TexasCHLforum.com

WildBill wrote:

gemini wrote:A practicing criminal defense atty will usually have a relationship with the DA's office. Maybe they can cut you a deal. Clean record? In our case, a clean shoot? They are familiar with the courts, and different judges etc. Definite advantage vs an atty who takes the occassional criminal case.(IMHO).

Many times "cutting a deal" involves jail time. When you "cut a deal" you also have to tell the judge that you committed the crime and that you are very sorry. Even if you are not guilty.

Are you familiar with the Mark Fuhrman case? He was not guilty, but he plead to a felony perjury charge to avoid the monetary and emotional cost of a trial. He didn't go to jail, but lost his rights to possess firearms, and could never get another job as an LEO.

This thread started another discussion about Mark Fuhrman and the OJ Simpson trial. I know that this is old news and is probably beating a dead horse. My intent was not to start an OJ or Fuhrman discussion. The point of my original comment was to state that sometimes defendants will plead guilty [or no-contest] to a crime when they believe they are not guilty, regardless, if they have a good or "qualified" attorney who has a "relationship with the DA."

If anyone wishes to pursue this topic that is fine. If not, then this thread will die a natural death.

If they admit guilt, I'm not going to second guess them.

If the prosecutor, defense lawyer and the judge do their jobs as they should the judge should satisfy himself that the defendant is in fact guilty, and determine that the defendant knows full well what he is doing and what his options are. I do not mean to suggest that this trio does the right thing 100% of the time, but I honestly believe that most judges do the right thing, at least in the case of serious felonies. No doubt the pressure of caseloads before and on the bench sometimes tempt taking shortcuts, particularly in the case of misdemeanors.

Elmo

b322da wrote:If the prosecutor, defense lawyer and the judge do their jobs as they should the judge should satisfy himself that the defendant is in fact guilty, and determine that the defendant knows full well what he is doing and what his options are. I do not mean to suggest that this trio does the right thing 100% of the time, but I honestly believe that most judges do the right thing, at least in the case of serious felonies. No doubt the pressure of caseloads before and on the bench sometimes tempt taking shortcuts, particularly in the case of misdemeanors. Elmo

So why is it that in the case of Mr. Lemes in San Antonio is being tried for murder, that the jury could find him not guilty of murder, but find him guilty of manslaughter? Or that Mr. Lemes could plead guilty to manslaughter and the judge and DA would agree to this plea bargain. Is this justice or expediency?

sadly the court system is not a cort of justice. Its a court of law. sometimes one will pass as the other.

WildBill wrote:Is this justice or expediency?

One would hope that it is both, citizens being entitled to a speedy trial by their peers. I can make a multitude of arguments pro and/or con on a multitude of ideas about the American legal system. The short answer is it exists as we find it, empowered by law, presided by individual judges, each with his own ideas and emotions. The same holds for DA and defense attorneys. May GOD and fortune favor the innocent.

WildBill wrote:

b322da wrote:If the prosecutor, defense lawyer and the judge do their jobs as they should the judge should satisfy himself that the defendant is in fact guilty, and determine that the defendant knows full well what he is doing and what his options are. I do not mean to suggest that this trio does the right thing 100% of the time, but I honestly believe that most judges do the right thing, at least in the case of serious felonies. No doubt the pressure of caseloads before and on the bench sometimes tempt taking shortcuts, particularly in the case of misdemeanors. Elmo

So why is it that in the case of Mr. Lemes in San Antonio is being tried for murder, that the jury could find him not guilty of murder, but find him guilty of manslaughter? Or that Mr. Lemes could plead guilty to manslaughter and the judge and DA would agree to this plea bargain. Is this justice or expediency?

While I am not familiar with the Lemes case, WildBill, I can say that it is not at all unusual for a jury to acquit a defendant of murder and convict her of manslaughter. These are two very different offenses, the one typically included in the other. We just saw this happen yesterday in the case of some Blackwater mercenaries charged with murder in Iraq and convicted of manslaughter.

Judges, DAs and defense lawyers are not the only ones who sometimes "bend" the system. I am convinced that I have seen cases where the jury made such a finding out of sympathy for the defendant -- probably more likely in order to avoid the possibility of a death sentence. Juries have also been known to "compromise" an internal split by such a finding.

Elmo

Elmo is on the right track. There are "lesser included offenses" for many offenses. For example if you are indicted for murder, the jury can convict of murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and I think they can even go down to assaultive offenses: agg assault,assault, etc.

b322da wrote:Judges, DAs and defense lawyers are not the only ones who sometimes "bend" the system. I am convinced that I have seen cases where the jury made such a finding out of sympathy for the defendant -- probably more likely in order to avoid the possibility of a death sentence. Juries have also been known to "compromise" an internal split by such a finding. Elmo

I believe that this is true and has happened many times.

sugar land dave wrote:

WildBill wrote:Is this justice or expediency?

One would hope that it is both, citizens being entitled to a speedy trial by their peers.

I find it interesting that in the Lemes case in San Antonio the shooting occurred in 2007, Mr. Lemes was indicted by the grand jury in 2009, and the trial started in 2011.