T1B

Shrink the pics, Jsc.

Of course he should be prosecuted. There is not gray area with this one.

Perhaps a scenario that would raise debate would be if Barnes shot Barclay in the leg. Years later, Barclay is walking on a cane and slips and falls down some stairs and breaks his neck. What about that? Is that Barnes' fault because of Barclay's inability to walk like others which increases the chances of getting hurt by just walking from point A to point B.

RumpleForeskin wrote:There is not gray area with this one.

Agreed, no gray area at all.

He was prosecuted for the offense, found guilty, and given a sentence which he served.

The Bill of Rights is VERY clear on this matter.

Dinsdale wrote:

RumpleForeskin wrote:There is not gray area with this one.

Agreed, no gray area at all.

He was prosecuted for the offense, found guilty, and given a sentence which he served.

The Bill of Rights is VERY clear on this matter.

The double jeopardy provision in the 5th Amendment refers to the "same" offense. Murder and attempted murder are different offenses, even if they arise from the same set of facts.

Having said that, under the old English common law, a person had to die within a year and a day of the incident in order for a murder prosecution to lie. That old rule no longer applies, but given that 41 years elapsed between shooting and death, it would seem to me that the prosecution might have an uphill battle on the element of causation.

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Having said that, under the old English common law, a person had to die within a year and a day of the incident in order for a murder prosecution to lie.

Have you checked Scottish law?

Maybe you should consider:

or perhaps:

dude got out in 2005 on a 10-20 sentence for a crime in 1966?

musta been a model prisoner.

Rack 88.

This case is a DA's wet dream. You charge the bad guy with murder and you have the elements in place for a conviction. The only hurdle is overcoming the causation defense. Public sentiment won't help the defendant much IMO. However, as a defense attorney, I would tell the DA that this is a bogus case. Probably won't take the steam out of the DA, but it will provide a memorable reaction that comes when you test said DA's.

I was in Court this morning to set a trial date on a domestic violence matter. It was interesting studying the young DA when I told her let's take it to the box. I'm sure she wasn't expecting it. However, I will test her and test her again. I'm sure that she will give my future client's better deals next time around. All I can say for now is that I will lace my boxing gloves and go a few rounds with her. I'm looking to win this one.......

War Jury Trial !!!!!!!

mvscal wrote:

XXXL wrote:The only hurdle is overcoming the causation defense.

A pretty low hurdle. I imagine his medical records are more than enough to put that piece of shit back in prison for the rest of his short ass life.

Oh and it is worth the expense, 88.

You should be a DA.......

I think he'd probably struggle winning over jurors in his summations:

mvscaldirtbaglawyer wrote:
and in conclusion, I believe the ni*g*ger, did it, and he deserves to be strung up. And when we're done with him, lets move on to all the other nig*g*ers in the world:

mvscal breaks into a soft shoe shuffle:

"I'm gonna get me a strong rope and hang all the ni*g*gers I see, I'm gonna get me a strong rope and hang all the ni*g*gers I see.

BAILIFF!!!

XXXL wrote:The only hurdle is overcoming the causation defense.

Causation is not a defense; it's an element of the prosecutor's case that the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That's why it seemed to me to be a difficult case.

I wouldn't mind defending this case. I'd hire an expert witness and ask for an opportunity for my expert to perform an autopsy. That alone might be enough to take some of the wind out of the prosecutor's sails, in that he'll have to explain to the deceased's family why they can't bury the body right away.

Public sentiment won't help the defendant much IMO.

My feeling is that as a general rule, criminal defendants are better off with a jury than in front of a single judge for trial. This case might be an exception to that general rule, provided, of course, that the judge doesn't have a reputation as a hanging judge. However, as a defense attorney, I would tell the DA that this is a bogus case. Probably won't take the steam out of the DA, but it will provide a memorable reaction that comes when you test said DA's.

That alone might be enough to take some of the wind out of the prosecutor's sails, in that he'll have to explain to the deceased's family why they can't bury the body right away.

So - bringing more grief on a family that has suffered for decades over this issue is considered acceptable defensive strategy?

Mister Bushice wrote:

That alone might be enough to take some of the wind out of the prosecutor's sails, in that he'll have to explain to the deceased's family why they can't bury the body right away.

So - bringing more grief on a family that has suffered for decades over this issue is considered acceptable defensive strategy?

He's an attorney. What do you expect? Compassion?

Not at all. Just wanting to see how he spins it in to a positive.

Mister Bushice wrote:

That alone might be enough to take some of the wind out of the prosecutor's sails, in that he'll have to explain to the deceased's family why they can't bury the body right away.

So - bringing more grief on a family that has suffered for decades over this issue is considered acceptable defensive strategy?

You honestly don't think the prosecutor is going to have his expert do an autopsy? I know, but that's different, right?

Your first objective is to represent your client zealously. This case probably would boil down to causation, and the testimony of experts would be crucial.

Failing to ask for an autopsy would probably be malpractice.

Real simple solution here, btw: drop the murder charge, and I'd drop my request for an autopsy.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:

That alone might be enough to take some of the wind out of the prosecutor's sails, in that he'll have to explain to the deceased's family why they can't bury the body right away.

So - bringing more grief on a family that has suffered for decades over this issue is considered acceptable defensive strategy?

Your first objective is to represent your client zealously. This case probably would boil down to causation, and the testimony of experts would be crucial.

Failing to ask for an autopsy would probably be malpractice.

Real simple solution here, btw: drop the murder charge, and I'd drop my request for an autopsy.

It wasn't so much the process as the way you presented it.

How can you sleep at night if you knowingly get a rapist off on a bullshit formality to possibly rape again?

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Real simple solution here, btw: drop the murder charge, and I'd drop my request for an autopsy.

And I'd laugh in your fucking face, invite you to go fuck yourself and then send your client to prison for the rest of his miserable, short ass fucking life.

Not much chance of that happening.

Mister Bushice wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote: So - bringing more grief on a family that has suffered for decades over this issue is considered acceptable defensive strategy?

Your first objective is to represent your client zealously. This case probably would boil down to causation, and the testimony of experts would be crucial.

Failing to ask for an autopsy would probably be malpractice.

Real simple solution here, btw: drop the murder charge, and I'd drop my request for an autopsy.

It wasn't so much the process as the way you presented it.

That was more than anything a response to XXXL's post that this case is "a DA's wet dream." There are some problems with it, and it's relatively easy to let a DA who's a little too cocky about a case like this know about them.

How can you sleep at night if you knowingly get a rapist off on a bullshit formality to possibly rape again?

What you call "a bullshit formality" is, often, the United States Constitution, which by definition is the supreme law of the land.

And our criminal justice system punishes people based on what they have done, not on what they might do in the future. If somebody rapes after my defense of them is complete, that's certainly not my fault.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote: Your first objective is to represent your client zealously. This case probably would boil down to causation, and the testimony of experts would be crucial.

Failing to ask for an autopsy would probably be malpractice.

Real simple solution here, btw: drop the murder charge, and I'd drop my request for an autopsy.

It wasn't so much the process as the way you presented it.

That was more than anything a response to XXXL's post that this case is "a DA's wet dream." There are some problems with it, and it's relatively easy to let a DA who's a little too cocky about a case like this know about them.

How can you sleep at night if you knowingly get a rapist off on a bullshit formality to possibly rape again?

What you call "a bullshit formality" is, often, the United States Constitution, which by definition is the supreme law of the land.

So if the one witness that could positively identify him was discovered by your defense team to have been arrested for drunk driving three times in the past, would you use that information to discredit said witness and get your rapist off?

And our criminal justice system punishes people based on what they have done, not on what they might do in the future. If somebody rapes after my defense of them is complete, that's certainly not my fault.

If you distort the truth and they do rape someone else after because they were released on a meaningless technicality that you took advantage of when you had the choice to take the high road and not use it, it most certainly is.

What good will it do to send him back to prison?

I think he should be sentenced to serve out his remaining years in a nursing home cleaning up all of the incontinent patients
(in continent does not mean ... North Americans!)