A forum for questions and answers.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[112883]

112883 Posts in 8614 Topics by 4618 Members
Latest Member: garrymoore

[Farm]

It's not nice to make fun of the mentally ill!

[auburnesq]

What do you feel was the biggest failure on the part of the Defense?
(aside from simply not having a case)

I don't think the defense failed - at least not in any great way. I believe that they made some poor strategic decisions, though.

I spent about three years as a public defender when I first started practicing. I used to get pretty pissed off when clients would ask for a "real attorney".  I know the clients had the impression that a private defense attorney would get them off or get a good deal. They never considered the fact that the best bought attorney can't change the facts of the case. (although money can sometimes buy you better smoke and mirrors). The reality is, that a majority of the people that pass through the system are guilty. The best you can do for them is your job - which is to protect their constitutional rights and assure that they have a fair trial. (or as my mentor used to say - assure they get a fair conviction)  You can’t make the guilty innocent, nor can you make a jury willfully blind to the lack of reasonable doubt.

I think that one of the most frustrating aspects of this case is when supporters rant about how unfair the justice system is and have no clue about how it actually works. I am certainly not an expert on this case, nor have I read every document (still working on that), but I just fail to see the grand conspiracy that is being alleged. I see the same thing that goes on daily in every court in the US - convictions based on evidence that, when examined in totality, creates a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Juries sometimes do get it wrong because the system is human based and humans err. I just don't believe that there is an error in this finding of fact. And, I think the defense presented the best case they could given the facts they had to work with.

The one thing I would have done differently if I were trying the case would be to strongly advise Damien to not take the stand. I think his demeanor on the stand killed any good his testimony did (and whether it did any good is debatable).     

[Fwarm]

Yes taking the stand was a very bad idea. Especially when he lied several times about his statement he made to police.

Example is close to this:
Davis would ask him "You stated you thought the children may have drowned is that correct?"
Damien would say something like "I never claimed they drowned"
Davis: "According to your statement you stated ' The children most likely drowned'"

I mean DUH wtf they allow him up there for? haha

I don't have the document at the moment but it went on like that. Then Damien claimed the police were actually telling untruths not himself after he had already been found to be a complete liar on the stand.

Saying nothing at all is FAR better then lying to the jury when there is a chance they will find out which they clearly seen Damien lying several times.

[Farm]

I don't think the defense failed - at least not in any great way.

Please Auburn?

If your client is insisting he's guilty as Jessie did, you gonna try and play a defense?

[mrsbuf]

Mistake #1 - Not obtaining phone records to prove if Damien was on the phone that night or not (maybe they knew what they would show *wink*)

Mistake #2 - Not working out a deal for Jessie - he would be out today if he had went for a deal and testified against Damien and Jason IMO

Mistake #3  Letting Damien on the stand - that was the final nail in his coffen"

buf

[auburnesq]

I don't think the defense failed - at least not in any great way.

Please Auburn?

If your client is insisting he's guilty as Jessie did, you gonna try and play a defense?

I assume what you mean is, why would I not attempt to cut a deal if I knew my client was guilty. If I knew a client was guilty, I would attempt to plea bargain. Sometimes it works and you get a deal, but sometimes the client refuses or the State won't cooperate. I was under the impression (and I certainly could be incorrect), that a plea wasn't an option in Jesse's case. 

Assuming a plea is out of the question, that leaves you with a case to try.  I believe that you have a duty as an attorney to provide the best legal defense possible. I don't believe that there was a very good chance of establishing reasonable doubt for any of the three from the offset, so I believe that counsel did what any attorney would do in that position - try to argue the facts. 

If you have facts that can be presented in a favorable manner to your client, I believe that you have an ethical duty to do so. So, yes, I would have presented testimony and evidence in a light most most favorable to my client.  As I stated before, I don't agree with all of their stragetic tactics, but I think they did what they were appointed to do.

[Farm]

I assume what you mean is, why would I not attempt to cut a deal if I knew my client was guilty.

No, I'm saying why wouldn't you attempt to cut a deal if your client was insisting he was guilty, as Jessie was.

[auburnesq]

I assume what you mean is, why would I not attempt to cut a deal if I knew my client was guilty.

No, I'm saying why wouldn't you attempt to cut a deal if your client was insisting he was guilty, as Jessie was.

I stated in my last post that I would, but I was under the impression that (I also stated it may be an incorrect impression), in this case, that avenue had already been explored and no deal could be reached. Are you asking a for a semantical difference in my answer (a client stating they are guilty v. me knowing they are guilty)?  If so, my answer wouldn't change as they both equal guilt to me. If not, I'm totally missing your point. 

[Farm]

I stated in my last post that I would

Actually you stated you would if YOU knew your client was guilty.

As we know guilt or innocence is irrelevant to a Defense attorney, they are bound to represent thier client's best interest regardless.

I was under the impression that in this case, that avenue had already been explored and no deal could be reached.

No deal could be reached post conviction because it was no longer an option for the Prosecution at that point.

But since we know tt was the Prosecution wish to negotiate Jessie's imposed sentence, do you have any doubt they were willing to negotiate any potential sentence prior to his trial?

Ron Lax convinced Stidham he could beat the rap with Ofshe, it's as simple as that.

[Farm]

Lax always amused me during the "stratigy meetings" in the films.

There he is demanding to the defense attorneys (in effect to the cameras) that Mark was the one with the motive, the weapon, and the ability, and there the Defense attorneys are looking at each other like "I don't think I would go THAT far?"

[auburnesq]

I stated in my last post that I would

Actually you stated you would if YOU knew your client was guilty.

As we know guilt or innocence is irrelevant to a Defense attorney, they are bound to represent thier client's best interest regardless.

I was under the impression that in this case, that avenue had already been explored and no deal could be reached.

No deal could be reached post conviction because it was no longer an option for the Prosecution at that point.

But since we know tt was the Prosecution wish to negotiate Jessie's imposed sentence, do you have any doubt they were willing to negotiate any potential sentence prior to his trial?

Ron Lax convinced Stidham he could beat the rap with Ofshe, it's as simple as that.

I see how you can make a distinction between the two. My answer is the same for both because I personally would not consider them different for the purposes of defending a client. I agree with you that guilt or innocence is not particularly relevent to the duty of a defense attorney. However, if I were handling a case in which a defendant admitted guilt or I believed the evidence strongly suggested guilt, the possibility of a plea would be a consideration for many reasons. Mine certainly isn't the only opinion on how things could/should be handled though. It is simply that - an opinion.

As for my personal opinion on the prosecution's willingness to negotiate, I can only speculate. I would assume that if they believed that they needed Jesse's testimony to convict Jason and Damian, it would certainly seem that they would be willing to negotiate. If Stidham's refusal to accept or negotiate was the sole reason there was no deal, then my initial answer might be different. I have no opinion on Lax yet, but you certainly could be correct.

As much as I'd love to say I'm an expert on this particular case I'm not, and my ego doesn't require me to try to play myself off as one (that was a reference to Dave, and not you - sometimes tone is lost in the writing).  I am slowly getting through the documents, and my opinions are formed based on my experience in the legal field and the information I have already read and digested. I appreciate the information you and others provide. I enjoy reading the debates on here because it always offers some new insight to me.  One of the first things they teach you in law school is that the answer is always "it depends", so I tend to think and write in terms of generalites and what ifs. I'm sure that can be frustating to someone who is asking for specifics (I know it pisses my husband off).

I will keep what you said about Lax in mind as I go.

[Farm]

I respect your input, and were you to firmly disagree, I would be silly to pretend I have a better grasp on the issues, but even to a layman, Stidham's actions are blatantly unethical.

During the 2/22 hearing he was caught dead to rights lying to Burnett over and over again.

It was the same during the trial, and it's the same today.

The man is a snake.

[DogIsYourName]

I think, without question, the three biggest mistakes were as follows:

1) Putting Echols on the stand.  This was incredibly stupid, because Echols is a weird guy with abnormal thought processes, and you just can't predict how he will answer any given question.  If you don't know for sure what your client will say on cross examination (or especially if you don't know what he'll say on direct) you should never put him on the stand. 

Because they put him on the stand, the prosecution was able to delve into Damien's weirdness, as his answers opened the door to many topics and issues that the prosecution otherwise could not have brought up.  They were also able to establish Echols as a liar.  Overall, this was just a terrible move that may have lost them the case.

2) Not discovering the juror misconduct immediately following the Echols/Baldwin trial.  If the misconduct had been discovered in time, they would very likely have been granted a retrial by now.

3) Jason's attorneys not developing an antagonistic defense that implicated Echols (for example, by using Damien's necklace).  I think it is unlikely that Jason would've been convicted were he not tried with Echols.

[Fwarm]

2) Not discovering the juror misconduct immediately following the Echols/Baldwin trial.  If the misconduct had been discovered in time, they would very likely have been granted a retrial by now.

What misconduct are you writing about?

[DogIsYourName]

Considering the Misskelley confession -- putting it in their lists.