The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Prosecutor found attorney for suspect -- how unethical?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: December 5th, 2014 3:59 PM Author: Filthy spectacular indian lodge (from serial)
how common is this? |
Date: December 5th, 2014 4:00 PM Author: magical hell I certainly wouldn't recommend it . . . (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2747906&forum_id=2#26865594) |
 |
Date: December 5th, 2014 4:02 PM Author: Filthy spectacular indian lodge in civil cases, attorneys recommend counsel for third-party witnesses all the time and it's no big deal. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2747906&forum_id=2#26865604) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2014 4:04 PM Author: magical hell That is true. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2747906&forum_id=2#26865614) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2014 4:06 PM Author: cocky house The same concerns (i.e., prosecutorial discretion) are not present in civil cases, schmuck. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2747906&forum_id=2#26865621) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2014 4:09 PM Author: Filthy spectacular indian lodge duh, it's different. but what's prosecutorial discretion have to do with the underlying ethical issues? they're present in either a civil or criminal case. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2747906&forum_id=2#26865647) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2014 4:15 PM Author: cocky house The underlying ethical issue is that a prosecutor has the discretion to (i) determine whether to indict you (or another person) and (ii) to grant you (or another person) immunity from prosecution in exchange for aiding an investigation. Getting a witness who is also a potential suspect a great free lawyer in this context (rather than allowing the witness to figure it out on his own) creates a lot of perverse incentives for the witness to give testimony that is pleading to the state with the expectation that staying in your good graces will prevent indictment and potentially result in immunity. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2747906&forum_id=2#26865687) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2014 4:26 PM Author: Filthy spectacular indian lodge ty; i see all that. it creates bad incentives for the system, but aren't the prosecutor's incentives aligned with the witness's here or in other cases where the witness gets a free pass for ratting out someobe else. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2747906&forum_id=2#26865764) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2014 4:36 PM Author: cocky house The witness (a dumb, poor high school kid) is inclined to say whatever he thinks is going to keep him from getting indicted on murder 1 charges, including as part of a conspiracy. The provision of a good, free lawyer to him by the prosecutor signals that (i) he is not a suspect for indictment for a more serious crime than accessory after the fact (i.e., M1) and (ii) if he plays his cards right and gives testimony that is helpful to getting the guy the prosecutor is really after (i.e., Adnan), he may be given immunity or at least punishment on very favorable terms.
I think your last sentence is the opposite of what happens: the witness develops the same interests as the prosecutor and will go out of his way to say things that are helpful even if they are not true because he or she does not want to risk having the prosecutor try to get out of the immunity agreement after the fact. That is why it must be disclosed when witnesses receive plea deals and if you have ever been at a criminal trial you'll note it is a huge part of cross for any state witness. |
|
Date: December 5th, 2014 4:55 PM Author: Filthy spectacular indian lodge ty (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2747906&forum_id=2#26866006) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2014 4:01 PM Author: Duck-like Crusty Piazza Knife curious case (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2747906&forum_id=2#26865598) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2014 4:04 PM Author: swollen french den black woman believe you have to disclose you are a prosecutor-bro and that your interests are adverse to the defendant, and then not say anything other than to advise retaining a lawyer (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2747906&forum_id=2#26865616) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2014 4:05 PM Author: cocky house Pretty unethical, bro. The dude who has the sole discretion to seek to indict you provides you with a free lawyer in a case where you have admitted that you were right next to a dead body less than an hour after the victim died and you helped bury it and didn't tell anyone until the police showed up and started questioning you? You don't think that witness would be beholden to the prosecutor or at least highly motivated to stay in his or her good graces? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2747906&forum_id=2#26865617) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2014 4:08 PM Author: Filthy spectacular indian lodge tbf, there's a causation problem re the tainting. jay had an huge incentive to lie because he got *no jail time* -- not because he got a free lawyer.
as for the ethical violation, what if the prosecutor disclosed the conflict, etc etc. how common is this? |
|
Date: December 5th, 2014 4:18 PM Author: cocky house He didn't know he wasn't going to get jail time. He pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact and his sentencing was deferred until after Adnan's trial. He was told by the same prosecutor that gave him his free lawyer that his cooperation and remorse would be considered when the judge sentenced him and in fact it was as he received no jail time for a felony.
It would have been less bad had the prosecutor disclosed it well in advance of trial. But think about this - she would have had to depose both Jay, the lawyer, and the prosecutor about all this shit. Who knows what else she might have come up with. I would be fucking irate if I did not find this shit out until trial because it would be devastating for cross examining the witness and establishing his bias towards helping the prosecution. |
|
Date: December 5th, 2014 4:27 PM Author: Filthy spectacular indian lodge i must have missed that part. was there no recommended sentence by the DA? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2747906&forum_id=2#26865770) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2014 4:38 PM Author: cocky house They glossed over it in non-lawyerly terms, but they did play a bit of the audio from his sentencing hearing. I'm not sure whether the D.A. recommended a sentence, but the judge noted his cooperation in the investigation/having helped the D.A. and his remorse as reasons for not giving him jail time. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2747906&forum_id=2#26865850) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2014 4:29 PM Author: Filthy spectacular indian lodge yeah, it's procedurally fucked up, i agree. but you're still dodging my question -- doesnt jay have every incentive to lie and tell the prox what they want to hear (i.e., implicating adnan and minimizing his role) REGARDLESS of the free lawyer? i just dont see the causation. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2747906&forum_id=2#26865791) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2014 4:42 PM Author: cocky house I agree he has every incentive to point the finger to save his own ass. However, I think the inference from offering to provide someone a lawyer is that you are not going to try to prosecute them. (If you did, why would you get them set up with a great lawyer?) This kind of gesture is basically like giving immunity, but not having to disclose it. The defense lawyer should have had the opportunity to discover this potential bias before trial, not during it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2747906&forum_id=2#26865896) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2014 4:53 PM Author: Filthy spectacular indian lodge yeah, it's procedurally fucked up, no question.
wonder how often this shit happens. why would this DA do it in this case, and never again? this wasnt some make or break case for his career. it seems like a routine murder case. guy prob has been doing this shit his whole career. and wonder how many other DAs do this shit. |
|
Date: December 5th, 2014 4:44 PM Author: cocky house BTW - I would MUCH rather leave my kids with Adnan than DV Pumo. Isn't that saying something? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2747906&forum_id=2#26865911) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2014 4:53 PM Author: Filthy spectacular indian lodge tbf, prob better to leave your kids with the average convicted murderer than the most xo poasters. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2747906&forum_id=2#26865997) |