I'm mulling over a newly-assigned file at the moment, and for kicks I thought I'd post the questions I have to the general forum. I really don't expect a useful answer, but you never know.
Several years ago a lady is out of town on vacation. Her neighbors (who don't know her very well) at one point see a cube van pull up to the house at around 10 at night, and leave a half hour later. They see at least a couple of people, but don't get any useful description. Sure enough when the homeowner's family member checks on the house a day later it has been ransacked. Anything of value has been taken, including cash and lots of electronics. There are estimates as high as $100k in value of the items stolen.
Forensic ident arrives. They can not develop any prints, but they do get a DNA profile off of an empty coke can and an empty juice box left in the kitchen. The homeowners didn't have any coke in the house, but the juice box appears to have been taken from the fridge.
With no one to compare the DNA to though the case goes cold.
Until last year, when a hit is generated on the national DNA databank. A fellow had just been convicted of break and enter, had a sample put on the system, and it matches.
So the question is - how strong is this case? Homeowners will say they don't know the accused, has never been in their house. But I have zero evidence other than the DNA.
Were I on the jury, I would vote to convict and hang from the neck until dead.
The homeowners know they were robbed. The neighbors witnessed an act that an objective person could reasonably assume was the robbery. Now you have DNA that places an individual at the scene.
Besides, I don't think this recently convicted fellow has the juice, pardon the pun, to hire a Dream Team to destroy the DNA evidence.
Unless he's got an airtight alibi--like serving time--I think, if you're ballsy enough, you can get a conviction. It's worth rolling the dice, man.
Quote from: Neil on March 28, 2012, 11:20:50 AM
Were I on the jury, I would vote to convict and hang from the neck until dead.
And that is without reading anything BB posted.
I'd guess you won't get a conviction on that.
Unless a matching DNA profile is approaching 100% certainty for identifying the suspect, he's just going to say "I have no idea how those things ended up there. I wasn't there" and that's that. I expect you need some other evidence.
Quote from: Jacob on March 28, 2012, 11:26:17 AM
I'd guess you won't get a conviction on that.
I disagree. Even in a 3rd world country like Canada, you can get a conviction off a circumstantial evidence.
Juicebox and Coke can are both movable items, so a considerably weaker case than if the DNA had been found on a fixture. I would certainly need more than this to vote for conviction. Especially as I'm pretty sure I wouldn't know about his recent conviction.
Quote from: Jacob on March 28, 2012, 11:26:17 AM
I'd guess you won't get a conviction on that.
Unless a matching DNA profile is approaching 100% certainty for identifying the suspect, he's just going to say "I have no idea how those things ended up there. I wasn't there" and that's that. I expect you need some other evidence.
The DNA profile is accurate to one in several billion people. There is zero doubt that it is his DNA on those items.
Unless he in fact had a strong alibi he'd never, ever take the stand - that would allow me to introduce his rather extensive criminal record. Which I otherwise wouldn't be able to mention.
The question is once I have introduced the evidence will the judge convict or not.
I am a bit rusty on criminal law. Can you introduce a prior record if the accused does not put his character in issue?
Quote from: Barrister on March 28, 2012, 11:34:22 AM
The question is once I have introduced the evidence will the judge convict or not.
Judges know the deal on DNA.
It's juries that are suspect about it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2012, 11:43:35 AM
It's juries that are suspect about it.
it's all OJ's fault.
Also, i'd convict.
Although you probably don't know, does he has a history witht he investigating officer? He could play the "cop set me up". Also, did he use a van on the robberry he got caught on?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 28, 2012, 11:36:35 AM
I am a bit rusty on criminal law. Can you introduce a prior record if the accused does not put his character in issue?
If the accused takes the stand, I can introduce his prior record for the sole purpose of questioning his credibility. The trier of fact is not supposed to consider the record for any other purpose.
Actually, if it was in front of the jury, a judge might not allow me to introduce his record now that I think about it because it would be too prejudicial. I have my doubts that the accused would elect judge and jury though - it would mean a much longer wait for a trial, and he's bail denied.
A colleague of mine had the opposite opinion - he felt that evidence would force the accused to take the stand.
Quote from: HVC on March 28, 2012, 11:54:40 AM
Although you probably don't know, does he has a history witht he investigating officer? He could play the "cop set me up".
You watch too much tv.
Quote from: HVC
Also, did he use a van on the robberry he got caught on?
You'd need a lot of very specific evidence before being allowed to introduce similar fact evidence. It might be worth looking into, but it's extremely unlikely.
Quote from: Barrister on March 28, 2012, 11:59:26 AM
Quote from: HVC on March 28, 2012, 11:54:40 AM
Although you probably don't know, does he has a history witht he investigating officer? He could play the "cop set me up".
You watch too much tv.
hey, if i was a theif and had no other defense they'd be my go to move :lol:. Well, first would be staying off the stand.
Quote
Quote from: HVC
Also, did he use a van on the robberry he got caught on?
You'd need a lot of very specific evidence before being allowed to introduce similar fact evidence. It might be worth looking into, but it's extremely unlikely.
If you do end up using it can i get a commision? :P
Quote from: HVC on March 28, 2012, 12:01:24 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 28, 2012, 11:59:26 AM
Quote from: HVC on March 28, 2012, 11:54:40 AM
Although you probably don't know, does he has a history witht he investigating officer? He could play the "cop set me up".
You watch too much tv.
hey, if i was a theif and had no other defense they'd be my go to move :lol:. Well, first would be staying off the stand.
Quote
Quote from: HVC
Also, did he use a van on the robberry he got caught on?
You'd need a lot of very specific evidence before being allowed to introduce similar fact evidence. It might be worth looking into, but it's extremely unlikely.
If you do end up using it can i get a commision? :P
"Cop set me up" doesn't make a lot of sense when you consider they had the DNA years ago, but didn't have anyone to match it to until recently. If they were going to set someone up, you'd think they'd set up someone who they can actually identify.
And no.
Does the guy know all you have against him is DNA? Anyone check local pawnshops to see if he sold anything recently? I suppose none of the neighbors recognized him, did they? Do you have a warrant to search his place?
A career criminal caught for a similar crime and DNA evidence suggests he was at the crime scene? Is there any other reasonable explanation why his DNA could be there other than that he burglared that home? I can't think of any, so that's good enough for me.
Isn't cases like this exactly what the proponents of national DNA databases want to solve?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2012, 12:07:04 PM
Does the guy know all you have against him is DNA? Anyone check local pawnshops to see if he sold anything recently? I suppose none of the neighbors recognized him, did they? Do you have a warrant to search his place?
He will soon.
Pawnshops are regularly monitored by police. This seems like too sophisticated for them to make a mistake like pawning the iterms locally. Neighbors ID after this many years would be useless, as would searching his place.
Go for it, BB. DOITDOITDOITDOIT.
Quote from: Zanza on March 28, 2012, 12:08:38 PM
Isn't cases like this exactly what the proponents of national DNA databases want to solve?
:yes:
Quote from: Barrister on March 28, 2012, 12:11:53 PM
Pawnshops are regularly monitored by police.
:hmm: Good to know, thanks. :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 28, 2012, 11:25:38 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 28, 2012, 11:20:50 AM
Were I on the jury, I would vote to convict and hang from the neck until dead.
And that is without reading anything BB posted.
Naturally :D
Don't do it. Too Machiavellian.
Quote from: The Brain on March 28, 2012, 12:54:02 PM
Don't do it. Too Machiavellian.
What the fuck are you talking about? Machiavellian? It's not his boss's DNA he's using, for fuck's sake.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2012, 12:12:45 PM
Go for it, BB. DOITDOITDOITDOIT.
Oh - it's not as if I'm going to drop the charge. :menace:
I'm just trying to figure out how much of a hard line I can take. :shifty:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2012, 12:56:57 PM
It's not his boss's DNA he's using, for fuck's sake.
He uses that for making babies.
Unless there's any reason to doubt that the DNA sampling taken from the coke is 100% correct, then I'd say go for it.
And I'm guessing a defense counsel would aim at casting such a doubt on the quality of the sample taken years ago, probably through technicalities like that? Not taken or stored properly, not recorded or analyzed properly, a signature missing somewhere?
Quote from: Syt on March 28, 2012, 01:20:19 PM
Unless there's any reason to doubt that the DNA sampling taken from the coke is 100% correct, then I'd say go for it.
And I'm guessing a defense counsel would aim at casting such a doubt on the quality of the sample taken years ago, probably through technicalities like that? Not taken or stored properly, not recorded or analyzed properly, a signature missing somewhere?
Yeah, the best defensive bet would be to challenge every aspect of the chain of custody process, and hope somebody fucked it up somewhere along the line.
And knowing cops, there's always a good chance for that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2012, 01:23:33 PM
Quote from: Syt on March 28, 2012, 01:20:19 PM
Unless there's any reason to doubt that the DNA sampling taken from the coke is 100% correct, then I'd say go for it.
And I'm guessing a defense counsel would aim at casting such a doubt on the quality of the sample taken years ago, probably through technicalities like that? Not taken or stored properly, not recorded or analyzed properly, a signature missing somewhere?
Yeah, the best defensive bet would be to challenge every aspect of the chain of custody process, and hope somebody fucked it up somewhere along the line.
And knowing cops, there's always a good chance for that.
For whatever reason we don't see a lot of cases fought over chain of custody. But you're quite right that is one possible strategy.
But of course if he takes it all the way to trial we'll attempt to give him the longest possible sentence, and on the other side give him a discount if he enters a plea. It's just that depending on how strong (or weak) the case is, we give more or less of a discount.
My non criminal take is that you have evidence which puts him at the scene of the crime at the time the crime was commited (the evidence of the family that there were no coke cans in the house prior to their trip).
So long as the charge is broad enough to encompass simply being at the scene of the crime (ie not doing any of the actual stealing which he could say was done by others) then you are probably ok. But what do you do if the Charge requires you to prove he took some active part in the theft.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 28, 2012, 01:44:02 PM
My non criminal take is that you have evidence which puts him at the scene of the crime at the time the crime was commited (the evidence of the family that there were no coke cans in the house prior to their trip).
So long as the charge is broad enough to encompass simply being at the scene of the crime (ie not doing any of the actual stealing which he could say was done by others) then you are probably ok. But what do you do if the Charge requires you to prove he took some active part in the theft.
There is a presumption I can rely upon:
QuotePresumptions
(2) For the purposes of proceedings under this section, evidence that an accused
(a) broke and entered a place or attempted to break and enter a place is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that he broke and entered the place or attempted to do so, as the case may be, with intent to commit an indictable offence therein; or
(b) broke out of a place is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that he broke out after
(i) committing an indictable offence therein, or
(ii) entering with intent to commit an indictable offence therein.
Then you are golden and the accused will be forced to take the stand to provide any evidence to the contrary - if there is any.
For how long is he in prison for?
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 28, 2012, 01:59:42 PM
For how long is he in prison for?
Until his trial, or until a QB judge lets him out.
The only negative in bail denied is that he could conceivably have money for a decent attorney.
Better to have a decently high bail set, let him post it, and lulz, no funds left for a real lawyer. Jelly much, counselor?
BAIL BONDS IS OUR BUSINESS AND BUSINESS IS A BOOMIN
I'm with those thinking you have a pretty strong case, given the DNA match with a soda can you can safely assert was brought in at the time of the crime.
Quote from: grumbler on March 28, 2012, 02:20:28 PM
I'm with those thinking you have a pretty strong case, given the DNA match with a soda can you can safely assert was brought in at the time of the crime.
Actually I think the juice box is better. Conceivably someone else could have brought a previously empty coke can to the house, but the accused's DNA on an item that was already in the house is golden.
The coke and the juice are both good. The coke wasn't in the house before the burglary and it was after.
Dude's going down.
Is this thread another attempt by a bureaucrat to demonstrate the power he has over other citizens ?
Quote from: mongers on March 28, 2012, 02:42:16 PM
Is this thread another attempt by a bureaucrat to demonstrate the power he has over other citizens ?
I hope somebody finds your DNA on bicycle spandex nuthuggers on the Grassy Knoll. Doofus.
Quote from: Barrister on March 28, 2012, 12:11:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2012, 12:07:04 PM
Does the guy know all you have against him is DNA? Anyone check local pawnshops to see if he sold anything recently? I suppose none of the neighbors recognized him, did they? Do you have a warrant to search his place?
He will soon.
Pawnshops are regularly monitored by police. This seems like too sophisticated for them to make a mistake like pawning the iterms locally. Neighbors ID after this many years would be useless, as would searching his place.
Ah. Well, maybe you should just throw the dice and go for it. Maybe he'll freak out and rat out his associates. How receptive are juries to DNA evidence?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2012, 04:16:10 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 28, 2012, 12:11:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2012, 12:07:04 PM
Does the guy know all you have against him is DNA? Anyone check local pawnshops to see if he sold anything recently? I suppose none of the neighbors recognized him, did they? Do you have a warrant to search his place?
He will soon.
Pawnshops are regularly monitored by police. This seems like too sophisticated for them to make a mistake like pawning the iterms locally. Neighbors ID after this many years would be useless, as would searching his place.
Ah. Well, maybe you should just throw the dice and go for it. Maybe he'll freak out and rat out his associates. How receptive are juries to DNA evidence?
It's the CSI effect. They are hugely receptive to it, but are disapointed when we tell them what the limitations are.
And the absolute last thing this guy will do is "rat out" his associates. As well since we have no evidence about the associates (other than his theoretical evidence) I doubt we'd prosecute them.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2012, 04:16:10 PM
How receptive are juries to DNA evidence?
You might need a dinner and a movie to get them on board.
This is probably the last and only chance of solving the case. Go for it.
Quote from: Barrister on March 28, 2012, 02:23:09 PM
Actually I think the juice box is better. Conceivably someone else could have brought a previously empty coke can to the house, but the accused's DNA on an item that was already in the house is golden.
As a member of the jury, I would find that there was a reasonable doubt that the juice box was "contaminated" by the DNA in some other fashion - like that they gave the accused a juice drink and just didn't remember it. The coke can is not theirs, however. They couldn't have given a coke to someone who had, say, cleaned their gutters or mowed their lawn, since they didn't have one.
I'm not a lawyer, though.
Go for it. Don't you get paid if you win or lose? I do.
I fucking nailed a guy today, though. It was only a misdemeanor, but this asshole had sent three letters to the victim's employer (Hattiesburg PD Chief) regarding a civil dispute between himself and the victim, asking the chief to tell his subordinate to stop snitching to the bank that had foreclosed on his properties that he had stolen all the fixtures, appliances, and HVAC systems out of the foreclosed houses.
We convicted the shit out of him. Which was nice, because I have a $267,000+ judgment against his bankrupt company. So I felt like a boss for about five minutes.
So in Canada, if I bring cans I stole from a recycling bin to the scene of my robbery, and resist the urge to jerk off in my victims' panty drawer, I can confuse police and prosecutors and get someone else convicted of my crime? Most non-heinous.
Quote from: Scipio on March 28, 2012, 06:43:54 PM
Go for it. Don't you get paid if you win or lose? I do.
I fucking nailed a guy today, though. It was only a misdemeanor, but this asshole had sent three letters to the victim's employer (Hattiesburg PD Chief) regarding a civil dispute between himself and the victim, asking the chief to tell his subordinate to stop snitching to the bank that had foreclosed on his properties that he had stolen all the fixtures, appliances, and HVAC systems out of the foreclosed houses.
We convicted the shit out of him. Which was nice, because I have a $267,000+ judgment against his bankrupt company. So I felt like a boss for about five minutes.
While I'm glad you enjoy your work, I'm not sure this is a proper mindset for a defense attorney. :unsure:
Quote from: Ideologue on March 28, 2012, 10:03:46 PM
So in Canada, if I bring cans I stole from a recycling bin to the scene of my robbery, and resist the urge to jerk off in my victims' panty drawer, I can confuse police and prosecutors and get someone else convicted of my crime? Most non-heinous.
Knowing you that is impossible.
We all have our weaknesses.
As I am a Mex-i-can't and too lazy to start an actual thread, just want to wish Beeb a Happy Birthday.
Shit yeah. HBBB.
Quote from: Barrister on March 28, 2012, 02:23:09 PM
Actually I think the juice box is better. Conceivably someone else could have brought a previously empty coke can to the house, but the accused's DNA on an item that was already in the house is golden.
You can't be sure it was their juice box and not another one brought from outside.
What's really better is having both. It throws pure randomness(e.g. kid kicks Coke can around for half a mile walking home from school) out the window. So he was either on/around the property, or somebody planted the items.
Quote from: katmai on March 28, 2012, 11:12:56 PM
As I am a Mex-i-can't and too lazy to start an actual thread, just want to wish Beeb a Happy Birthday.
How old is? 50?
:cheers:
Quote from: katmai on March 28, 2012, 11:12:56 PM
As I am a Mex-i-can't and too lazy to start an actual thread, just want to wish Beeb a Happy Birthday.
:cheers:
Quote from: Barrister on March 28, 2012, 11:34:22 AM
Quote from: Jacob on March 28, 2012, 11:26:17 AM
I'd guess you won't get a conviction on that.
Unless a matching DNA profile is approaching 100% certainty for identifying the suspect, he's just going to say "I have no idea how those things ended up there. I wasn't there" and that's that. I expect you need some other evidence.
The DNA profile is accurate to one in several billion people. There is zero doubt that it is his DNA on those items.
Unless he in fact had a strong alibi he'd never, ever take the stand - that would allow me to introduce his rather extensive criminal record. Which I otherwise wouldn't be able to mention.
The question is once I have introduced the evidence will the judge convict or not.
Can you prove the juice carton is the homeowners juice carton, and not one brougth, and potentially planted there?
say the juice carton only has the perpetrators DNA, then he can claim it was left by someone else. But if the juice has both his, and the prints of the homeowner, then its likely he has been there.
V
I'm confused what BB wants out of this. He has listed a set of facts. Assuming these facts are true then the accused should be found guilty. Surely asking us which of these facts are admissible is asking the wrong people. I'm pretty sure the judge decides these things.
Barring a good explanation for why the accused was in the house, a lecherous identical twin or suspicion that the home owner was falsely reporting the burglary I think it is reasonable to conclude that the accused did it.
Quote from: Viking on March 29, 2012, 05:15:26 AM
Barring a good explanation for why the accused was in the house, a lecherous identical twin or suspicion that the home owner was falsely reporting the burglary I think it is reasonable to conclude that the accused did it.
Oh, sure he did it. State still needs to prove it.
Quote from: Viking on March 29, 2012, 05:15:26 AM
I'm confused what BB wants out of this. He has listed a set of facts. Assuming these facts are true then the accused should be found guilty. Surely asking us which of these facts are admissible is asking the wrong people. I'm pretty sure the judge decides these things.
My suspicion is that he wants to start a discussion. Weird, I know. What will probably shock you is that, other than you, there are probably only a few people here at languish that post because they want something out of Languish other than amusement. You are confused because you misunderstand the nature of the internet.
Quote from: katmai on March 28, 2012, 11:12:56 PM
As I am a Mex-i-can't and too lazy to start an actual thread, just want to wish Beeb a Happy Birthday.
And I thought you guys didn't care. :hug:
Here's what I go for a present:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnhl.imageg.net%2Fgraphics%2Fproduct_images%2Fp11808377dt.jpg&hash=437bbd2490eab8f262d313be8872f6a905950d0c)
Didn't know General Dynamics had a menswear line.
Quote from: Viking on March 29, 2012, 05:15:26 AM
I'm confused what BB wants out of this. He has listed a set of facts. Assuming these facts are true then the accused should be found guilty. Surely asking us which of these facts are admissible is asking the wrong people. I'm pretty sure the judge decides these things.
Barring a good explanation for why the accused was in the house, a lecherous identical twin or suspicion that the home owner was falsely reporting the burglary I think it is reasonable to conclude that the accused did it.
:huh:
I'm certainly not asking for any analysis about admissibility - no one here besides me is really qualified to answer that question.
But it is a circumstantial case, and circumstantial evidence is in the eye of the beholder. So I thought it would be interesting to see what various lay people thought.
I was always going to prosecute this fellow. But as I mentioned before, depending on the strength of my case I will give him a resolution offer that is more or less generous. A weaker case means a more generous offer, and a strong case means a less generous offer.
Plus, you know, I thought it might spark an interesting discussion.
Wow, Viking a douchebag, film at 11pm.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 29, 2012, 07:45:11 AM
Wow, Viking a douchebag, film at 11pm.
if only he could find jesus he'd be a better person :(
:P
Seems like pretty strong circumstantial evidence, but the strongest thing of course is his record, which I as a prospective juror am not going to see...Any lesser-includeds to split the difference with, if the jury is going to hang otherwise?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 29, 2012, 01:08:47 PM
Seems like pretty strong circumstantial evidence, but the strongest thing of course is his record, which I as a prospective juror am not going to see...Any lesser-includeds to split the difference with, if the jury is going to hang otherwise?
If he doesnt take the stand then the presumption kicks in. If he does take the stand BB thinks he can put the priors into evidence.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 29, 2012, 01:17:46 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 29, 2012, 01:08:47 PM
Seems like pretty strong circumstantial evidence, but the strongest thing of course is his record, which I as a prospective juror am not going to see...Any lesser-includeds to split the difference with, if the jury is going to hang otherwise?
If he doesnt take the stand then the presumption kicks in. If he does take the stand BB thinks he can put the priors into evidence.
He's not going to take the stand, and the priors would probably be too prejudicial anyways. Am I supposed to be a Canadian juror or a juror in my home country? American jurors aren't supposed to draw inferences from the defendant choosing not to testify (even if they really do all the time).
EDIT: Hmm, I guess that evidence=proof presumption does change things.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 29, 2012, 01:17:46 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 29, 2012, 01:08:47 PM
Seems like pretty strong circumstantial evidence, but the strongest thing of course is his record, which I as a prospective juror am not going to see...Any lesser-includeds to split the difference with, if the jury is going to hang otherwise?
If he doesnt take the stand then the presumption kicks in. If he does take the stand BB thinks he can put the priors into evidence.
Actually - if it is a jury election his criminal record will certainly be edited so as to minimize any prejudice. It would simply be much too prejudicial. But I'll still be able to put some amount of his record to him.
Mihali - Canadian jurors are also cautioned not to draw any inference from the accused not testifying.
It's a case that would be really difficult to reduce to a lesser included. I mean theft is a lesser included, but factually all we have on him is the fact he entered - we have to rely on a legal presumption for the theft. In Canada though we don't have sentencing guidelines, and B&E dwelling house can attract a huge range of sentences, so I think I just take the inevitable uncertainty into account on sentence.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 29, 2012, 07:45:11 AM
Wow, Viking a douchebag, film at 11pm.
How am I being a douchbag?
Quote from: HVC on March 29, 2012, 09:01:28 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 29, 2012, 07:45:11 AM
Wow, Viking a douchebag, film at 11pm.
if only he could find jesus he'd be a better person :(
:P
I found Jesus, but I don't know what a Chilean Restraunteur has to do with me being or not being a douchbag.
Quote from: HVC on March 29, 2012, 02:36:21 PM
Quote from: Viking on March 29, 2012, 02:27:14 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 29, 2012, 07:45:11 AM
Wow, Viking a douchebag, film at 11pm.
How am I being a douchbag?
Not knowing is the biggest sign :D
That would make everybody a douchbag, both those who think they are and those who think they are not.
Quote from: Viking on March 29, 2012, 02:38:45 PM
Quote from: HVC on March 29, 2012, 02:36:21 PM
Quote from: Viking on March 29, 2012, 02:27:14 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 29, 2012, 07:45:11 AM
Wow, Viking a douchebag, film at 11pm.
How am I being a douchbag?
Not knowing is the biggest sign :D
That would make everybody a douchbag, both those who think they are and those who think they are not.
I post on Languish. This is an objective sign. :hmm:
Quote from: Viking on March 29, 2012, 02:35:44 PM
Quote from: HVC on March 29, 2012, 09:01:28 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 29, 2012, 07:45:11 AM
Wow, Viking a douchebag, film at 11pm.
if only he could find jesus he'd be a better person :(
:P
I found Jesus, but I don't know what a Chilean Restraunteur has to do with me being or not being a douchbag.
I was expecting a Big Liebowski reference. ;)
http://www.redjaxxcollectibles.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=580
Quote from: Malthus on March 29, 2012, 03:06:24 PM
I was expecting a Big Liebowski reference. ;)
http://www.redjaxxcollectibles.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=580
I don't get the "The Big Lebowski" love out there. I think it's an ok movie, thats it.
Who brings a juice box and coke can to a robbery?
Quote from: garbon on March 29, 2012, 03:21:44 PM
Who brings a juice box and coke can to a robbery?
The same people who bring a truck: people who are going to be there a while.
Besides, very few thieves have been regarded as smart.
Quote from: garbon on March 29, 2012, 03:21:44 PM
Who brings a juice box and coke can to a robbery?
Well, the juice box was from the fridge there.
Hey Beeb, what are the storage procedures so that the DNA on the coke can is preserved? Just a ziplock, or do you need some kind of refrigeration?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 29, 2012, 03:45:54 PM
Hey Beeb, what are the storage procedures so that the DNA on the coke can is preserved? Just a ziplock, or do you need some kind of refrigeration?
I'd have to ask the lab tech myself, but I don't think they actually preserve the actual DNA or the coke can. They work up the DNA itself, get the results, and those results sit on the file. Remember this isn't a full DNA sequences - they just work up several thousand markers which are enough to create a unique match.
If they do preserve the DNA, it's in the form of a cotton swab - not the coke can. No idea if they need a fridge.
Let us know how it goes (within whatever limits are appropriate, of course).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 29, 2012, 03:45:54 PM
Hey Beeb, what are the storage procedures so that the DNA on the coke can is preserved? Just a ziplock, or do you need some kind of refrigeration?
I don't know what the police use, but DNA can last for years without any special preservation efforts, with the biggest risk it being contaminated with other sources of DNA and its own slow natural degradation. I think preservation such as refrigeration can make it last significantly longer.
Quote from: Barrister on March 29, 2012, 01:54:56 PM
In Canada though we don't have sentencing guidelines, and B&E dwelling house can attract a huge range of sentences, so I think I just take the inevitable uncertainty into account on sentence.
What would you offer in this case if you thought there was no way you could lose at trial? Conversely, what would you offer if you thought your evidence/witnesses were just strong enough to even pursue the charge?
Quote from: Jacob on March 29, 2012, 03:36:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 29, 2012, 03:21:44 PM
Who brings a juice box and coke can to a robbery?
Well, the juice can was from the fridge there.
Gotcha, missed that.
Well, good luck convicting BB.
Quote from: Jacob on March 29, 2012, 03:57:09 PM
Let us know how it goes (within whatever limits are appropriate, of course).
If there is a final disposition it becomes public record, so I can be much less circumspect.
Right now of course I am careful to not reveal any information that might tend to identify the accused.
Just out of curiosity, do you think he did it?
Quote from: Viking on March 29, 2012, 03:13:16 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 29, 2012, 03:06:24 PM
I was expecting a Big Liebowski reference. ;)
http://www.redjaxxcollectibles.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=580
I don't get the "The Big Lebowski" love out there. I think it's an ok movie, thats it.
It has a very memorable "Jesus". ;)
Quote from: Viking on March 29, 2012, 03:13:16 PM
I don't get the "The Big Lebowski" love out there. I think it's an ok movie, thats it.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just like your opinion, man.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 29, 2012, 06:35:23 PM
Quote from: Viking on March 29, 2012, 03:13:16 PM
I don't get the "The Big Lebowski" love out there. I think it's an ok movie, thats it.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just like your opinion, man.
Touché
I still think my scenario would raise the specter of reasonable doubt.
Edit: Although I guess the juice box is a lot more probative, what with it being from the fridge. God, that's just dumb.
Good thing you aren't a lawyer. Or you wouldn't qualify to post your opinions in this thread.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 29, 2012, 04:04:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 29, 2012, 01:54:56 PM
In Canada though we don't have sentencing guidelines, and B&E dwelling house can attract a huge range of sentences, so I think I just take the inevitable uncertainty into account on sentence.
What would you offer in this case if you thought there was no way you could lose at trial? Conversely, what would you offer if you thought your evidence/witnesses were just strong enough to even pursue the charge?
I'm really curious how sentence bargaining works in Canada...So, what would you offer? Or what would you offer to a hypothetical defendant with at least one prior B&E conviction, at those two levels of certainty?
Small update: dude did a bail review and was released today.
Defence let slip what the defence was going to be: he is going to argue that he law hired to be a mover, and had no idea they were actually stealing the stuff. :lol:
We of course invited him to provide a statement and tell us who hired him, maybe provide some paystubs, and we'd consider it. He declined to do so for some reason. :hmm: