Should The Charges Be Dismissed?

[jks9199]

Folks, keep in mind that the motions to dismiss the charges being discussed here were made by the defense attorneys for the accused. These are professionals who are doing their jobs, the jobs our country mandates be done. Aggressively.

I've done defense work. I can best liken it to being the single gladiator that society provides to someone whom the rest of us would like to see torn apart by lions. Out you go with sword and armor to fight for this person. And it is not a show defense. You fight to kill. You raise and pursue everything you legitimately can - irrespective of whether the crowd is yet further ouraged.

I don't have a problem with the defense attorney raising the issue. As you say, it's their job. In fact, I WANT the defense attorney to make me prove my case with a vigorous defense on the facts -- because I never want to find out that, as a result of my investigation, an innocent person got convicted.

But I do think there's enough given here for the case to move to trial, criminally. Let the case be tried; consider this sort of issue upon conviction. The judge or jury, as trier of fact, can determine whether or not the girls did commit the assault alleged, and also whether there was justification. Then, if they are convicted, issues of home life, emotional problems, etc. can be examined in mitigation of sentence.

 

[Ray]

I've done defense work. I can best liken it to being the single gladiator that society provides to someone whom the rest of us would like to see torn apart by lions. Out you go with sword and armor to fight for this person. And it is not a show defense. You fight to kill. You raise and pursue everything you legitimately can - irrespective of whether the crowd is yet further ouraged.

We all like to look at our jobs, irrespective of what they are, as more than they are.

 

[grydth]

We all like to look at our jobs, irrespective of what they are, as more than they are.

An invaluable contribution to the discussion. If you have nothing to offer but personal slights, why not save the Forum the pollution and add me to your ignore list?

 

[grydth]

I don't have a problem with the defense attorney raising the issue. As you say, it's their job. In fact, I WANT the defense attorney to make me prove my case with a vigorous defense on the facts -- because I never want to find out that, as a result of my investigation, an innocent person got convicted.

But I do think there's enough given here for the case to move to trial, criminally. Let the case be tried; consider this sort of issue upon conviction. The judge or jury, as trier of fact, can determine whether or not the girls did commit the assault alleged, and also whether there was justification. Then, if they are convicted, issues of home life, emotional problems, etc. can be examined in mitigation of sentence.

In many states, though, an initial decision would have to be made in a case like this as to what court the case would be tried in..... would the accused be tried as youth or adult? The sentencing differences would be enormous in some cases. I'd guess arguring for a family court and youthful offender would be a next defense tactic.

Also, some issues of age and emotional problems are relevant on the merits, not only in the sentencing phase. Again, I'd guess the defense would contend the assailants lacked the requisite mental capacity to form the criminal intent required for a felony conviction as an adult.

Sentencing is the defense's last stand.... failing to get a dismissal, they will next try for a lower charge in a lower court, then contest the merits... this will be a long process unless a deal is reached.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

We all like to look at our jobs, irrespective of what they are, as more than they are.

I find it hard to believe that one can overstate the importance of a defense attorney, especially in reference to heated issues and/or unpopular defendants. That defense attorney might be the only one standing between two 10-year-old defendants and an overzealous prosecutor who wants to make a name for him or herself.

 

[grydth]

How important were the defense attorneys in the Duke Lacrosse players case?

 

[Twin Fist]

If nifong wasnt a scumbag, they wouldnt have ever needed defense council....

But seriously, can we get back on topic?

If nothing else, those two little monsters need serious help.

 

[jks9199]

In many states, though, an initial decision would have to be made in a case like this as to what court the case would be tried in..... would the accused be tried as youth or adult? The sentencing differences would be enormous in some cases. I'd guess arguring for a family court and youthful offender would be a next defense tactic.

Also, some issues of age and emotional problems are relevant on the merits, not only in the sentencing phase. Again, I'd guess the defense would contend the assailants lacked the requisite mental capacity to form the criminal intent required for a felony conviction as an adult.

Sentencing is the defense's last stand.... failing to get a dismissal, they will next try for a lower charge in a lower court, then contest the merits... this will be a long process unless a deal is reached.

With the defendants being 10 and 11, at least in my experience, there'd be no real consideration to trying them as adults unless we were talking a seriously heinous assault. As bad as this one was -- it wouldn't come near that standard in the courts I'm familiar with.

And, here in Virginia, all juvenile cases start in Juvenile & Domestic Relations courts; transfer to adult court is done upon a motion.

Going by age alone -- I don't see any issues about compentency or the ability to form intent. In Virginia, the presumptive age is 7; 10 and 11 are pretty far removed. But I did allow for compentency and related discussions in the trial; if the defendant is incapable of intent or otherwise incompetent, there'd be no conviction.

 

[grydth]

Absent compelling testimony regarding mental competence by a psychologist, nope.

The girls are old enough to at least understand that hitting and stomping on people is wrong. They are old enough to answer questions and assist in their own defence. It may take some careful wording and more time or explanation than an ordinary defendant -- but that doesn't mean they can't face the consequences of their actions.

And the dependency vs. delinquincy issue is a red herring. I'm sure that the Erie courts will require a pre-sentencing report, if they are convicted, that can raise concerns such as whether or not some form of treatment is appropriate either in place of or along with any incarceration.

It appears the lawyers for the attackers are specifically claiming the opposite. I would personally think you are correct as to capacity. One of the girls is claiming to be an A student.... but can't participate in her own defence. Hmmmmmmm.

 

[MJS]

Folks, keep in mind that the motions to dismiss the charges being discussed here were made by the defense attorneys for the accused. These are professionals who are doing their jobs, the jobs our country mandates be done. Aggressively.

I've done defense work. I can best liken it to being the single gladiator that society provides to someone whom the rest of us would like to see torn apart by lions. Out you go with sword and armor to fight for this person. And it is not a show defense. You fight to kill. You raise and pursue everything you legitimately can - irrespective of whether the crowd is yet further ouraged.

That is all that these lawyers are doing.... and if this fails, expect more tactics that will make you want to scream," WHAT???"

And this is the reason why, if I ever became a lawyer, I'd never be a defense lawyer. Hey, everyone needs to do their part in a trial, but I'll never understand how someone can have a ton of evidence pointing at them, they've done some unthinkable crime, and someone now has to defend and try to get this person free from the charges. On a side note, this isn't a shot at defense lawyers. I'm just saying that its amazing that they're forced to make an excuse for this persons actions.

Candidly, how long before some enraged parent thinks the psychopath who brutally savaged his kid 'got off with a slick lawyer and a BS excuse"....... and goes out with a shotgun to settle matters himself? How long before that becomes widespread - and then what do we have?

I'm sure its already happened and will continue to happen as well.

 

[MJS]

With the defendants being 10 and 11, at least in my experience, there'd be no real consideration to trying them as adults unless we were talking a seriously heinous assault. As bad as this one was -- it wouldn't come near that standard in the courts I'm familiar with.

And, here in Virginia, all juvenile cases start in Juvenile & Domestic Relations courts; transfer to adult court is done upon a motion.

Going by age alone -- I don't see any issues about compentency or the ability to form intent. In Virginia, the presumptive age is 7; 10 and 11 are pretty far removed. But I did allow for compentency and related discussions in the trial; if the defendant is incapable of intent or otherwise incompetent, there'd be no conviction.

Now thats interesting that you say that. The teens in this case are all facing charges as adults, and IMHO, I say good!

 

[jks9199]

Now thats interesting that you say that. The teens in this case are all facing charges as adults, and IMHO, I say good!

Look at the differences between the two cases. In the case in this thread, two girls, ages 10 and 11, attack and savagely beat one girl on a school playground. It's an instantaneous attack. In the case you present, you have eight kids, ranging in age from 14 to 18, working in concert in a planned abduction and mob assault. I'm not very familiar with the case, but on the surface, I would definitely suspect gang involvement. I don't know anything about the teens; their records can make a difference.

 

[MJS]

Look at the differences between the two cases. In the case in this thread, two girls, ages 10 and 11, attack and savagely beat one girl on a school playground. It's an instantaneous attack. In the case you present, you have eight kids, ranging in age from 14 to 18, working in concert in a planned abduction and mob assault. I'm not very familiar with the case, but on the surface, I would definitely suspect gang involvement. I don't know anything about the teens; their records can make a difference.

Oh, I don't doubt for a minute that the reason those Florida girls are being charged as adults is because, as you said, they lured her there, wouldn't let her leave, and took turns beating her, which at one point on the video, it states that she was knocked out at one point. While the attack may not have been as brutal as the one in this thread, the other things I'm sure played a part.

As for the girls on this thread, I say go with adult charges because of the violent nature.

 

[grydth]

And this is the reason why, if I ever became a lawyer, I'd never be a defense lawyer. Hey, everyone needs to do their part in a trial, but I'll never understand how someone can have a ton of evidence pointing at them, they've done some unthinkable crime, and someone now has to defend and try to get this person free from the charges. On a side note, this isn't a shot at defense lawyers. I'm just saying that its amazing that they're forced to make an excuse for this persons actions.

.

Actually, you have given the textbook ethical answer for lawyers here. It is recognized that for many reasons - or perhaps no reason - a lawyer cannot give a certain case or category of cases their all. That lawyer is ethically mandated not to take the case. There is nothing at all insulting in your writing this. There exist lawyers who'd never take a government case.

On another note, though, beware that case that initially appears to have a one sided "ton of evidence". I have seen such cases go south in less time than it took you to read my post and write a reply.