They are saying they plan on calling 150 witnesses and taking 4 months to try their case. And they will likely have to do it more than once. Those poor jurors.
In Florida news, the Florida Supreme Court has abandoned the presumption of innocence and says that “The fact that a lawyer has been charged with a felony by an indictment or information in state or federal court may, for the purposes of this rule, constitute clear and convincing evidence that the lawyer’s continued practice of law would cause great public harm when such a felony charge alleges conduct reflecting adversely on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.”
Hmmm.
Don't we tell juries that a charge is not proof of anything and should not be considered when deciding guilt or innocence? Apparently our fine state Supreme Court disagrees.
7 comments:
Jury selection in state court.
Def attorney: does everyone presume my client innocent ?
Juror : well I’m sure he must have done something to get arrested.
Judge : good point. But if I tell you to presume him innocent can you do that and set aside
The very logical and reasonable belief that he must have done something?
Juror : ummm sure I guess.
Later during selection the defense moves to strike the juror for cause.
Court: Denied. She said she could follow the law.
Why should our Supreme Court be any different in their belief than a plumber who is called for jury duty? Where there’s smoke there is fire. Duh.
Please get rid of recaptcha. Who knows how many bikes are in the picture ? Does the slide with a small piece of a bike wheel count for yes or no?
Hear! Hear! 1:44 is right. How do you count a piece of a bike. Is the rider's helmet part of a motorcycle? Is not the pole part of the stop light or stop sign? These are difficult questions that I would prefer to avoid. I nominate 1:44 for comment of the year.
"Don't we tell juries that a charge is not proof of anything and should not be considered when deciding guilt or innocence?"
Yeah, tell that to your clients who are remanded awaiting trial on "no bond" charges or who are denied bond because "evidence of guilt" is overwhelming despite not actually being convicted yet.
Or tell it to the attorneys who are suspended on an "emergency" basis before they even get to answer the Bar charges.
Practicing law is a "privilege" and taking away that "privilege" does not require the burden of proof from criminal prosecution. It seems "presumption of innocence" and "reasonable doubt" only apply if we are going to incarcerate or execute somebody. Ending somebody's profession no longer requires such niceties (if ever it did). Scary sounding accusations are now officially good enough.
Women are being stripped of their right to privacy, and forced to bear dead babies until sepsis sets in.
Neutral and independent magistrates are converted into case managers, forcing irrational deadlines on parties.
Judicial Circuits are being combined, to keep folks in local communities from choosing their prosecutors, and you are worried about a guy caught with a bag of cocaine being suspended? Your Supreme Court is up to some evil shit and this is what you are worried about. Sheesh.
You better be worried about what is happening in the SDFL...we know most of your passports don't allow you north of Broward line...but the Queen of Hearts is out of control! Rude as hell, and no clue what she's doing... the more seasoned the attorney/ women....treated like 💩 due to her own insecurities. Swear in the jury honey, and make sure you allow defendant's family in the room. Not a good look!
I know they are busy but they should remember to spend a few minutes reflecting and editing to improve the result. Especially in the unreviewable dictate process. What felony conduct exactly are they concerned might not reflect adversely on fitness to practice law? And is causing great public harm, which almost all felons fail to do, necessary, or is it enough to cause significant harm to a few people?
Post a Comment