Countertrey wrote:The Prosecutor can't prove malice aforethought, pre-meditation, conspiracy or collusion of intent to murder by all four defendants beyond a reasonable doubt. So, rather than filing a lesser included charge, the Prosecutor is simply filing the charge that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The other option is overzealous prosecution, which risks acquittal and several violations of legal ethics.
The bottom feeders of the Criminal Bar have succeeded in the complete and total obfuscation of the law, to the point that logic and reason have no bearing on the outcome, no place in the courtroom. The purpose of their profession is not truth, not justice, but victory. Their future is secure.
Each of us is perfectly aware that carrying a gun in a burglary brings with it the logical likelihood of shooting someone, providing intent and malice aforethought... if you carry a gun in the commission of a felony, you know that you may kill someone. What else could you be thinking when you decided to bring it? It's clear to all except a lawyer.
Legal ethics = oxymoron.
There are reasons why I am neither a Prosecutor nor a Criminal Defense attorney. I don't agree with the Penal Code as written. The problem lawyers have is Judges. It isn't that all lawyers fail to grasp the obvious, although some do. It is that lawyers have to work within the laws as written. Any attempts to skirt the law, even if those attempts are in the interest of "Justice", can result in a mistrial or a bench ruling vacating the entire case, including the sentencing.
mistrial
n. the termination of a trial before its normal conclusion because of a procedural error, statements by a witness, judge or attorney which prejudice a jury, a deadlock by a jury without reaching a verdict after lengthy deliberation (a "hung" jury), or the failure to complete a trial within the time set by the court. When such situations arise, the judge, either on his own initiative or upon the motion (request) of one of the parties will "declare a mistrial," dismiss the jury if there is one and direct that the lawsuit or criminal prosecution be set for trial again, starting from the beginning.
vacate
v. 1) for a judge to set aside or annul an order or judgment which he/she finds was improper.
Personally, I say we should immediately execute anyone convicted of any of the following crimes, or convicted of the attempt of any of the following crimes:
Trafficking offenses, Arson, Sexual battery, Robbery, Burglary, Kidnapping, Escape, Aggravated child abuse, Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult, Aircraft piracy, Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb, Carjacking, Home-invasion robbery, Aggravated stalking, Murder of another human being, Terrorism, Unlawful distribution of any controlled substance.
I could probably add a few others to the list but that is a decent start.
Think of all of the time and expense saved by only keeping these people alive through the sentencing phase.
"You are hereby sentenced to death in accordance with the Penal Code. You have 72 hours to appeal, and it had better be a damn good one. Otherwise, you are going to die a slow and painful death with the public invited to watch, photograph and film. The public is also encouraged to mock you and laugh at your expense."
