per, "People v. Welch (1999) C. 976 P. 2d 754; "A defendant does not have the right to present a defense of "His/Her" own choosing, but merely the right to an adequate and competent defense"". This brings up the fact that if a defendsnt can't present their facts of the case, then who is deciding the Truth, and What is presented to the Jury. Americans are naive to believe that the facts are presented to the Jury, they need to be aware that the only facts presented are the facts decided by those, whom are determining the defendants guilty, "Slightly Prejudicial and Bias".
2007-02-09 06:16:10 · 5 answers · asked by quotelawrence 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I wish to clarify the differing defenses presented, one is the defendants, the other is someones who was not present, though is receiving the benefit of doubt as the best defense, the Attorney. Who leaves the Courtroom no matter what and goes Home. The idea that people wish to suggest that American Justice is fair need only examine the amount of cases that are being reversed despite the eye witness testimony, because the defendant was never given a chance to show their case, they were forced to accept the lawyers, presentation, there are no second chances.
2007-02-11 10:04:30 · update #1
That is why during the proceeding of a trial that the defendant needs to make a statement that they believes that he is not being adequately represented. You can't wait for a "guilty" verdict then state--"it's my lawyers fault, ................" There can never be a perfect system--as long as people lie or withhold information. I spent 7 years in of my life traveling to many countries as a U.S. Federal Officer. I would must rather go to trial in this country then any-other. It was strange to be rounded up on Friday in the Middle East to watch the Trials. There were no appeals, for the most parts you had to defend yourself, and you could not cross examine the witnesses against you. It was a different system, worked fast, and punishments handed down swiftly.--- I like the idea at least getting a better day day in court or a chance for an appeal.
2007-02-09 06:50:52 · answer #1 · answered by redrepair 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are confusing the limiting language "not of his/her own choosing" with not being able to present a defense at all. This is not the case. As the decision language states, a defendant is entitled to "an adequate and competent defense." What this means is that it is one supported by facts and not one that is just thought up willy-nilly or a barrage of alternative possiblities to what the prosecution presents thrown at the jury. The defendant cannot, for example, present a defense that aliens landed and performed the illegal act without some set of facts to back it up. That is all the case law is referring to.
2007-02-09 14:23:44 · answer #2 · answered by jurydoc 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some of us are not so gullible. The reason the judge gives the jury instructions to consider only the facts of a case is because we all have prejudices. The legal system tends to rule favorably in cases where the defendant is educated, well-dressed and financially secure. Defendant that are poor, uneducated and poorly dressed are perceived as less credible. Therefore they tend to serve longer sentences -- and are found guilty more often. A hunch is not enough. OJ got the best justice money could buy!
2007-02-09 14:31:22 · answer #3 · answered by mediahoney 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am thinking that your argument would stand a better chance if you were to give an example or two of people who were denied a defense "of his/her choosing" in which their case was hurt by this.
2007-02-09 14:28:42 · answer #4 · answered by A.Mercer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
wtf are you talking about?
2007-02-09 14:25:53 · answer #5 · answered by Mr. Mister 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋