General Discussion

pipoman

(16,038 posts)

41. Discovery shows up at your lawyer's office in 6 file boxes

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 08:45 AM

Jul 2013

probably more like 20 in the Zim case. Then the defense lawyer calls you up and says, 'the discovery showed up, I'm going to need another $5k before I can open the boxes'..or more often the boxes show up at the public defender's office who has a work load that leaves him examining the contents 2 days before trial.

A defense investigation is needed because the reasonable doubt standard exists. How does a defense attorney know what a witness will say or actually said to police investigators? Should the defense assume that the prosecutions reports are accurate? The first step in a well financed defense is to interview every single witness in the discovery (compiling that list may take 30 or 40 hours of reading @ $100+ per hour) then another 50 hours of witness interviews at $100+, plus travel, and other misc expenses.. I can't tell you how many witnesses have told me that the police investigator's reports were not accurate as to what they said..how many times I would find information contrary to what was in those reports...and how many times the defense lawyers I worked for were able to establish reasonable doubt only because of the work product of my interviews..

The prosecutor doesn't have to worry about any of that, if he wants someone interviewed he gets in his government car and interviews them on the government dime, or calls police investigators who do the same..no worries about being paid for their work, or about the cost of anything they order or do..

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

238 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Nope. Sorry. I don't want to make it easier for the state when it comes to criminal prosecution [View all] cali Jul 2013 OP

Voice of reason Cali, thanks. Puzzledtraveller Jul 2013 #1

Yup naaman fletcher Jul 2013 #2

I give you post #3. nt. premium Jul 2013 #11

I think claims of self-defense should require testimony by the claimant. GeorgeGist Jul 2013 #3

Unconstitutional. Not even remotely arguable. You'd need to amend the Constitution cali Jul 2013 #8

Stand your ground was not used by the defense. Lasher Jul 2013 #130

I heard on CNN he may request the SYG hearing now... Pelican Jul 2013 #174

I believe the immunity hearing would occur if someone now files a civil suit against Zimmerman Lasher Jul 2013 #178

It was, however, used by Zimmerman Cronus Protagonist Jul 2013 #181

yeah heaven05 Jul 2013 #139

Yep pipoman Jul 2013 #4

How is the deck stacked against defendants in criminal cases? EOTE Jul 2013 #5

How about the effects of pipoman Jul 2013 #9

Isn't that what discovery is for? EOTE Jul 2013 #15

But the state is not specifically looking for evidence that will exonerate the accused hack89 Jul 2013 #23

I wouldn't. EOTE Jul 2013 #29

Given the relative balance of power between the state and the accused hack89 Jul 2013 #35

I definitely want the accused to be afforded all protections. EOTE Jul 2013 #65

There will always be cases that are nearly impossible to try hack89 Jul 2013 #72

A defense team can't establish reasonable doubt if they don't know it is there.. pipoman Jul 2013 #44

Discovery shows up at your lawyer's office in 6 file boxes pipoman Jul 2013 #41

Just for starters, despite what folks think of the prosecution in Zimmerman cali Jul 2013 #14

Doesn't the state also have many magnitudes of order more cases to focus on? EOTE Jul 2013 #21

not as overwhelmed by caseload as any PD office n/t cali Jul 2013 #32

That is not true lawwolf Jul 2013 #180

In my experience, juries tend to be very pro-State. Laelth Jul 2013 #16

I would agree with that, especially the race factor. EOTE Jul 2013 #26

That was certainly my experience with the jury that I served on earlier this year. Arkansas Granny Jul 2013 #92

The biggest problem with juries Lee-Lee Jul 2013 #114

I Am Completely in Favor RobinA Jul 2013 #177

Well some people can't actually afford to miss a day or two of work. alarimer Jul 2013 #226

A lot of young black males would say it is.. Inkfreak Jul 2013 #27

Yes, the justice system is without a doubt racist. EOTE Jul 2013 #31

I think you're right... Whiskeytide Jul 2013 #78

The deck is often immediately stacked against the defendant. NCTraveler Jul 2013 #110

I'd start with the money and resources available to the state for prosecution rpannier Jul 2013 #119

Clarification: the deck is stacked against POOR defendants (n/t) thesquanderer Jul 2013 #147

That certainly seems to be the case. In the legal system and pretty much everywhere else. EOTE Jul 2013 #150

Oh, I dunno. Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #172

I know that poor and minorities are at a disadvantage by default. EOTE Jul 2013 #175

By money. Orsino Jul 2013 #183

Agreed. Things are bad enough for criminal defendants. Laelth Jul 2013 #6

Thanks for your informed post, Laelth cali Jul 2013 #18

I didn't either until quite recently. Laelth Jul 2013 #34

That is exactly the standard used in all COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #19

Really? I do not practice criminal law and was unaware. Laelth Jul 2013 #49

Florida is in line with 49 of the 50 states hack89 Jul 2013 #28

As I mentioned above ... Laelth Jul 2013 #50

This is almost always the case pipoman Jul 2013 #62

Well, that's my problem. Laelth Jul 2013 #89

I disagree with that characterization.. pipoman Jul 2013 #104

I see the correction in this sub-thread about the number of states... NCTraveler Jul 2013 #113

My pleasure. I deeply regret that I was in error (or so it appears). n/t Laelth Jul 2013 #170

in indiana lawwolf Jul 2013 #231

Indeed, that some of the posters here want to pick and choose when the law Lurks Often Jul 2013 #7

Thank you for injecting reason premium Jul 2013 #10

Holy shit. You call the OP reason? Dawgs Jul 2013 #40

Holy shit. premium Jul 2013 #48

Exactly. n/t Dawgs Jul 2013 #69

The changes need to come at the beginning of the process shawn703 Jul 2013 #12

On that we agree. The state needs to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt pnwmom Jul 2013 #13

SYG defense wasn't used in the Z trial. COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #17

I realize that. Never said it was used. I just think that instead of cali Jul 2013 #24

The price of justice is that sometimes the guilty get to walk BlueStreak Jul 2013 #20

Well some would say then that you don't care if kids die and such The Straight Story Jul 2013 #22

Burden should be on defense for self-defense claim. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #25

So guilty until proven innocent? hack89 Jul 2013 #30

No, just make it a prepondernace of the evidence standard. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #58

Under that standard Z still walks hack89 Jul 2013 #61

There was no testimony that he tried to escape and leave. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #71

There is no evidence he had the opportunity to escape and leave. hack89 Jul 2013 #81

The unserious nature of his 'injuries' seems to indicate he didn't try but rather geek tragedy Jul 2013 #85

The nature of his injuries are irrelevant to prove state of mind hack89 Jul 2013 #93

The standard is 'reasonably in fear" but that language gets ignored geek tragedy Jul 2013 #98

You want a system that allows people to legally beat other people to death hack89 Jul 2013 #103

Better than allowing kids to get shot because they're black. nt geek tragedy Jul 2013 #105

So as long as the right people are killed, it is ok with you? hack89 Jul 2013 #109

Pretty hard to beat someone to death with mere fists. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #112

Happened 745 times in 2010 hack89 Jul 2013 #121

Compared to 11-12,000 homicides by hand guns. nt geek tragedy Jul 2013 #125

More like 6,000. Which is too high hack89 Jul 2013 #133

No, I'm advocating not letting them start fights and end them by shooting the other person. nt geek tragedy Jul 2013 #140

Reasonable goal - lousy way to get there. nt hack89 Jul 2013 #144

that's a problem with our gun saturated culture more than anything else. cali Jul 2013 #189

The gun lovers want to have it both ways. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #193

I agree with that. cali Jul 2013 #195

Yeadley Love onenote Jul 2013 #142

Since he broke into her home with the intent of killing her, I would presume geek tragedy Jul 2013 #145

What if she had invited him over? Or she had gone to his apartment? onenote Jul 2013 #154

And he started beating the shit out of her? Same difference. nt geek tragedy Jul 2013 #155

He had grabbed her, but hadn't yet beat the shit out of her onenote Jul 2013 #156

We can do this dance all day. If he initiates the conflict, she can shoot him geek tragedy Jul 2013 #157

And if there is no witness? What then? onenote Jul 2013 #160

So, in this completely hypothetical example one person goes to the other's geek tragedy Jul 2013 #162

No , she ends up dead from her boyfriend's gun onenote Jul 2013 #165

You're asking me to serve as the jury without seeing actual forensics or testimony. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #166

Or maybe its evidence of a desire to be able to protect oneself. onenote Jul 2013 #168

To me, if you need to carry a gun into a place for self-protection, you ought geek tragedy Jul 2013 #171

based on a real world example onenote Jul 2013 #79

There would be forensic evidence available, there would be fingerprints on the gun geek tragedy Jul 2013 #84

How would any of that evidence indicate who pulled their weapon first? onenote Jul 2013 #91

Er, in such a case the defendant has admitted to killing someone treestar Jul 2013 #67

Not all homicides are a crime hack89 Jul 2013 #77

What state is that? Lasher Jul 2013 #148

Ohio. nt hack89 Jul 2013 #149

Thanks. Lasher Jul 2013 #151

They have the burden of proof that there was a homicide treestar Jul 2013 #232

Only one state in America puts that burden on the accused hack89 Jul 2013 #235

The one state must be Delaware treestar Jul 2013 #236

Use of force in self defense is not an affirmative defense in Delaware - it is a justification hack89 Jul 2013 #237

There was a story about a year ago christx30 Jul 2013 #158

It is a major thing treestar Jul 2013 #233

So help me out here, then Blue_Tires Jul 2013 #187

His actions are not the issue here - he did nothing wrong hack89 Jul 2013 #198

Well, IMO there is a Blue_Tires Jul 2013 #200

The state has to prove guilt. Which requires hard evidence hack89 Jul 2013 #201

that I well know... Blue_Tires Jul 2013 #202

Make sure there are no witnesses or you are off to prison. nt hack89 Jul 2013 #203

LOL...Witnesses or no, the state will find a way to lock me up Blue_Tires Jul 2013 #205

Well, being a Mets fan that is perfectly understandable hack89 Jul 2013 #206

Once you start down that slippery slope of making the defense prove a claim premium Jul 2013 #33

The law as it is protects white people's ability to kill blacks. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #46

Do you think the 5 white jurors on the Zimmerman jury were racists? Nye Bevan Jul 2013 #57

See this video: geek tragedy Jul 2013 #63

Thanks for posting that.. SomethingFishy Jul 2013 #196

You can post all the graphs you want, premium Jul 2013 #60

This wasn't SYG. This was "white jury must find no reasonable doubt geek tragedy Jul 2013 #66

Well then... pipi_k Jul 2013 #163

How was that graph actually made? anomiep Jul 2013 #230

Not so, there have always been such rules treestar Jul 2013 #70

You're right, premium Jul 2013 #82

No. Ohio Joe Jul 2013 #38

Preponderance of the evidence standard. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #53

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" Ohio Joe Jul 2013 #83

The law in Florida makes vigilantes agents of the state and presumes geek tragedy Jul 2013 #88

No... I would change the law, not simply go to one side or the other with it Ohio Joe Jul 2013 #97

What about the law would you change? nt geek tragedy Jul 2013 #99

I am very poor at 'legalese' speak... Ohio Joe Jul 2013 #117

The problem is that legally nothing Zimmerman did before the two geek tragedy Jul 2013 #118

Agreed Ohio Joe Jul 2013 #127

Another hypothetical for you onenote Jul 2013 #86

You're damn right it should. Dawgs Jul 2013 #43

no, it shouldn't. that's not how our system works. cali Jul 2013 #47

The system has failed miserably. Dawgs Jul 2013 #54

Some people=white people. Black people almost never get away geek tragedy Jul 2013 #75

I fear it happening much more often now Blue_Tires Jul 2013 #191

in regards to defendants testifying... disillusioned73 Jul 2013 #36

Short answer - the defense didn't present the video wercal Jul 2013 #45

really... disillusioned73 Jul 2013 #52

They were trying to point out discrepancies in Zimmerman's story wercal Jul 2013 #73

I think they did it because otherwise the defense would have? Yo_Mama Jul 2013 #220

The problem is Lee-Lee Jul 2013 #102

Bullshit. The desired outcome is to not make murder easy to get away with. Dawgs Jul 2013 #37

bullshit back at you. Every change suggested is either unconstitutional or cali Jul 2013 #56

Defending our crappy laws is still not a good argument when people get away with murder. Dawgs Jul 2013 #68

How do you feel about Miranda rights? onenote Jul 2013 #94

I want laws and rights to make sense. Dawgs Jul 2013 #107

Or The, Er... Fourth Amendment RobinA Jul 2013 #184

how many innocents are wrongly convicted rdking647 Jul 2013 #39

Agreed wercal Jul 2013 #42

knee-jerk reactions just deflect from the real issues DrDan Jul 2013 #51

"...make it against the law to NOT follow dispatchers orders." friendly_iconoclast Jul 2013 #111

not sure I see the danger in asking one who calls a dispatcher and DrDan Jul 2013 #128

A dispatcher is not a sworn officer Lee-Lee Jul 2013 #132

Dispatchers aren't cops, and even cops don't have the right to just order others... friendly_iconoclast Jul 2013 #136

well that being the case - and I have no reason to doubt that it is - DrDan Jul 2013 #173

And no department would want the liability Lee-Lee Jul 2013 #131

There's an old saw lawyers quote about "Hard facts make bad law." DirkGently Jul 2013 #55

it does need better prosecutors, in this particular case. Yo_Mama Jul 2013 #59

I don't see a problem with going back to the traditional burden of proof on self defense treestar Jul 2013 #64

That's a good point, too. randome Jul 2013 #87

The approach taken by Florida has been the majority approach for over a decade onenote Jul 2013 #96

See posts 79 and 86 onenote Jul 2013 #115

Agree - this case should not change centuries of law ksoze Jul 2013 #74

Neither side should be allowed to show animation to the jury. Eric J in MN Jul 2013 #76

the fact that the cops even helped him make it was appalling Blue_Tires Jul 2013 #186

Good call. randome Jul 2013 #80

I think you and many others are looking at this the wrong way. DCBob Jul 2013 #90

That makes sense nt Progressive dog Jul 2013 #101

If someone were to force me into a life-or-death situation... Silent3 Jul 2013 #123

Why should the killer get preferential treatment? DCBob Jul 2013 #213

It's too late after such an event to do much for the dead person. Silent3 Jul 2013 #218

Its never too late for justice. DCBob Jul 2013 #219

I missed where people said a defendant should be forced to testify. NCTraveler Jul 2013 #95

Let's face it, our justice system looks good on paper.. mountain grammy Jul 2013 #100

Yesterday, in my frustration, I was toying with the idea of altering HardTimes99 Jul 2013 #106

I believe it should be easier for the state in one area of prosecution. BlueJazz Jul 2013 #108

That's pretty much what happened Shrek Jul 2013 #135

Oh..I didn't know that. Thanks! BlueJazz Jul 2013 #138

Not exactly. Original Prosecutor called for a Grand Jury leftstreet Jul 2013 #204

Thank you rpannier Jul 2013 #116

Agree completely. K&R. closeupready Jul 2013 #120

Reasonable and rational. marble falls Jul 2013 #122

I couldn't agree more. Bake Jul 2013 #124

Correct. Relaxed gun laws are more to blame for this than the court system. AllINeedIsCoffee Jul 2013 #126

Without any constitutional changes . . . caseymoz Jul 2013 #129

I'd just be happy if states heavily revised the so-called "self-defense" laws Blue_Tires Jul 2013 #134

What would you revise? Lee-Lee Jul 2013 #137

Find some way to make it truly "self-defense" instead of Blue_Tires Jul 2013 #169

Saw somebody on the DU facebook page advocating for "Dexter" style justice. MadBadger Jul 2013 #141

yikes. that is alarming. cali Jul 2013 #227

combine all that with support for NSA surveillance markiv Jul 2013 #143

There are actually some things the prosecution did in the zimmerman case that are troubling anomiep Jul 2013 #146

Zimmerman shouldn't have been able to walk after murdering someone Politicub Jul 2013 #152

Ben Franklin said our system was set up so that.. scheming daemons Jul 2013 #153

been on jury duty and in my county in wisconsin if the cop says you did it you are guilty dembotoz Jul 2013 #159

A widespread phenomenon. Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #182

I agree, avaistheone1 Jul 2013 #161

They say justice is blind, and they say that for a reason Android3.14 Jul 2013 #164

pretty much agree... Deep13 Jul 2013 #167

I want to make it easier for a kid to walk home mzmolly Jul 2013 #176

I'd be happy to discuss the issue Savannahmann Jul 2013 #179

Great. Make it easier for racists to stalk, hunt down and murder black teens. Fucking great Cali. nt DevonRex Jul 2013 #185

gad. and what do you suggest? cali Jul 2013 #188

A judge that doesn't cripple the prosecution by ruling out racial profiling? DevonRex Jul 2013 #190

the judge could have done that under existing law, couldn't she? cali Jul 2013 #192

The part that's weird is that even though SYG was not the defense, DevonRex Jul 2013 #197

I agree. midnight Jul 2013 #194

Have you seen this? Jamastiene Jul 2013 #199

Exactly. Plus, she gave SYG instructions even tho they didn't claim SYG, DevonRex Jul 2013 #208

I think a person should have a right to hire a prosecutor Rex Jul 2013 #207

In the vast majority of criminal cases... jberryhill Jul 2013 #209

Why then did Zimmerman get to have a private lawyer then? Rex Jul 2013 #210

Because he has a Constitutional right to hire an attorney jberryhill Jul 2013 #211

I take your word for it, it is your profession. Rex Jul 2013 #212

Get a copy of the Bill of Rights jberryhill Jul 2013 #214

Very interesting. That makes a lot more sense now. Rex Jul 2013 #215

Apply it to occupy... jberryhill Jul 2013 #216

Yes I could see how that would lead to unfairness. Rex Jul 2013 #217

what a great exchange. thanks very much for it cali Jul 2013 #224

donations. cali Jul 2013 #223

that makes no sense. crime is against the state. cali Jul 2013 #222

Zimmerman did, how did that turn out? Rex Jul 2013 #225

Yes, ONE case where there was a defense fund cali Jul 2013 #234

How about we only do it with defendants we don't like? Freddie Stubbs Jul 2013 #221

Recced. NaturalHigh Jul 2013 #228

It Would Have Been Easy Enough to Convict Zimmerman Under Existing Law… AndyTiedye Jul 2013 #229

So the decision is clear to me, then Blue_Tires Jul 2013 #238