|
|
 Up |
|
  |
Author: thegettheget Date: May 8, 2008 15:46
So how likely is that.
Even if there is a strike a prosecutor being appointed to represent
someone whose case she's already involved in?
If it's just for the arraignment, maybe it's even worse. Talk about a
conflict of interest.
And then there was Jack's little speech. What, we can't tease our co-
workers anymore?
But it was nice to see that they wrote the thing so that she really
worked it.
Worse thing about it was the perp's acting. He seemed to come off as
if he was a little slow. And I don't think a guy who does that much
planning and is that good a liar is slow. So that seemed strange to
me.
But that aside, I liked it. Always fun to see the fish out of water
story where the fish learns to breathe.
|
| Show full article (1.04Kb) |
|
| | 20 Comments |
|
|
Author: David JohnstonDavid Johnston Date: May 8, 2008 16:57
On Thu, 8 May 2008 06:46:16 -0700 (PDT), theget
bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>So how likely is that.
>
>Even if there is a strike a prosecutor being appointed to represent
>someone whose case she's already involved in?
>
>If it's just for the arraignment, maybe it's even worse...
|
| Show full article (1.28Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: thegettheget Date: May 8, 2008 18:56
On May 8, 10:57 am, David Johnston block.net> wrote:> On Thu, 8 May 2008 06:46:16 -0700 (PDT), theget
> The judge does actually have the power to compell a lawyer who happens
> to be handy to take a case to ensure that the accused has
> representation.
They certainly have that power, but the question is how would they
exercise that power in real life? Would they really choose a
prosecutor for that role? And what might an appeals court say about
it? Particularly in a murder case.
It seems we went way past the place, I think it was Serena, went when
she offered help to that guy how was holding the hostage.
Theget
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: thegettheget Date: May 9, 2008 06:16
On May 8, 1:59 pm, Larry y.com> wrote:> In article
> k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> theget bigmailbox.net> wrote:>> On May 8, 10:57 am, David Johnston block.net> wrote:>>> On Thu, 8 May 2008 06:46:16 -0700 (PDT), theget
>
>>> The judge does actually have the power to compell a lawyer who happens
>>> to be handy to take a case to ensure that the accused has
>>> representation.
>
>> They certainly have that power, but the question is how would they
>> exercise that power in real life? Would they really choose a
>> prosecutor for that role? And what might an appeals court say about
>> it? Particularly in a murder case.
>
> Note - I didn't see the episode in question.
>
> However, IRL, if there's a case where a defendant needs a lawyer, and ...
|
| Show full article (2.34Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Silence DewgoodSilence Dewgood Date: May 9, 2008 05:33
> So how likely is that.
>
> Even if there is a strike a prosecutor being appointed to represent
> someone whose case she's already involved in?
>
> If it's just for the arraignment, maybe it's even worse. Talk about a
> conflict of interest.
I know an ex-public defender in private practice who is occasionally asked
to represent defendants by the PD office where there is a conflict of
interest. His fees are paid by the government.
> And then there was Jack's little speech. What, we can't tease our co-
> workers anymore?
I found it strange that she was working on the defense in the same office.
Couldn't she use Legal Aid's empty office?
> But that aside, I liked it. Always fun to see the fish out of water
> story where the fish learns to breathe.
The more camera time for Alana the better. She's so beautiful.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Still.AngrieStill.Angrie Date: May 9, 2008 17:38
theget wrote:
> On May 8, 1:59 pm, Larry y.com> wrote:>> In article
>> k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>>>
>
>
>
>> A current, active prosecutor would NEVER be assigned to defend someone.
>
> Yeah, that was a bit of a stretch, particularly since she had been
> working on the case.
>
But....she wasn't actually assigned, right? The defendant had retained
her in a previous trial and ascertained that she was *still* his lawyer,
not that she was his new lawyer.
|
| Show full article (0.68Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: thegettheget Date: May 9, 2008 20:11
On May 9, 12:23 am, Larry y.com> wrote:> In article
> 2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>,>> I wonder if I can use the analogous argument for the
>> defendants right to a jury next time I'm called for jury duty?
>
> Ummm...... no. ;)
Yeah. ;)
|
| Show full article (1.50Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: thegettheget Date: May 9, 2008 20:35
On May 9, 11:38 am, "Still.Angrie" yahooo.com> wrote:> theget wrote:
>> On May 8, 1:59 pm, Larry y.com> wrote:>>> In article
>>> k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,>
>>> A current, active prosecutor would NEVER be assigned to defend someone.
>
>> Yeah, that was a bit of a stretch, particularly since she had been
>> working on the case.
>
> But....she wasn't actually assigned, right? The defendant had retained
> her in a previous trial and ascertained that she was *still* his lawyer,
> not that she was his new lawyer.
No. She was assigned by the judge at the arraignment to represent the
defendant for that purpose only. The defendant then made a motion
claiming that once she was his lawyer, she remained his lawyer unless
he fired her. The trial judge agreed.
|
| Show full article (3.29Kb) |
| 10 Comments |
|
|
Author: David / AmicusDavid / Amicus Date: May 10, 2008 01:43
Why did he want his wife killed? There was no affair. Was a motive
given?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: thegettheget Date: May 10, 2008 02:08
On May 9, 7:43 pm, Ami...@ webtv.net (David / Amicus) wrote: > Why did he want his wife killed? There was no affair. Was a motive
> given?
How do you know there was no affair?
Theget
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
