• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Aurora Shooter still not in trial.

Wait a minute, is our justice system wasting an inordinate amount of time on a piece of garbage...

When I'm in charge, they'll get a phone call and a bullet within a week.
 
When the state pays the invoices of the defense lawyers, the defense lawyers are going to do everything they can to increase their billable hours.
 
highland145 said:
I'm thinking there's a flat rate or # of billable hrs.
Click to expand...

Probably violates your constitutionally guaranteed right to representation. With a flat rate there is no incentive for the defense attorney to take interest in defending you. While we assume this trial will end in a guilty verdict, the same set of rules apply when the defendant is innocent and needs a defense attorney to provide justice.
 
Last edited:
Heck the Ft. Hood terrorist is still on trial and that was 2009. Last I heard they were arguing about his religious right to not shave his beard before court.
 
MustISO said:
Wait a minute, is our justice system wasting an inordinate amount of time on a piece of garbage...

When I'm in charge, they'll get a phone call and a bullet within a week.
Click to expand...
I think that was Stalin's campaign slogan, better check trademarks first 😉
 
I'd rather they exhaust all due process measures than railroad him, even though it should be obvious he committed the crime. Adopt tactics to railroad him, and you'll set a precedent to use similar tactics against lower and lower levels of offenders.
 
I wonder if some sort of justice system, where the state is allowed to fast track their case under certain criteria, would be Constitutional. "We have you on video tape! You were tackled at the scene - there's no chance of misidentification. This is what you did, it's on video tape. This is, word for word what the law says. The law says to prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We've demonstrated you're guilty beyond ANY doubt."

Tweak this idea to make it Constitutional, and we can save a lot of the Court's time & money.
 
DrPizza said:
I wonder if some sort of justice system, where the state is allowed to fast track their case under certain criteria, would be Constitutional. "We have you on video tape! You were tackled at the scene - there's no chance of misidentification. This is what you did, it's on video tape. This is, word for word what the law says. The law says to prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We've demonstrated you're guilty beyond ANY doubt."

Tweak this idea to make it Constitutional, and we can save a lot of the Court's time & money.
Click to expand...

That's an amazingly scary idea. :thumbsdown:
 
DrPizza said:
I wonder if some sort of justice system, where the state is allowed to fast track their case under certain criteria, would be Constitutional. "We have you on video tape! You were tackled at the scene - there's no chance of misidentification. This is what you did, it's on video tape. This is, word for word what the law says. The law says to prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We've demonstrated you're guilty beyond ANY doubt."

Tweak this idea to make it Constitutional, and we can save a lot of the Court's time & money.
Click to expand...

You're looking for efficiency gains from government, you've already lost.
 
DrPizza said:
I wonder if some sort of justice system, where the state is allowed to fast track their case under certain criteria, would be Constitutional. "We have you on video tape! You were tackled at the scene - there's no chance of misidentification. This is what you did, it's on video tape. This is, word for word what the law says. The law says to prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We've demonstrated you're guilty beyond ANY doubt."

Tweak this idea to make it Constitutional, and we can save a lot of the Court's time & money.
Click to expand...



That pesky amendment that indicates Innocent until PROVEN guilty

Plea bargaining exists when there is leverage from either side. Otherwise one side digs in hoping that a mistake will be made by the other.
 
Brainonska511 said:
I'd rather they exhaust all due process measures than railroad him, even though it should be obvious he committed the crime. Adopt tactics to railroad him, and you'll set a precedent to use similar tactics against lower and lower levels of offenders.
Click to expand...

That was the interesting part about the Drew Peterson trial a few years ago in Illinois - the state legislature had to actually change state laws in order to convict him. Question was could hearsay evidence be used in trial when the person who provided the evidence is the one who was dead (and the subject of the murder trial) and therefore incapable of testifying?
 
cubby1223 said:
That was the interesting part about the Drew Peterson trial a few years ago in Illinois - the state legislature had to actually change state laws in order to convict him. Question was could hearsay evidence be used in trial when the person who provided the evidence is the one who was dead (and the subject of the murder trial) and therefore incapable of testifying?
Click to expand...

That was a farce.

How can a person question a dead witness that has provided evidence against them?
 
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Maybe we need to Constitutionally define 'speedy'. We can't afford our justice system as it exists in this nation. We just haven't come to that realization yet.
 
cabri said:
That was a farce.

How can a person question a dead witness that has provided evidence against them?
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, the evidence was a note one of Peterson's wives wrote to a relative saying that she feared he was going to kill her. A note saying something might happen in the future needs further questioning, otherwise it is very flimsy, there is no direct link to prove he murdered her. The whole case was sketchy without any direct evidence. Public opinion pushed this trial through, because here you had a police sergeant who was married 3 times, two were found dead and the third gone missing and never found. And there was a significant number of people who didn't want him convicted simply because the evidence was so weak.

Think about it, how many death threats are thrown around the internet? Around twitter? If the person shows up dead, should a person be convicted for murder based on the threat alone?

But yeah, this is a case where a special exemption was made by the government to allow the trial to take place and a conviction to be obtained. As much as we think this guy in Colorado should be convicted as soon as possible, should the rules of the judicial system be adjusted for this scenario?
 
Last edited:
boomerang said:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Maybe we need to Constitutionally define 'speedy'. We can't afford our justice system as it exists in this nation. We just haven't come to that realization yet.
Click to expand...

I think your quote isn't applied in the way you think it is. The accused has the right to a speedy trial. It doesn't say the accuser has a right to a speedy trial. And, the accused doesn't have to exercise the right if he desires a long, drawn out trial.
 
boomerang said:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Maybe we need to Constitutionally define 'speedy'. We can't afford our justice system as it exists in this nation. We just haven't come to that realization yet.
Click to expand...

Well in this case, it appears that the defendant is in no hurry for a trial. Does he have a constitutional right to a lengthy trial?

He is behind bars so there really is nothing to be upset about. He will never be a free man again, of that there is absolutely no doubt. His fate is a foregone conclusion. The only question remaining is will he spend the rest of his life in prison or an insane asylum. To be me, it does not matter in the least.
 
There is no requirement for the length of time a trial takes.

Both sides are allowed to present evidence and witnesses as well as cross examine the information available.

It is up to the judge to ensure that the trial moves along and stall tactics are not permitted either in getting the trial going and/or during the trial itself.

ie. Put up or Sit down
 
Apparently the state is trying to kill this obviously insane defendant and the parents are pleading against it.

If this kid doesn't meet the legal definition of insane, I can't imagine anybody who does. It makes America look bad when it tries to kill the mentally deranged rather than treat them.

"We realize treatment in an institution would be best for our son. We love our son, we have always loved him, and we do not want him to be executed," Robert and Arlene Holmes wrote in a letter distributed to Denver media Friday morning. "We also decry the need for a trial. A lengthy trial requires everyone to relive those horrible moments in time, causing additional trauma.
Click to expand...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/19/aurora-shooter-parents-plead/20631983/
 
cubby1223 said:
I think your quote isn't applied in the way you think it is. The accused has the right to a speedy trial. It doesn't say the accuser has a right to a speedy trial. And, the accused doesn't have to exercise the right if he desires a long, drawn out trial.
Click to expand...

That is correct. Defendants who are out of jail nearly always waive speedy trial. Even where the defendant is in custody, speedy trial is usually waived in very serious cases like this one in order that the defense has ample time to prepare. I don't really take issue with it, since Holmes is in custody the entire time.
 
bshole said:
Apparently the state is trying to kill this obviously insane defendant and the parents are pleading against it.

If this kid doesn't meet the legal definition of insane, I can't imagine anybody who does. It makes America look bad when it tries to kill the mentally deranged rather than treat them.
Click to expand...

It's a tricky thing. I actually secured a complete acquittal in a first-degree murder case a few years ago, based on an insanity defense (which is very rarely successful - in my case it was a fairly straightforward exercise but generally this defense fails). I have never handled another murder case, and doubt I ever will, so plan to keep my 100% success rate alive! 😛

The legal standard for insanity requires not just that the person is insane - prisons are full of crazy people, and nearly anyone who commits multiple murders has some significant, diagnosable personality disorder. The common law also requires that the person does not understand the nature and/or wrongfulness of his actions (CO law has modified this to allow an insanity defense where the mental illness creates an "irresistible impulse" to commit the crime). Colorado is a slightly odd duck in this regard, in that once an insanity defense is asserted, the state has the burden of proving that the offender was sane at the time of the offense.

I have no doubt James Holmes is mentally ill - he seems like a classic schizophrenic. It is less clear to me that his mental illness caused this offense within the requirements of an insanity defense. The crime involved a great deal of planning and premeditation, and it seems clear to me that he intended to kill people and understood that's what he was doing. I haven't seen anything indicating that he didn't know it was wrong (to the contrary, he styled himself as the villainous Joker). To me the operative question will be whether the mental illness created an irresistible impulse to kill. Frankly I think the answer is probably a yes, but we shall see. In any event I don't believe he is a person who should ever be out of custody, because his mental illness seems to make him so dangerous.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top