Love-UVa murder case getting ugly

[curmudgeon]

<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.

Nope, JHS. A lawyer is supposed to do “justice”. If the lawyer knows the client is guilty, he should announce that from the mountain top so that justice can be done. Oh, wait. That’s somebody else’s job, isn’t it? Oops. ;)</p>

[07DAD]

<p>

MANHATTAN SUPREME COURT — A Chinatown teen charged with murdering another young man during a Hester Street brawl lied on the witness stand about the incident, prosecutors said during closing arguments Monday.</p>

<p>Victor Fong, 18, a former high school honors student, is charged with stabbing 18-year-old Nelson Pena to death and nearly killing Vincent Rivera, 17, in the Nov. 18, 2009 melee. Fong testified last week that he slashed Rivera on the neck to defend himself against being hit with a metal cane. But in closing arguments Monday, prosecutors said Fong’s behavior suggested he was trying to get even with a bully, not trying to save his life.</p>

<p>“[Fong] stabbed [Rivera] right in the neck, not once but twice and he runs right after him,” said Assistant District Attorney Steven Nuzzi, adding “that shows you that he’s not afraid, that it’s not self defense — it’s revenge.”</p>

<p>Nuzzi attacked Fong’s credibility, claiming he lied during cross-examination whenever the line of questioning strayed from what he had “rehearsed.”</p>

<p>Fong was untruthful when asked about why he carried a knife and what he did after he fled the crime scene, the ADA argued.</p>

<p>“On these areas where he is not prepared, he lied and you should consider that when you decide [on] his testimony as a whole,” Nuzzi added.</p>

<p>Fong, who spent eight months at Rikers Island before he was granted bail with the consent of prosecutors, is facing as much as life in prison if he’s convicted on the second-degree murder charge.</p>

<p>His defense team paints a much different picture about last year’s events. They argue that no single prosecution witness was able to say they saw Fong stab Pena.</p>

<p>There are holes so large in the DA’s case “you could drive a Mack truck through them,” said Robert Brown, a lawyer for Fong.</p>

<p>**For example, Rivera was caught on surveillance video, and admitted in court, to beating Fong with a metal cane, Brown said.</p>

<p>Brown also said there was no biological evidence to support the DA’s theory that Fong’s knife was used to slash Rivera and stab Pena to death.**At trial, Fong’s lawyers attacked the credibility of the DA’s star witness, Jesus Baez, who was caught lying about his criminal history and was pressed on his purported affiliation with several Lower East Side gangs.</p>

<p>They also argued Fong’s self-defense attack on Rivera was “perfectly reasonable” because he was “surrounded by 21 thugs” with a host of weapons.</p>

<p>In addition, the video shows Fong was across the street tangling with Rivera at the time of Pena’s stabbing.

</p>

<p>Read more: [Teen</a> Accused of Chinatown Murder Lied on the Witness Stand, Prosecutors Say - DNAinfo.com](<a href=“Teen Accused of Chinatown Murder Lied on the Witness Stand, Prosecutors Say - East Village & Lower East Side - New York - DNAinfo”>Teen Accused of Chinatown Murder Lied on the Witness Stand, Prosecutors Say - East Village & Lower East Side - New York - DNAinfo)</p>

<p>The presecution took him to trial for murder of Pena when there was a video that showed that he was not even on the same side of the street with Pena. And, the prosecution attacked his self-defense assertion on the guy who was beating him with a metal cane. </p>

<p>BTW–the jury acquitted on all counts. They were particualrly critical of the prosecution’s case and reported that they were proud of the defendant for fighting back.</p>

<p>barron–should the defense not have “attacked” the victim as a threat to the defendant when the “victim” attacked the defendant on the street in a gang and was beating the defendant with a metal cane?</p>

[curmudgeon]

<p>IMO it may be easier to understand this system if you identify your loved one/yourself as the defendant rather than the victim in these news stories.</p>

[JHS]

<p>barrons, I’m sure you’ve heard this one before:</p>

<p>Who is conservative on defendants’ rights? A liberal who’s been mugged.</p>

<p>Who is liberal on defendants’ rights? A conservative who’s been indicted.</p>

[barrons]

<p>Truth goes for both sides. Never said otherwise. Many cases of misconduct could be for violations of rules rather than false presentations etc. There are many limits on what they can say and present. This too hurts truth-finding.<br>
A conservative who is guilty should do his time–not try to use the system to get off.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

A conservative who is guilty should do his time–not try to use the system to get off.

Well, people shouldn’t commit crimes, and those who do should feel remorse and turn themselves in. The legal system, though, is constructed to make sure that innocent people aren’t punished–and to do that (reasonably) well, it has to err on the side of helping some guilty people get off. It’s really that simple. Also, what the focus of the news doesn’t show is that the vast majority of people charged with crimes are convicted (usually by pleading guilty). It’s only at the margins that there is even a trial, much less one that gets publicity.</p>

[barrons]

<p>And I think the basic philosophy of our system has some issues. I don’t think a system like ours is the only way. I think both sides need to be more responsible for claims they make. Currently seeking truth is not the goal–it should be. I could never defend somebody I knew was guilty–that’s why I decided against going to law school.</p>

[curmudgeon]

<p>

I could never defend somebody I knew was guilty–that’s why I decided against going to law school.

Well, barron’s. There’s lots of jobs I just couldn’t do either, but the way our society and institutions and economy are set up, someone has to do them. It just doesn’t have to be me. And ain’t it grand that we have a choice?</p>

[barrons]

<p>[Dangerous</a> and Free - JSOnline](<a href=“http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/108580024.html]Dangerous”>Dangerous and Free)</p>

<p>And I can’t understand how anyone can morally defend the guilty except to explain any mitigation.</p>

[curmudgeon]

<p>Well. I guess it’s a good thing that making the state meet their burden under the law is not your chosen profession, then, isn’t it? Those who chose to do criminal defense work, a very small percentage of those with a law license btw, understand it quite well and sleep just fine at night. (And, full disclosure, criminal dfense now forms less than 20% of my practice. By choice. )

And I can’t understand how anyone can morally defend the guilty except to explain any mitigation.

If your complete lack of understanding of Constitutional Law (and the limits that our Constitution places on the state for the benefit of all of citizens) helps you to feel morally superior, have at it. It won’t bother those of us who do understand. Nary a whit.</p>

[curmudgeon]

<p>It also may surprise you, barrons, that many criminal defense lawyers are quite conservative politically and view their support of limitations on the state as a tenet of their conservative faith.</p>

[poetgrl]

<p>While I can really understand people’s frustrations with a case like this one, the fact is that even in this day and age innocent people are still arrested.</p>

<p>I, for one, am very glad we are all innocent until proven guilty, and I would rather err on the side of the shadow of a doubt benchmark than convict based on public opinion. </p>

<p>Given the state of the media today, I cannot imagine what would happen to our freedoms. Or, and this does happen, if a particular law officer took a disliking to you or your family. </p>

<p>It’s like freedom of speech. There are some things people can do in our culture because of this protection which I abhor, but I’d still rather they were legally able to do them than risk the possibility we could be silenced by those with more “authority” than us. JMO</p>