Brinks Insult

M

mete

New member
For those who remember almost 25 years ago a group of domestic terrorists robbed a Brinks truck. A Brinks guard and two police officers were killed by the group who used full automatic weeapons and wore bullet proof vests. This occurred in Nyack NY .Now a judge says that the getaway driver must be retried because she represented herself at the trial and should have had proper legal council !!! :mad: :mad: :mad:
 
Then maybe a little anger should be directed at the court and the DA office that allowed her to do so and go for the easy win instead of doing the right thing.
 
Meh. It happens all the time, even in cases where the defendants did receive adequate representation.

Part of that "better a hundred guilty go free than one innocent be convicted" rot.
 
If she voluntarily represented herself, then the judge would not have overturned the first trial. Something must have happened that negated her "free and informed" decision to represent herself.

As my Sensei says:
Do it again, and do it RIGHT this time!
 
Maybe we need more facts about the circumstances surrounding her acting as her own counsel.

My understanding is that courts don't allow this very easily -- possibly for the very reason that later on the defendant can whine, "I was not adequately defended in court."

Colin Ferguson acted as his own attorney. (LIRR massacre trial.) He was convicted, and as far as I know is still in prison. (Long may he rot, that piece of feces.) I haven't heard of anyone reopening that case to say that the only reason he's in prison is because he wasn't well represented at trial.

I can't imagine that a woman who goes before the court for murder would be somehow railroaded into not having an attorney to represent her. Are you actually saying that she wanted one but somehow the court pressed for her to not have one, over her protest?!

I'm willing to bet that it's more likely she was a smartass and thought she could do a better job than an attorney, took a gamble, and now that it worked against her she wants to play on both sides of the fence.

It'll be hard to convince me that she was forced, somehow, to represent herself rather than have, at the very least, a court-appointed attorney.



-azurefly
 
It probably doesn't have a damned thing to do with her right to recieve proper counsel...

She just wants to be paroled and cannot get out of prison and she has found a liberal-bleeding-heart-judge to give her the chance to get out...

I can just hear him thinking out loud, "Poor misunderstood girl has paid enough for those murders... let's give her "another chance". :mad: :barf:
 
Sorry, Wild. I forgot to add in the sarcasm smilie.

I figured people would be understood my meaning, which was that our legal system is set up that way for a reason...
 
Reminds me of something that happened locally in law enforcement. The police came up with the idea of doing an inventory of items in a vehicle that they had stopped and would have to impound. It went to court and the courts upheld it. Then one day came a case in which they found some drugs during the inventory. The case came to trial and the defendant had a very capable attorney. He asked the police officer if he did the inventory. The officer answered in the affirmative. He went down the the list of goods the officer answered that yes he had inventoried all those itmes. The lawyer then asked him why the inventory did not include a toolbox and other items. The officer had stopped the inventory when he had found illegal items. The evidence was removed because the inventory had turned into a search when the police officer stopped when he found illegal items. The evidence could not be used.

The Police then asked the lawyer to come talk to the police department about it. When he arrived he did not get a good welcome. He then told the officers that they were hating the wrong person. His job as a defense attorney was to provide a competent defense. Thier job as officers were to follow the law and proper procedures. If the officer had inventoried all the items as procedure required he wouldn be here talking to them.

The disconnect sometimes is the standards which law enforcment and the courts operate under. The police have to have "probable cause" to get a warrant and to make an arrest. The court requires that the person be guilty beyond a "reasonable doubt". So that means to win in court the police have to step it up a bit to get the evidence to go to the next level to get a conviction not just stop at "probable cause". Look at the fact that about 90%of all convictions are the result of plea bargains.

On the flip side the police can tie up a case so neat and pretty the suspects own mother would want to hang him. The court and the DA can go for the easy win and not let the person have access to competent counsel and that gets thrown out the window. The system depends on everyone to do thier job by the rules from the officer on the street up. Being a professional doesnt mean you have to like the rules, but you better learn them and use them. Keep from taking shortcuts when it comes to the law and courts.
 
samuri said:
If she voluntarily represented herself, then the judge would not have overturned the first trial. Something must have happened that negated her "free and informed" decision to represent herself.

As my Sensei says:
Do it again, and do it RIGHT this time!
Click to expand...

I was always under the impression that the saying was "Do it right the first time" but in my profession it's "measure twice and cut once".:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top