Mlb Logo Hat

Tous les sujets concernant nos instruments. La trompette n'est bien-entendu pas le seul instrument de cuivre ! Tuba, cor, trombone, euphonium, tout y passe !

Messages : 3
Enregistré le : 02 avr. 2021, 03:31
Contact :

Mlb Logo Hat

Message non lupar RebeccaC » 02 avr. 2021, 04:00

The report concluded that the examiners were Running Trucker Hat reluctant to admit their mistakes because the lawyer was a Muslim convert and had represented a terrorist defendant in court. What should make each of us proud of our profession is that there are amongst us lawyers who are "mad as hell and can't take it anyone" and who demand that justice be done for their clients regardless of the personal, economic or societal status of the client. We read about such lawyers in the more notorious cases, but we can also look amongst our colleagues to see examples of lawyers who struggle each day to fight the good fight for their clients by constantly working to debunk the often automatic conclusion that such evidence is reliable, accurate and sufficient to send our clients to jail.

How often have we had to advise a client that he or she should not testify at a suppression hearing as to whether a constitutional right has been violated by the actions of police officer, not because we don't believe our client, but because we know that nearly 100% of the time a judge will make a credibility finding Camo Trucker Hat in favor of law enforcement? Why should we expose the client to examination and cross-examination during a motions hearing when we are nearly certain that the client will not be believed because he or she is the defendant"? When was the last time that you heard a judge conclude, in a contested suppression hearing, that the testimony of the defendant was credible and that American Flag Trucker Hat the testimony of the police officer was suspect or false?

When county police began videotaping some of their interrogations, an incredible thing happened. Taped confessions began to confirm what many had suspected was occurring behind some of the doors of county police interrogation rooms. These video-taped interrogations showed officers conducting interrogations using techniques that judges held amounted to unconstitutional intimidation. In other instances the videotape evidence conclusively established that interrogators blatantly ignored the accused's request for an attorney. The Washington Post reported on one such case. It highlighted one videotaped interview which revealed what actually happened in that case after an arrestee asked to speak to an attorney.

He observed that "If they do this when they are being taped, what happens when they are not being taped?" Well, Mlb Logo Hat we know. Our clients tell us all the time, yet how often are they believed? Without a videotape, which of our clients would be believed when he or she testifies that they made a request for an attorney and that claimed is denied by the interrogator? We have heard the repeated stories from out clients, many unsophisticated in the ways of the criminal justice system, telling us of their having requests for an attorney being ignored or of searches subsequently falsely characterized by police officers as "consent" searches. We know about the skepticism with which the "system" normally view the complaints of our clients.

It's great when there is a videotape. It settles the dispute. But what about all those times when there is no videotape? Will the courts and prosecutors consider what they have seen and learned in those videotapes as providing possible corroboration and support as to what our clients assert happens in interview rooms during untaped interrogations or will our clients' assertions continue to be routinely discounted as "incredible" or "unbelievable?" It is our job to stand up and remind judges and prosecutors that just because there is no videotape, the defendant may still be the real truth-teller in the courtroom and that it is wrong to fall back into the routine of presumptively believing the police.

It is, however, part of our Law Day responsibility to constantly remind our judges and our prosecutors, and on occasion, confront each with the impact that their decisions have on our clients. When someone wants to put my client in jail for 10 years, I find myself reflecting on the things that have occurred in my life and that of my family during Five Panel Hat the time my son grew from 7 years of age to 17 years of age. It was a long time. What does it mean to throw around the number of years a client might go to jail 5 - 10 - 15 years. These may just be numbers to some but they are long years, each one of them, to our clients and our clients' families. What does it really mean, day-by-day, in the life of my client to loose the right to be in the life of his or Image her child as the child grows from 7 - 17.

Qui est en ligne

Utilisateurs parcourant ce forum : Aucun utilisateur enregistré et 5 invités