A41 at MDBE.COM
Wed Jul 19 18:43:00 MDT 1995
The key to court proceedings which are designed to get at the truth as
opposed to get convictions or acquittals doesn't exactly jeopardize the
rights of an accused person if that person's lawyer does two things. First,
they must keep confidentiality, and second, they must not raise spurious
Take the Simpson trial, for example. It is unlikely that the defense
knows the truth, so that when they raise phony defense of a police
conspiracy, they can't be accused of knowing otherwise and acting in an
unethical fashion. Yet, even if OJ tells them he did it, they don't have to
tell anyone, and don't have to lie down on the job.
Here is a rough sketch of how it could work.
The defense requires that the prosecution prove every step of the case
and then brings in any witnesses who may cause doubt to exist on the case.
But they do not disparage the opposition. The prosecution would present
their case, and do so with full intent to prove the crime was committed,
however, if anything exists which would tend to prove that the defendant did
not do it, then they would be required to disclose that to the opposition,
and to investigate it further, since they are law enforcement, and are
charged with arresting and convicting the right person, not just someone
chosen at random.
Now, that is how trials used to work, and should still work, however,
the system has been corrupted and does not do its job properly in many
Atty. at Law, California
More information about the Rushtalk