Wednesday, July 21, 2010

JACKSON COUNTY: EXAMPLE NUMBER 9,327 WHY LAWYERS SHOULDN'T TALK TO THE PRESS ABOUT LIVE CASES

Click here First.

After you've read this nice, coherent article, you will realize that this case presents a poignant example of the tension between honorable military service by policemen and the administration of justice.  Hard question and one that should be reviewed by the appellate courts.

But then the prosecutor tries to "blame" the defendant for for "asking" that the evidence custodian be subject to cross-examination.  This is totally intellectually dishonest.  The Defendant already had that right.  He was not required to give it up.  

This is probably a terrible result and I feel for the victim's family and the police and prosecutors who, no doubt, worked their guts out on this case.  But turning the case into something that it's not is unseemly and casts the administration of justice in a worse light than the dismissal alone did.

When you're in a hole, stop digging. 

1 Comments:

At 1:50 PM, July 22, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought there was no statute of limitations on murder.

Hope they try him again--sans the delays.

But here you see a prime example of unintended consequences. Nobody could have foreseen the pregnancy and other problems, but by golly that ruling of 180 days has to be the end all and be all of justice--certainly more important that common sense.

I wonder how they justify 180 days when some people have much longer waits for trial that that?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home