Check this out:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/critics-internal-memo-reveals-shocking-bias-of-top-justice-officials-1.2865375
What think you of all this?
Quote
Moreau said the irony of the memo is that it reinforces the misconception that creates anger toward Crown prosecutors.
"Their role is sometimes misunderstood and everyday people, who don't have a legal education, could easily believe that the role of the Crown is to seek a conviction and try and put them in jail.
"And people can become very angry with Crown prosecutors, just simply for doing their job," he said.
See? Nothing to worry about. It's just that the little people aren't educated enough.
[deleted]
Quote from: Barrister on December 19, 2014, 01:48:18 PMIt was in a memo about a dispute about whether or not our salaries should be disclosed.
They should not, IMO. You dudes have a hard enough job as it is without every yahoo in the lockup looking up your personal info on the sunshine list.
Quote from: Barrister on December 19, 2014, 01:48:18 PM
A whole lot of nothing.
Discussing the role of a Crown is tricky, because yes, they're right - the SCC has repeatedly told us that our job is not to get convictions, but merely to see that justice is done. But in seeing that justice is done we are frequently asking courts to convict people. It's easy to slip up and, incorrectly, say that our job is to get convictions.
This would be worrisome if it was part of a memo about a decision whether or not to prosecute. But it isn't. It was in a memo about a dispute about whether or not our salaries should be disclosed.
So, I take it you will not be writing angry letters calling for resignations like the dude mentioned in that article? :lol:
Meh, That memo could also be read as, once crown counsel decides that the case against the accused is strong then the role of crown counsel is to obtain a conviction. Nothing really objectionable about that.
[deleted
[deleted]
Quote from: Barrister on December 19, 2014, 03:07:52 PM
Since those people are both my boss's bobb's boss, no I think it would be unwise of me to call for their resignations. :ph34r:
Well, if you do - bobb's your uncle. ;)
Quote from: Barrister on December 19, 2014, 03:09:11 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 19, 2014, 02:57:09 PM
Meh, That memo could also be read as, once crown counsel decides that the case against the accused is strong then the role of crown counsel is to obtain a conviction. Nothing really objectionable about that.
No, it isn't. We have to continually re-assess whether we should continue our prosecution. Heck, I've killed matters mid way through trial when we no longer had a resonable prospect of conviction.
:frusty:
One assumes that if you change you mind you will do something about it. But while you are of the view that the case is strong you do have a responsibility to obtain a conviction.
[deleted]
Tell me, what is the difference between "Counsel have a duty to see that all available legal proof of the facts is presented: it should be done firmly and pressed to its legitimate strength but it must also be done fairly." and once you are convinced the case is strong, unless you come to a different conclusion during the course of the trial, you have a duty to try to obtain a conviction?
All the SCC is saying is that your duty is not to obtain a conviction independent of other factors. Which is exactly the point I was making ;)
[deleted]
Quote from: Barrister on December 19, 2014, 04:29:28 PM
It cannot be over-emphasized that the purpose of a criminal prosecution is not to obtain a conviction
You can be a bit daft at times counsel.
I did not say The purpose of a criminal prosecution is to obtain a conviction. But I am beginning to understand why the SCC feels the need to make things simple for you guys. :P
[deleted]
Quote from: Barrister on December 19, 2014, 04:53:58 PM
Let's just say it's been well drilled into me that you should never say my job is to get convictions.
And you have been pretty clear that you don't view it as such. For that you are to be commended. :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 19, 2014, 04:57:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 19, 2014, 04:53:58 PM
Let's just say it's been well drilled into me that you should never say my job is to get convictions.
And you have been pretty clear that you don't view it as such. For that you are to be commended. :)
Well, if you had BB's record, you wouldn't want anyone to think that it was your job to get convictions, either.
[deleted]
I think you meant to say that you "saw justice was done" today. :P
Quote from: Barrister on December 19, 2014, 10:23:37 PM
MEOWTF?
I got a conviction today, thank you very much.
Now, now. This is not a confessional. :P
Question: Do defense attorneys think justice is more important then winning cases?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 19, 2014, 11:30:07 PM
Question: Do defense attorneys think justice is more important then winning cases?
Well, Keanu Reeves [spoiler]threw his case[/spoiler] in The Devil's Advocate. :hmm:
Beeb, if the mob turns on you, I'll do what I can but it's not much anymore.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 20, 2014, 02:22:16 AM
Beeb, if the mob turns on you, I'll do what I can but it's not much anymore.
Me too. Wait, what kind of mob war we talking about?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 19, 2014, 11:30:07 PM
Question: Do defense attorneys think justice is more important then winning cases?
They shouldn't. Their job is not "justice" but representing their client to the best of their ability. The judge/jury should care about justice, not defense attorneys.
Also, is anyone surprised by some of BB's attitudes here on Languish after reading this story?
Quote from: Barrister on December 19, 2014, 03:07:52 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 19, 2014, 02:50:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 19, 2014, 01:48:18 PM
A whole lot of nothing.
Discussing the role of a Crown is tricky, because yes, they're right - the SCC has repeatedly told us that our job is not to get convictions, but merely to see that justice is done. But in seeing that justice is done we are frequently asking courts to convict people. It's easy to slip up and, incorrectly, say that our job is to get convictions.
This would be worrisome if it was part of a memo about a decision whether or not to prosecute. But it isn't. It was in a memo about a dispute about whether or not our salaries should be disclosed.
So, I take it you will not be writing angry letters calling for resignations like the dude mentioned in that article? :lol:
Since those people are both my boss's bobb's boss, no I think it would be unwise of me to call for their resignations. :ph34r:
I thought the People of Canada were your bosses and you were supposed to represent their interests. I guess this thread sheds new light at your various morally dubious stances taken every so often.
I agree with BB that convictions are just a means to an end. The purpose is to put people in gaol.
Quote from: Martinus on December 20, 2014, 03:50:39 AM
Also, is anyone surprised by some of BB's attitudes here on Languish after reading this story?
No. Meaning I didn't read the story.
Quote from: Barrister on December 19, 2014, 10:23:37 PM
Quote from: dps on December 19, 2014, 08:23:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 19, 2014, 04:57:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 19, 2014, 04:53:58 PM
Let's just say it's been well drilled into me that you should never say my job is to get convictions.
And you have been pretty clear that you don't view it as such. For that you are to be commended. :)
Well, if you had BB's record, you wouldn't want anyone to think that it was your job to get convictions, either.
MEOWTF?
I got a conviction today, thank you very much.
Hey, for the most part I'm fairly straightforward here and what I say is what I think, so I don't have much of a shtick (unlike some posters I could mention). But pretending that you lose all of your cases is a big part of what little shtick I do.
In all seriousness, though, isn't this whole issue largely a distinction without a difference, at least during a trial? If your job is to see that justice is done, isn't a big part of that getting the guilty (or those you believe to be guilty) convicted? If you don't believe justice would be done by getting a conviction, you shouldn't have prosecuted the accused in the first place (not taking into account situations in which potentially exculpatory evidence comes to light after the trial has stared, which I would assume is relatively infrequently).
Quote from: Barrister on December 19, 2014, 04:29:28 PM
It cannot be over-emphasized that the purpose of a criminal prosecution is not to obtain a conviction
See, this why you would fail in America, where obtaining a conviction is the only purpose--even if it's the wrong guy.
If you had a JD, you'd know that. :P
Quote"The role of prosecutor excludes any notion of winning or losing," the ruling further states.
Pfft, weak.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 20, 2014, 01:29:47 PM
Quote“The role of prosecutor excludes any notion of winning or losing,” the ruling further states.
Pfft, weak.
You know, the excerpts posted here from that ruling would almost make one think that the CSC at the time had a majority of former criminal defense attorneys.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 19, 2014, 11:30:07 PM
Question: Do defense attorneys think justice is more important then winning cases?
Justice never even enters my mind. I spend my day hustling hard to get "guilty" people off free or with insignificant punishment, and when I do, I'm thrilled. Last night, after an hour or so of pleasant conversation, this guy started me asking all the cliche questions about the supposedly difficult moral situations public defenders have to face, which I didn't mind
I guess it's hard for people to believe, but in my pile of 70 or 80 case, I truly don't make distinctions between my clients based on their "guilt" or "innocence" -- it has very little relevance for how I do my job. (Actually, the "innocent" clients tend to be more of a headache to deal with. So are the clients, often facing DUIs, with the mentality of "I'm a good person! I've never been in trouble before!" -- well guess what, you are now!; and the trouble's not going away on its own. Ironically perhaps, I've found a lot of hardened cons to be the best to work with, once they trust that I'm not going to treat their case like a stereotypical "public pretender" or "dump truck"; they understand the risks, they understand the system, have clear ideas on what they want, and focus on the important issues rather than rambling about their lives.)
The two caveats are: 1) calling my client to testify; classical defense theory cautions against this 99% of the time, but it can be effective if you have the right client -- I cannot suborn perjury, so I need to be satisfied that his testimony will be truthful before he takes the stand; and 2) the extremely small minority of "heinous" crimes (or child welfare cases) where you need to "search your soul," I guess. But in my limited time, I've worked on behalf of a double-murderer (quite closely and in person), someone with a cache of horrific child porn, and even a prison guard who raped inmates. It didn't really phase me.
This schmuck from last night started kind of baiting me, telling me why it was so limited and disrespectful to the clients to think of criminal defense in terms of "fighting," which we tend to do, and that we should change our perception to arrive at the belief that we've 'already' won the case before we start working on it. Maybe I would've taken it in stride on a Saturday night, but I'd just spent my whole day "fighting" for my clients. For instance just several hours earlier, when I was meeting a developmentally-disabled 14-year-old boy in a jail cell, completely uncommunicative, sitting next to him as he cried softly and continuously with his head down during the brief court proceeding, watching him lead away in handcuffs, and even catching a view of his tear-stained face slumped against the window in the back of the cruiser as the deputies took him on the ride to juvie -- and I was totally unable to do a thing for him.
Sometimes, you do come home at night a little dazed, feeling like a walking receptacle for human misery, and totally helpless. Except maybe to succeed on one single criminal charge for one single person, when your head swims with your hundreds of clients' lifetimes of being abused, beaten, disrespected, arrested, incarcerated, robbed, panicked, confused, enraged, desperate, overwhelmed...
Maybe my emergency motion written at 9pm buys my healthy 39 year old client a couple of days so she doesn't miss the appointment to have all her teeth pulled out, before she goes to do her 45 days in jail. I got that for her, and I was very glad for a minute, since I thought it would be denied. But the great victory means that she's still locked up in a cell, she's toothless at 39 for no other reason than she's poor and can't afford the dental work that would save the teeth, thus looking more and more like the scummy criminal she's supposed to be, and she's losing morale to see the pending case through to trial.
Perhaps I was overtired at the end of the week, perhaps a little touchy as well after a few drinks at the end of the night, but I argued with this "artistic" moron for way, way, way too long before we left on really quite hateful terms. I regret it because of how pointless it was to ruin my evening like that.
But "fighting"
is the right metaphor for what I do and what I'm so supposed to do. The State started this particular fight when the police arrested him, and then the prosecutors laid charges, formally announcing that they want to take away his freedom, through physical violence (imprisonment) if they want to. I'm called his
defense attorney -- you only need to "defend" against an attack; and two parties attacking and defending pretty much defines a fight.
So that's the even-keeled professional outlook from the defense side. :)
I bet Capetan Mihali is a big fan of Cape Fear.
Okay, so the prosecution is much more justified in only trying to get convictions.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 20, 2014, 03:48:30 PM
I bet Capetan Mihali is a big fan of Cape Fear.
Well,the original is a true classic, but the lack of a happy ending is tough. :(
The remake is great too. De Niro demonstrates an unorthodox but undeniably effective avenue for a grievance about professional ethics/ineffective assistance of counsel. :)
[deleted]
Quote from: Barrister on December 23, 2014, 01:30:09 PM
It might be 2 days before Christmas, but I still got a fellow bail denied today. Take that Santa Claus effect! :menace:
Fascist. So a bail bondsman gets to go hungry this holiday because you feel compelled to maintain an erection.
[deleted]
Could I do that? :)
Of course he was; if I were locked up, I'd want to release myself on my own recognizance too.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 20, 2014, 03:15:05 PM
But "fighting" is the right metaphor for what I do and what I'm so supposed to do. The State started this particular fight when the police arrested him, and then the prosecutors laid charges, formally announcing that they want to take away his freedom, through physical violence (imprisonment) if they want to. I'm called his defense attorney -- you only need to "defend" against an attack; and two parties attacking and defending pretty much defines a fight.
So that's the even-keeled professional outlook from the defense side. :)
I would humbly suggest that the fight started (sometimes quite literally) when a crime was committed, and the state is only responding.
Nice to know that the Crown has evolved beyond the kindergarten level.
Quote from: Barrister on December 23, 2014, 01:30:09 PM
It might be 2 days before Christmas, but I still got a fellow bail denied today. Take that Santa Claus effect! :menace:
And I got guys out on recognizance bail with multiple failures-to-appear and other shit. :showoff:
I also pulled the exact "but it's Christmas!?" line that you hate, for one client who has missed many of them due to incarceration; he really wanted me to ask for that in those terms, and we didn't have much to go on, so I gave it a shot, but I did find some humor while I was pitching it because I remembered this thread.
EDIT: Needless to say, it wasn't successful.
If anyone else asks why I don't want to practice law, I'm going to link to this thread.
Quote from: Barrister on December 23, 2014, 01:30:09 PM
It might be 2 days before Christmas, but I still got a fellow bail denied today. Take that Santa Claus effect! :menace:
I may have to rewatch this film in protest. :(
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032981/
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.
QuoteHe 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/
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
Quote from: Barrister on January 02, 2015, 12:57:11 PM
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?
[deleted]
Quote from: Barrister on January 02, 2015, 01:08:41 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 02, 2015, 12:50:56 PM
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.
QuoteHe 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!
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.
Quote from: Berkut on January 02, 2015, 01:21:13 PM
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. :cool:
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... :(
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.