Who gets to show the evidence?

Question

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".

In the case of the Minendez Brothers, their defense was that their parents had been abusing them for years, upon the hung jury the Court decided they could not use that defense, Why. Well one has to remember the San Jose Mercury News report on "Tainted Trials, and Stolen Justice". The Judges are all appointed from the District Attorney's Office", they also have a responsibility to their Communities, so as to perdict the opinions and responses of that community the decisions of the Court are routinely in Favor of the Prosecutor's. Who would you think controls the Court.

Answer 1

This quotation has to do with the relationship between a lawyer and a client. You need to read the language which follows: "When a defendant chooses to be represented by professional counsel, that counsel is 'captain of the ship' and can make all but a few fundamental decisions for the defendant."

Thus, it is the lawyer representing the defendant who decides which facts are presented to the jury in defense. So long as the defense lawyer is acting diligently and competently, the defendant is not deprived of any rights if the lawyer does not present particular evidence upon the demand of the defendant. The defendant, however, does have the absolute right to testify.

In my experience, most defendants would be HARMED by presenting evidence that their lawyers do not want to present, and most defendants who testify against the advise of counsel do more to assure their conviction than the prosecutor has done.

Answer 2

When you say "facts" I presume to think you are referring to the "facts" already in evidence and not hearsay. An adequate and competent defense includes the "Compulsory Process"," Right to Confront", and "Right to Testify". and last but not least of all is the "Evidentiary Hearing" (before indictment). You may not present "facts" that have no basis, and/or grounds, or that (as a fact) cannot be proven in a Court of Law. See; Meyers v. State of Texas, A Defendant is not intitled to Hybrid Representation, (you can't Represent Yourself and have an Attorney Too). I now refer you to a journal frequently called the Bible in alot of legal arenas:
It's Called the Georgetown Law Journal 34th Annotated Review of Criminal Procedure (2005) The Cite you Quoted may be Challenged under the 14th Amendments Due Process & Equal Protection Clauses. If you can go to the Library in your home state look for the legal section and ask if they have "The Bible" if so look in Section III Trial: Right to Counsel, Right to Jury Trial, and especially Influences on the Jury. You should also look up your 6th Amendment Right To , The " Effective " Assistance of Counsel. I hope this helps.

GOD BLESS/GOOD LUCK!!

Answer 3

YOu are missing a point of grammar here. "The defendant does not have the right to present a defense of 'his/her' own choosing' means only that they must petition the court in order to do so. A defendant can not expect that he will be granted the ability to act as his own counsel by the mere fact of "rights", however, they can petition the court for the ability to do so.

Juries usually see what the defendant's counsel wishes them to see and hopefully presented in such a way as to get their client off of the charges. NOWHERE does it say that the truth will be found. This is why Lady Justice wears a blindfold.

Answer 4

The accuser needs to present the evidence first.

Answer 5

Listen to John S. he is right on the money on this!