For BB: Alberta Prosecutorial Tizzy

[Ideologue]

If anyone else asks why I don't want to practice law, I'm going to link to this thread.

[Tonitrus]

It might be 2 days before Christmas, but I still got a fellow bail denied today.  Take that Santa Claus effect!   

I may have to rewatch this film in protest. 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032981/

[crazy canuck]

Reading through the various pieces written about Greenspan (for you none Canadians - a well respected Criminal Defence lawyer) this bit published in the Globe reminded me of this thread.

He expressed his pride in the Canadian justice system, saying that prosecutors here are obliged to disclose witness statements promptly to defence lawyers, and that in the U.S. such disclosure tends not to happen until partway through the trial. He also said that fair-minded prosecutors, such as Patrick LeSage of Ontario, later a chief justice, can't be found in the U.S.

"He was the fairest of them all. I couldn't beat him. And in four jury trials that I had with him, I didn't. He was fantastic. Those people don't exist in the United States. They're doing it to get employed. They're known for 'I convicted Conrad Black' or 'I convicted Tyco or Enron or WorldCom,' and they end up making fortunes. But they cheat, they lie, they're untrustworthy and, for them, it's all about getting an accused at whatever cost."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/the-law-page/top-criminal-lawyer-eddie-greenspan-has-died/article22201334/

[Barrister]

So we had a nine death murder-suicide in Edmonton over the weekend.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/edmonton/Edmonton+mass+murder+gunman+lengthy+criminal+record/10696760/story.html

[Jacob]

So we had a nine death murder-suicide in Edmonton over the weekend.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/edmonton/Edmonton+mass+murder+gunman+lengthy+criminal+record/10696760/story.html

I can guarantee that the government will be picking through this man's past files with a fine-tooth comb to figure out if the police, and prosecutors, dropped the ball on any incident.

Sorry to hear that.

But... the government should be picking through those past files with a fine-tooth comb, shouldn't they? Even if it's uncomfortable for the people who handled them?

[Barrister]

[deleted]

[Jacob]

IMHO, the government should pay more attention to what goes on in domestic violence court right now (personal opinion - it isn't good).

And then - it's always one thing to review anything you do with hindsight.  The risk is that you just scapegoat one or two innocent public servants just trying to do a difficult job, rather than look at the systemic failings in the system.

Fair enough.

[Admiral Yi]

Reading through the various pieces written about Greenspan (for you none Canadians - a well respected Criminal Defence lawyer) this bit published in the Globe reminded me of this thread.

He expressed his pride in the Canadian justice system, saying that prosecutors here are obliged to disclose witness statements promptly to defence lawyers, and that in the U.S. such disclosure tends not to happen until partway through the trial. He also said that fair-minded prosecutors, such as Patrick LeSage of Ontario, later a chief justice, can't be found in the U.S.

"He was the fairest of them all. I couldn't beat him. And in four jury trials that I had with him, I didn't. He was fantastic. Those people don't exist in the United States. They're doing it to get employed. They're known for 'I convicted Conrad Black' or 'I convicted Tyco or Enron or WorldCom,' and they end up making fortunes. But they cheat, they lie, they're untrustworthy and, for them, it's all about getting an accused at whatever cost."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/the-law-page/top-criminal-lawyer-eddie-greenspan-has-died/article22201334/

USA! USA!

[Berkut]

I am sure I've told this story before...

My wife was working as a case manager for the seriously mentall ill in Arizona. She had a client who had tried to kill Clinton. At least, the client had gotten a gun, bought a bus ticket to DC, and was picked up in DC with said gun and a stated intent to kill him.

So pretty dangerous, but crazy.

The client was under court ordered medication and court ordered management, and the wife was their case manager. At some point, the client's court order was due to be renewed, and there was a hearing to determine if continued mandated mangament or medication was required. My wife, and the clients psychiatrist both strongly recommended that the court order remain in effect, and both testified that the client was dangerous when off medication and could not be counted on to take their medication except under court order and court supervision.

Judge over-ruled them both, and moved the client to voluntary supervision, which the client immediately refused to do, and quit taking her meds.

Some time later, she went on a shooting spree, killing 4 or 5 people.

Needless to say, there were many questions asked about why this known dangerous mentally unstable person was no longer under court ordered care. Lucky for my wife, she kept meticulous records, including her vehement disagreement with the decision to remove the person from mandatory supervised care, and very well maintained records of all her interactions with the client while they were under her supervision.

[Barrister]

I am sure I've told this story before...

My wife was working as a case manager for the seriously mentall ill in Arizona. She had a client who had tried to kill Clinton. At least, the client had gotten a gun, bought a bus ticket to DC, and was picked up in DC with said gun and a stated intent to kill him.

So pretty dangerous, but crazy.

The client was under court ordered medication and court ordered management, and the wife was their case manager. At some point, the client's court order was due to be renewed, and there was a hearing to determine if continued mandated mangament or medication was required. My wife, and the clients psychiatrist both strongly recommended that the court order remain in effect, and both testified that the client was dangerous when off medication and could not be counted on to take their medication except under court order and court supervision.

Judge over-ruled them both, and moved the client to voluntary supervision, which the client immediately refused to do, and quit taking her meds.

Some time later, she went on a shooting spree, killing 4 or 5 people.

Needless to say, there were many questions asked about why this known dangerous mentally unstable person was no longer under court ordered care. Lucky for my wife, she kept meticulous records, including her vehement disagreement with the decision to remove the person from mandatory supervised care, and very well maintained records of all her interactions with the client while they were under her supervision.

Good thing.   

But imagine if the psychiatrist was more equivocal, and your wife, pressured by, I dunno, a supervisor, to reduce costs decided to agree to the voluntary supervision...

[LaCroix]

if a prosecutor initiates a case against a criminal defendant, he probably thinks there's sufficient evidence to result in a conviction. otherwise, why initiate the case (politics aside). so, unless a smoking gun appears mid-way through the trial that changes the prosecutor's mind, the prosecutor is naturally going to seek that conviction. that's different than convict for the sake of convicting.