I just finished jury duty on a burglary and theft case. Basically, the defendant borrowed her cousin's car to gain access to a gated community. We found the defendant guilty and it seamed to be an easy decision for most of us. Our main point of contention was whether she was the perp or aided and abetted the crime(s).
The thing that kind of bothers me was the defense's case was mainly "I don't have the burden to prove anything". Their only witness was the defendant and they presented nothing to back up her story or reestablish her credibility after she lied and gave inconsistent accounts. The defense attorney just mentioned on several occasions that the burden was on the prosecution.
Is that a common defense & is common for a case that weak to be brought to trial. Could the defense simply been relying on the unpredictability of juries?
I realize the burden of proof is on the prosecution, I just would have expected something from the defense.
2007-01-24 21:06:50 · 3 answers · asked by Justin H 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
As a former defense attorney, I can tell you that sometimes you have a client who simply will not take advice. A defendant has an absolute right to a trial. If their defense is unbelievable & they keep telling lies & inconsistent stories & have no corroborating witnesses & refuse to consider some type of plea bargain, there is just nothing you can do to protect them. Private attorneys can withdraw; but public defenders are legally obligated to follow their client's desires & go to trial with whatever good or bad evidence there is.
2007-01-25 01:29:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Time is of the essence if you are facing criminal charges. Still, you want the best lawyer you can find. And you want someone who has experience defending others charged with the same crime as you. After getting one or two names of criminal defense lawyers near you, try to set up appointments to meet the lawyers. Many good lawyers are busy, so you may end up meeting with their staff. Dont eliminate them as possible candidates just because they are busy.
http://www.braddocklaw.net
2016-02-18 20:14:01 · answer #2 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the defense was based on the decision to put the verdict in the hands of 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty. as dumb as you are did you get it right?
2007-01-25 06:35:38 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋