Pistorius has enough money to buy any lawyer who will believe anything he says.
Pistorius, the blade runner, shot his girlfriend?
- Thread starter fun-guy
- Start date
Patrick Kelly - paroled in 2010 but it was revoked in 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Kelly_(former_RCMP_officer)
Truth can be less logical and far more elusive than you might think it. Especially when you're retained as counsel for the defence and have to make the judgment call re whether you think the 26 year old guy weeping in front of you is telling you the truth or not about whether he shot the woman he loved. While Aardy might post that an accused is entitled to a "defence" whatever you might think of him, lawyers (deep down) are just people and want to do the "right" thing. The "right" thing gets complicated as soon as you interact with your client and start to feel a little responsibility and sympathy for him. It can make the difference between mailing in a "paint by numbers" defence or going that extra mile and a half for someone you actually believe might actually be telling the truth.
at this point, with all the police lies, i'm beginning to have doubts if he was even there! if their justice system isn't totally corrupt, what we've heard the last few days suggests he will get off scot-free. who knows/ maybe he didn't do it. maybe he's a nut!
We I believe agree that one should decline to represent someone whom you feel uncomfortable representing rather than providing them with a lackadaisical "paint by the numbers" defence.
If a defense lawyer comes across evidence that, to his mind, proves his client (the defendant) is guilty, what do they normally do? Or what are they expected to do? I've always been curious.
Do you defend your client to the best of your ability anyways? Or do you try to 'make things right' and do what is necessary that your client is convicted with a sentence appropriate to the crime? Or simply recuse yourself?
Do you defend your client to the best of your ability anyways? Or do you try to 'make things right' and do what is necessary that your client is convicted with a sentence appropriate to the crime? Or simply recuse yourself?
Ask Paul Bernardo's first lawyer who hid his client's infamous tapes from the police and inadvertently saved Karla from serving life in prison.
yeah theres enough reasonable doubt there. all ive heard is circumstantial evidence against him. I don;t see any of reevas friends in the media saying there was abuse or that she was gonna leave him etc. oscar could be a complete moron for all we know.
Aren't there any other charges available? Maybe reckless discharging a gun causing death?
yeah the prosecution really fucked up by choosing premeditated murder the highest charge. I guess they figure inf theres a possible plea deal they could go with 2nd degree or involuntary manslaughter. id convict him of involuntary manslaughter, bc if what hes saying is true he obviously did not do enough due diligence before riddling the washroom with bullets. common sense says you yell out your girlfriends name or check the bed before you shoot.
I think people should remember this is just a pre-trial bail hearing, the prosecution presumably hasn't brought its A-game out yet. He has told his story, and it is SO FAR consistent with the facts such as they are. When the forensic evidence comes in that should either add weight to his story, or else blow it to smithereens. Things like whether either of them was hit with the bat, what the ballistics say about whether he was wearing his legs or walking on stumps (as he says), and so on.
At this point my impression is that he's probably guilty but that the South African police are such a clown show that he will rightly get off. If so, the people of South Africa should start asking some hard questions about the professionalism of their police force.
You are professionally obliged to turn over all incriminating evidence to the Crown, regardless of solicitor-client privilege. Bernardo's first lawyer - who with held the tapes - was disciplined by the Law Society.
Whoa, I didn't know that. In practice, does this usually happen (turning over evidence to the Crown) or does the defense typically recuse themselves?
My thoughts (non-expert) is that the lawyer is suppose to represent his client's interests independent of what evidence is presented. If a defense lawyer walks away, he is actually convicting a man without a fair trial. Is the guy insane, is there extenuating circumstances which would determine the type of sentencing (fear, injury, mental incapacity, whatever..) ? The lawyer (no matter how repulsive the crime) must represent the client for the system to work. If you believe in the system and a client 'walks' - you must believe that there was a legitimate reason. It is never perfect but it is designed to prevent innocent convictions.
I believe Pistorius is facing premeditated murder because in his country - premeditated doesn't imply weeks of planning but holds that if he went back to the bedroom to pick up the gun and take it to the bathroom, there was a plan to use it.
Pistorius has a few things going for him - mostly I believe the general public are stupid, emotional and irrational. Pistorius was a super hero and people don't like to admit that their idols could have flaws (e.g. O.J. Simpson). People want to believe him so unless camera footage exists of the shooting - they will embrace virtually any twisted logic to believe in his innocence.
The police are presenting evidence that should be considered on it's own merits - but the trial is being twisted into trying the character of police officers giving the evidence. Like a magician's trick of distracting the audience to perform an illusion.
Defence counsel MUST do it. It's an exception to solicitor-client privelege. As soon as you know about the evidence, you have to contact the Crown.
