contradicted prosecution’s theory of the murder and placed defendant 110 miles from the scene. Derden v. McNeel, 932 F.2d 605 (5th Cir. 1991): Radio log that would have impeached State’s witnesses. DuBose v. Lefevre, 619 F.2d 973 (2nd Cir. 1980): State’s encouragement to witness to believe that favorable testimony would result in leniency toward the witness. Guerra v. Johnson, 90 F.3d 1075 (5th Cir. 1996): Information showing police intimidation of witness and failure to disclose evidence regarding who was seen carrying the murder weapon shortly after the shooting. Hudson v. Whitley, 979 F.2d 1058 (5th Cir. 1992): Evidence that the State’s only eyewitness had initially identified someone else, and that person had been arrested. Hughes v. Bowers, 711 F.Supp. 1574 (N. D. Ga. 1989), aff’d, 896 F.2d 558 (11th Cir. 1990): Evidence that the State’s eyewitness to the murder stood to benefit from the life insurance policy of the victim if the defendant was convicted. Jackson v. Wainwright, 390 F.2d 288 (5th Cir. 1968): Racial misidentification case, where prosecutor failed to reveal prior identification problem. Jacobs v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1282 (11th Cir. 1992): Failure to disclose statements of witness to polygraph examiner which contradicted trial testimony. Jean v. Rice, 945 F.2d 82 (4th Cir. 1991): State under duty to disclose information concerning hypnosis session that enabled witness to identify the defendant. -13- Jones v. Jago, 575 F.2d 1164 (6th Cir. 1978): State withheld, despite defense request, a statement from coindictee who, prior to trial, had been declared material witness for prosecution, and against whom all charges were then dropped. Lindsey v. King, 769 F.2d 1034 (5th Cir. 1985). Suppression of initial statement of eyewitness to police in which he said he could not identify the murderer because he never saw the murderer’s face. McDowell v. Dixon, 858 F.2d 945 (4th Cir. 1988): Witness’s initial statement that attacker was white when the defendant was black. Miller v. Angliker, 848 F.2d 1312 (2nd Cir. 1988): Evidence which showed that another person committed the crimes with which defendant was charged. Norris v. Slayton, 540 F.2d 1241 (4th Cir. 1976): Failure to furnish to rape defendant’s counsel copy of lab report showing no hair or fiber evidence in defendant’s undershorts or in victim’s bed. Orndorff v. Lockhart, 707 F.Supp. 1062 (E.D. Ark. 1988), aff’d in part, vacated in part, 906 F.2d 1230 (8th Cir. 1990): Failure to disclose that witness’s memory was hypnotically refreshed during pretrial investigation. Ouimette v. Moran, 942 F.2d 1 (lst Cir. 1991): Information about extensive criminal record of State’s witness and the existence of a deal with state’s witness. Reutter v. Solem, 888 F.2d 578 (8th Cir. 1989): Withholding of fact that key witness had applied for commutation and been scheduled to appear before parole board a few days after his testimony. Sellers v. Estelle, 651 F.2d 1074 (5th Cir. 1981): Police reports containing admissions by other persons of involvement in the offense. -14- Simms v. Cupp, 354 F.Supp. 698 (D. Ore. 1972): Suppression of original description by witness which differed from her trial testimony. Spicer v. Roxbury Correctional Institution, 194 F.3d 547 (4th Cir. 1999): Inconsistent statement by government witness as to whether he was really an eyewitness to the crime. Troedel v. Wainwright, 667 F.Supp. 1456 (S.D. Fla. 1986): State failed to disclose instances of codefendant’s propensity for violence when this supported defense theory. United States v. Beasley, 576 F.2d 626 (5th Cir. 1978): Failure of government to timely produce statement of prosecution witness when the statement at issue differed from witness’ trial testimony. United States v. Boyd, 55 F.3d 239 (7th Cir. 1995): Prosecutor failed to reveal to defense drug use by prisoner witnesses during trial and “continuous stream of unlawful” favors prosecution gave those witnesses. United States v. Brumel-Alvarez, 976 F.2d 1235 (9th Cir. 1992): Memorandum by government agent containing information about credibility of informant. United States v. Butler, 567 F.2d 885 (9th Cir. 1978): Government failed to disclose that the witness had been promised a dismissal of the charges against him. United States v. Cadet, 727 F.2d 1453 (9th Cir. 1984): Names and addresses of eyewitnesses to offense that State does not intend to call to testify. United States v. Cuffie, 80 F.3d 514 (D.C. Cir. 1996): Evidence that prosecution witness had previously lied under oath in proceeding involving same conspiracy. United States ex. rel. Smith v. Fairman, 769 F.2d 386 (7th Cir. 1985): Police ballistics report showing gun defendant allegedly used to fire at police was inoperable. United States v. Fisher, 106 F.3d 622 (5th Cir. 1991): Government report reflecting on -15- credibility of key government witness. United States v. Foster, 874 F.2d 491 (8th Cir. 1988): Failure by prosecutor to correct false testimony. United States v. Gerard, 491 F.2d 1300 (9th Cir. 1974): Defendants deprived of evidence of promise of leniency by prosecutor, and failure to disclose that witness was in other trouble, thereby giving him even greater incentive to lie. United States v. Herberman, 583 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1978): Testimony presented to grand jury that contradicted testimony of government witnesses. United States v. Minsky, 963 F.2d 870 (6th Cir. 1992): Withholding from defense fact that witness lied to Grand Jury. United States v. Pope, 529 F.2d 112 (9th Cir. 1976): Prosecution failed to disclose plea bargain with witness in exchange for testimony and argued to the jury that the witness had no reason to lie. United States v. Sheehan, 442 F.Supp. 1003 (D. Mass. 1977): Only eyewitness to see the robber’s faces unmasked during a bank robbery was not called to testify because he hesitated in his identification of the defendant. United States v. Spagnoulo, 960 F.2d 990 (11th Cir. 1992): Government failed to turn over a psychiatric report which indicated that the defendant may have been able to assert an insanity defense. United States v. Sutton, 542 F.2d 1239 (4th Cir. 1976): Prosecutor withheld evidence that witness was coerced into testifying against defendant. United States v. Udechukwu, 11 F.3d 1101 (lst Cir. 1993): Evidence to support defendant’s theory that she had been coerced into being a drug courier. -16- United States v. Weintraub, 871 F.2d 1257 (5th Cir. 1989): Government withheld statement from a presentence report from witness indicating that the defendant was responsible for much smaller amount of drugs than claimed. Walter v. Lockhart, 763 F.2d 942 (8th Cir. 1985): For over twenty years, the State withheld a transcript of a conversation supporting the defendant’s claim that the officer shot at him first. Tassin v. Cain, 517 F.3d 770 (5th Cir. 2008). State’s failure to disclose in murder trial the understanding or agreement between witness and state, under which witness expected to gain beneficial treatment in sentencing for related crimes provided that she testified at trial consistently with her prior statements inculpating defendant, constituted Fourteenth Amendment violation under Giglio, even though witness had not received a firm promise of leniency from the judge or prosecutor. Mahler v. Kylo, 537 F.3d 494 (5th Cir. 2008). Brady violation based on witness statements not disclosed by prosecution to defendant consisting of pretrial statements contradicting witnesses’ testimony at trial that altercation had ceased and that victim was in process of moving away from defendant’s relative at time that he fired the fatal shot. Graves v. Dretke, 442 F.3d 334 (5th Cir. 2006). Witness’s out-of-court statement that witness’s wife was active participant in charged murders was exculpatory, for purpose of defendant’s claim that state’s suppression of statement violated Brady. Timing of Disclosure The ability to effectively utilize exculpatory evidence is largely dependent on the defendant’s obtaining timely disclosure. In United States v. Hart, 760 F.Supp. 653 (E.D. Mich. 1991), the Court held that it was the court’s responsibility to fix the timing for disclosure of exculpatory evidence. Other courts have issued opinions stating that disclosure must be made in time for effective use at -17- |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:39 PM Author: Primrose bossy national All very bad. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656545) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:42 PM Author: Domesticated Market Mother http://web.law.umich.edu/_facultybiopage/facultybiopagenew.asp?ID=303
rate him and his prestige, brother. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:45 PM Author: Primrose bossy national True believer on the other side. UMICH law faculty is per se prestigious. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656581) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:32 PM Author: clear parlour Prosecutor: (speaking too loudly) So, Officer Williams, you are giving me the evidence in this case today, right? Williams: (speaking too loudly) Why, yes, I am, here you go! *hands over file* Prosecutor: Of course you know that if I discover any exculpatory evidence, I am required to turn it over to the defense. Williams: Of course, yes. Prosecutor: So this packet of information doesn't contain any exculpatory evidence does it? Williams: No, it does not. Prosecutor: Great news! Well, just so you know, my obligation is ongoing, so if you were to give me any exculpatory evidence, I would have to turn it over to the defendant immediately and it would probably torpedo this case that we've both been working really really hard on. Williams: Why yes, I am aware of that as well. Prosecutor: Great, well be sure to let me know if you happen to come across any exculpatory evidence at once! Williams: Will do! |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:35 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Evidence usually goes through a police court liaison to a paralegal. That's where shit goes to the wrong place etc. Intentionally doing that would be crazy. Let's ruin a career to stick it to some lame gangbanger. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656530) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:38 PM Author: Domesticated Market Mother Tassin v. Cain, 517 F.3d 770 (5th Cir. 2008). State’s failure to disclose in murder trial the understanding or agreement between witness and state, under which witness expected to gain beneficial treatment in sentencing for related crimes provided that she testified at trial consistently with her prior statements inculpating defendant, constituted Fourteenth Amendment violation under Giglio, even though witness had not received a firm promise of leniency from the judge or prosecutor (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656543) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:44 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Not really on point. Testimonial agreements are always disclosed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656568) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:49 PM Author: Electric rose office dopamine what kind of ethics hypos can one expect in an interview? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656328) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:00 PM Author: Primrose bossy national If there was some sort of office policy you personally disagreed with would you follow the policy? A: Yes. It's not my job to make policy.
Queens DA: Don't work there but interviewed there Police see guns being taken and likely sold out of this old woman's apartment. She is away in Florida and says no to going inside. UC stands outside and sees the door opena nd sees a stockpile of illegal weapons. Tell police to go in w/o a warrant? A: No, Get a warrant No PC for warrant? Go in anyway and take the guns just to take them but not arrest anyone. A: No, civil penalties etc. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:04 PM Author: Electric rose office dopamine thanks bro. appreciate it.
another question for you: if you had a choice between a DA's office that pays an avg salary in a good location vs. a DA's office that pays way more (one of the highest paying offices in the country), but is not in an area you want to settle down in, which would you take? |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:09 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Unless the salaries alone are the decision-maker, look at what cases you will be trying and when.
There are places that misdemeanors will be your job for three years, which sucks. I went where I went under the idea that I would only do felonies. It took me a year to get out of prelims, but 18 months from graduation, I did my first felony trial.
For me, the faster you can do important cases would be the tipping point. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 1:54 PM Author: Charcoal Trip Locus Solid thread, bro. We need more of these on XO. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656351) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:03 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Dude I'm an unreasonable zealot. See above. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19656391) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 2:09 PM Author: ocher diverse area mexican Thanks for this thread. Your pay is shit, but I can assure you that your job is way more interesting and fun than mine. Thanks for letting me live vicariously for an hour or so. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 4:40 PM Author: Iridescent state (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19657104) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 5:09 PM Author: Mischievous Senate Roommate 2. Yeah, we can get those
3. WTF???? Why would the Bar contact the County Prosecutor's office for a Bar applicant? |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 5:12 PM Author: Iridescent state (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19657266) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 5:14 PM Author: Mischievous Senate Roommate We can't give out that kind of information. They'd have to make a request through the State's criminal record database.
Hell, even *I* can't just randomly pull a citizen's criminal record unless they are attached to an active case I'm working on.
If I did, I'd probably get forcedtoresignPWN'd |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 5:33 PM Author: Iridescent state (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19657358) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 5:38 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Not in NY. West coast.
2 and 3 I have never heard of anyone requesting but I don't work in HR. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 5:20 PM Author: Motley Theater will a DUI almost 8 years old get me a ding fag? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19657310) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 7:02 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Honest truth: Probably (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19659708) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 7:12 PM Author: Chocolate harsh kitchen isnt there a recent fed program that pays state prosecutors up to 30k for loans? it's separate from IBR
why not AUSA?
thought about becoming a state judge?
thought about going other bigfed? |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 7:16 PM Author: Primrose bossy national I have not heard of that. The John Justice thing you are not eligible for if you have other LRAP, which my office gives.
I wanted AUSA when I was much more concerned about prestige. I thought my law school classmates at firms would look up to me more if I were an AUSA. Now I don't talk to or see those people so I don't care what they think. Personally, I'm over credentials. Winning big cases is prestigious to me not title.
State judge is a political position, so I could do it if I stuck around another 15 years and someone I knew got in a politically influential position. It would be a cake job but I'm not gunning for it.
As far as other bigfed, same response as AUSA one above. I just don't care about credential chasing anymore. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 7:20 PM Author: Chocolate harsh kitchen i ask re bigfed not bc of prestige, but money. The money is just better. A lot of the alphabet agencies like guys with govt trial work backgrounds. A lot of ALJs have prosecutor backgrounds. I thought you would have looked into it.
Why are state prosecutor jobs SO fucking hard to get right now? How would an office look at an Article III clerk? |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 7:23 PM Author: Primrose bossy national Article III is an impressive credential. It's just the hiring freeze that fucks everyone. There are 2009 grads who have been interning here for free since the day they graduated. They are going to get preference over someone who clerked across the country. The thing about state prosecutor jobs is commitment to the office. Then maybe ability to speak Spanish. Then way off in the distance are traditional academic credentials. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19660151) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 8:35 PM Author: Mischievous Senate Roommate titmfcr
In my old jurisdiction, the Prosecutors office hired on some new people b/c:
1: New Head Prosecutors were elected 2. They were paying back political favors.
In my office, one of the MAIN REASONS I got this job was b/c:
1. Prosecutor left to go to a different office 2. Head Prosecutor noticed my State Court clerkship.
Other than that, I'd be dingfag just like everybody else despite my prior Externship with a DA's office and my Mock/Moot experience. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 8:22 PM Author: Bright bawdyhouse alpha don't you think this gives you away as a dangerous zealot? shit pay, don't give a shit about prestige any more, so you keep and run up the score by making sure people get the highest sentences possible (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19660449) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 8:29 PM Author: Primrose bossy national I don't try and get the highest sentences possible. A reality of mandatory sentencing is that defendants routinely get the lowest possible sentence allowed.
I'm not a dangerous zealot. I have to ask for reasonable sentences because if I don't judges will see me as a dangerous zealot as you say, and my life gets very hard as far as motion practice. All I have said that is id they don't take a reasonable plea, I have little sympathy.
What is gained by constant prestige chasing? Never being happy?
I did that for long enough and then just got over it. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 8:37 PM Author: Bright bawdyhouse alpha you sound more reasonable now.
i feel something vital inside you dies when you give up the prestige chase. maybe it's youth. |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 8:40 PM Author: Primrose bossy national That shit can consume you, and it will never end. You always have to have a nicer car than the neighbor etc. Right now I take the damn bus but am happy with my life. Good girl, good food, and that's all anyone really ever needs. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1839838&forum_id=2#19660518) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2011 8:40 PM Author: Mischievous Senate Roommate Uh. . .the Defendant is not an idiot.
He knows what might happen if he goes to trial vs. taking the offer.
It's a gamble: He might win big (go home) or lose big (jailpwn'd)
But don't act butthurt and pretend like the Prosecutor has magical powers and somehow PICKS how man years the legislator assigns for each crime. |