tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post7841687514544763211..comments2023-12-12T03:19:42.467-05:00Comments on CYB3RCRIM3: The Performance of Official Duty DefenseSusan Brennerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17575138839291052258noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-73575058131906514652010-06-25T21:32:50.046-04:002010-06-25T21:32:50.046-04:00It seems to me that the guy's clients, or pote...It seems to me that the guy's clients, or potential clients, have a 6th Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. By denying defense counsel the same ability the State has to handle, test, and examine evidence you prevent that attorney from acting in an effective manner.<br /><br />i read the blog in the link you provided and i must say that this is a very fishy case. i can see no reason why the attorney would have child porn on his Limewire. If a client brought the porn to him (or emailed him) then I could see why it would be on his computer. But I can see no valid reason why it would be on his Limewire. that makes no sense unless he was sending / receiving the porn.<br /><br />It is a unique defense. But in this case i think the guy is guilty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-68827782519701932772010-06-23T12:51:49.994-04:002010-06-23T12:51:49.994-04:00It matters because you're assuming a purely ra...It matters because you're assuming a purely rational jury . . . an assumption which may or may not be true in practice.<br /><br />Juries in the U.S. implicitly have the power to "nullify" a verdict, i.e., to find someone guilty even though the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime which which he is charged. Jurors aren't told about that (though some think they should be) because the legal system wants them to make their decisions based ONLY on the facts and law that were presented at trial. More precisely, the legal system wants them to apply the law to the facts and then decide the case.<br /><br />If the judge instructed the jury on the issue even though there wasn't a factual foundation on which a rationale jury could find that the defense was available in the case, you'd effectively be inviting the jury to nullify the verdict . . . i.e., base an acquittal on the defense even though the evidence didn't support it.Susan Brennerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17575138839291052258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-10384606577505412042010-06-23T12:48:05.116-04:002010-06-23T12:48:05.116-04:00Doesn't the instruction say that "IF YOU ...Doesn't the instruction say that "IF YOU FIND THAT ...."? Why does it matter what facts are admitted at trial? The jury would disregard the instruction if it wasn't proven to matter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com