<p>Bonnie Garland’s killer was convicted by a jury and served 17 years in prison. That’s a very long stretch for a state crime and pretty close to what he likely would have served if they’d voted for murder 2 (around 25 years). The amount of time someone spends in jail is more important to me than the title on the conviction.</p>
<p>That crime and trial also took place in Connecticut, not Virginia, and the different criminal-justice culture and history between those two states needs no further explanation. But even so, it was an unusual case, and Herrin’s life story and religious supporters seem to have played a role. Huguely is not going to have those arguments to rely on. His lawyers are doing their job by grasping at straws.</p>
<p>So, I’m a little slow here and don’t grasp the legal issues. What difference would it make to anything whether Ms. Love was using appropriately-prescribed Adderall for a diagnosed medical condition of ADD under a doctor’s supervision, or whether she was abusing it / getting it on the side as some college students are wont to do? The guy smacked her around and caused her death, no?</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, it sounds as if the defense wants to argue that the actual cause of death was not GH slamming her into a wall, but a combination of Adderall and alcohol producing fatal cardiac arrhythmia. Apparently the pathologists disagree on the exact cause of death.</p>
<p>I would think that being attacked by a much larger, stronger person would make anyone more vulnerable to a cardiac arrhythmia. But JHS is right–if Yeardley Love had a pre-existent condition, or one brought about by drug use/abuse, then she might have died after actions by GH that would not normally have caused somebody’s death. That might in turn help establish his lack of murderous intent, and become the basis for arguing for reduced charges.</p>
<p>To quote one of the finest attorneys I have ever known (and the one I’d want representing me in a criminal case) “Even a werewolf deserves legal representation.”</p>
<p>I know folks on the outside don’t understand it but…that’s the way it is. When we sign up as lawyers, we take a vow. Almost all of us take it seriously. If we can’t live up to that vow, we simply don’t take the case. </p>
<p>Our justice system is set up as a battle of champions. It’s based on the following premise : If I follow my vow and zealously represent my client within the rules that bind me, and the state does the same, the truth will win out. If either of us fail to do that, well…that’s when the problems arise. BTW, no attorney can knowingly put on perjured testimony. There’s those dang rules again. ;)</p>
<p>A defense attorney who I respect a lot, says that he is not representing himself, but is representing the person who cannot represent him or herself. There is a difference.</p>
<p>So it would be in their best interest to suggest that she was some kind of junkie, or at least a not-prescribed-Adderall abuser, to show that she was, for lack of a better term, “frailer” medically than GH might have otherwise known about? I think I’m getting it. Sorry, my legal knowledge is mostly from Law & Order.</p>
<p>Jingle: The Commonwealth of Virginia does not have to prove that he intended to kill her, only that he intended to assault her. They need to show that he had the intent to commit the volitional act, not the result of the act. If he intended to hit her, and did hit her - and she died - he has the requisite intent for murder whether he intended her to die or not.</p>
<p>I understand it-I just don’t like it. And hardly anyone in a defense is ever charged with perjury when they obviously give pretty false info so that bar is very low. Defense can pretty much get away with anything in that regard so long as they choose not to ask too many questions.</p>
<p>Admittedly, I don’t do high-profile (or even mid ;)) criminal work anymore but my standard speech goes like this:</p>
<p>You can lie to your Momma. You can lie to your preacher. You can even lie to God if you have to. But $%$%^%$ (insert profanity of your choosing), you better not lie to me. I can guarantee you, it never works out well. If I find myself with my underwear around my ankles in trial because you lied to me, I will not be happy. Trust me, you want to keep me happy.</p>
<p>Usually gets my point across. If they say they did it, they don’t testify. Ever. Waaay too risky. Even if it wasn’t against the rules, my folks aren’t good enough liars to pull it off. (In fairness, even if they say they didn’t do it, I usually don’t let them testify in the guilt/innocence phase.)</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, what I suggested yesterday was that they didn’t have to show she was some kind of junkie or abuser to make their case – the victim’s legitimate use of Adderall or other prescription drugs may have rendered her more vulnerable. Which doesn’t make the kill not guilty of homicide, but may make him guilty of a less serious form of homicide than murder one. (Of course, I have to admit that the defense case probably gets stronger if she WAS abusing the drugs beyond the prescription limits, so they would certainly want to investigate if that was the case as well.)</p>
<p>Truth: Truth is only one of the values in our criminal justice system. And I’m not talking only about namby-pamby ACLU values, either. A huge value is administrability. More than ninety percent of cases get resolved by plea bargains, not trials. You think plea bargains have a lot to do with finding the truth, on either side? And finality. When people are on death row, and have always maintained their innocence, they still often have to fight for years to get DNA testing that was not available at the time of their trial, and that could prove their innocence, because generally convictions are final. And if someone pled guilty rather that go to trial? Fuggedaboudit. Maybe a sympathetic governor will do something, but the legal system won’t.</p>
<p>Most evidence of anything is only probabilistic, not definitive. Can you imagine if courts had to apply the same proof standards that, for example, the FDA uses in drug approvals? The FDA really, really cares about truth, and even it still gets things wrong much of the time, because they don’t want to wait decades for all the evidence to emerge.</p>
<p>Bonnie: I just realized that mathmom would have known Bonnie Garland, as I did. That case is a decent object lesson in truth. There was never any doubt about who killed Bonnie, or how, or in the simplest terms why. The fight in that situation was about when you stop talking about the truth, how you cut off thinking about truth. The people who were outraged about Rick’s manslaughter conviction didn’t want truth, they wanted none of the truth to matter, except for a few things. And I’m not saying they were wrong, either.</p>
<p>barrons, I absolutely agree. Thank goodness for the small progress made in that area but there is still a long way to go. </p>
<p>Please spare me the “those outside the system don’t understand.” I completely understand that everyone deserve a defense. I truly do. I could go on and on about the shocking things I’ve heard defense attorneys say in front of juries that, of course, gets dismissed but the jury already heard it and that’s the point. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What in the world does “how much he loved her” have to do with anything? </p>
<p>And are you really arguing that drunk people cannot control themselves? This is exactly the kind of out-dated bs that has allowed too many drunk drivers to make more than one family victims of their actions. You get drunk and get behind the wheel, your intentions are clear; you’re willing to kill someone rather than call a cab or sleep it off. You bash someone’s head repeatedly into a wall, again, intentions are clear; this person might die but you’re too angry to care.</p>
<p>pugmad: People argue in court every day that defendants who are drunk or drugged enough can’t form specific intent to commit first degree murder. It comes under the heading of “diminished capacity”, and sometimes it’s successful.</p>
<p>What defense attorneys love is arguments that they can support with evidence that would be legally effective to exonerate their clients or reduce the severity of the crimes for which their clients could be convicted. It’s not “out-dated bs”; it’s the law applied in our courts.</p>
<p>Are there those of you who think the prosecution always “fights fair?” Would you like to purchase the Brooklyn Bridge?</p>
<p>The existance of the Brady Motion (the prosecution must provide the defense with exculpatory information)and the *Batson *decision (the prosecution cannot use preemptory challanges to racially stack criminal juries) come in reaction to real world prosecutorial abuses.</p>
<p>Yes, it’s the law and we don’t like it. Get that? Are you claiming our legal system is above questioning? Maybe it’s the best one sofar but that leaves lots of room to improve. I’m all for bringing in new truth after the fact such as DNA tests. No problem.</p>
<p>That means that in over 20% of the California cases where prosecutorial misconduct was alleged, the reviwing court found it occurred. Ah, the reliability of eyewitness testimony.</p>
<p>barrons, I don’t have any problem with people wanting to change the law. I want to change the law a lot, too. I am responding to people complaining about criminal defense attorneys presenting valid cases under the law. Whether or not you like the law, that’s what criminal defense attorneys are supposed to do. If the law is outdated and b.s., and because of that it defines a crime in such a way that you aren’t guilty of it, I don’t expect you to say, “Oh, I am a horrible person. I don’t care that I didn’t technically violate the law, because the law is outdated. Throw the book at me!” I expect you to have a lawyer, and I expect the lawyer to show that you haven’t committed the crime as defined. Or, more realistically, to feint like he’s prepared to do that and then negotiate a favorable plea bargain for you.</p>
<p>This may sound harsh, but a defense lawyer can’t refrain from pursuing a line of defense because it would hurt somebody’s feelings. We have varying criminal offenses and punishments for a reason. The defense attorney’s job is to put the prosecution to its proof–to ensure that his client doesn’t receive punishment unless guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And what exactly has to be proven can be complicated–in this case, for example, intent is relevant.</p>