Super's Legal Discussion Thread

[SmilingJack]

ETA: So Robert's is a fucking arsonist and wants to jack off while the courts are burning?
Yeah and to think I used to want to go into law. Pox on the whole legal community as currently practicing.
Be the change you wish for the world?

 

[Icky Mettle]

Hey Super (and other lawyers), I am moving this question here because I don't want to derail the P Diddy thread and updates there. Then, I got confused as to which of your threads to post on. I am not a lawyer but I want to ask lawyers and learn of your training and legal theory here. Also (I think) doing in a respectful manner. It's not even political. Anyway, here goes....

Dear His Honored Member,

Diddy in big trouble. Details leaking out now. It is vile and inhumane, the charges and accusations.

I fully respect our system (well the core tenets of it, not the subversion and unjust priviledge of many including Trump). I know that he is innocent until proven guilty. I also know that he is entitled to fair representation, and with his money he can afford well beyond fair.

But I also know prosecutors, and the FBI, do not bring charges without ample evidence, especially against a high profile citizen.

Someone or some group has to represent him. A question for the lawyers -- would you represent someone you knew was guilty, and if usually not, would you make exceptions for a huge payday and attention?

I'm just curious. I am sure criminal lawyers can rationalize it to themselves by thinking it is my job and the charged is entitled to my best effort. But you've got to go out there and say stuff like Diddy's lawyers are already doing. Paraphrasing, "He is an icon in his field, he has done so much for the black community. He is not perfect, but he is not a criminal." You've got to attack his victims and add to their trauma. It is not just prostitution, it is drugging and forcing into group sexual acts, assault, kidnapping (or holding against their will, etc.)

I could not do it, if I knew he was guilty and I got him cleared, knowing the details of what the victims went through.

Of course there is the possibility his legal team believes he is innocent and will believe it through all the evidence. But I am skeptical.

Criminal defense lawyer here. No criminal lawyer would choose whether to take a case based on their belief that the potential client is innocent or guilty. Of course no criminal defense lawyer would be able to make a living if they took only cases where they believe the client is innocent, but that's really not part of the thought process.

Only a small percentage of clients are completely innocent of all the charges they face. There are some others who are not completely innocent of all charges, but are either innocent of some or only guilty of lesser charges. And then there are plenty who are guilty as charged. It is important that all of these people get competent representation. For most of us, the majority of our cases garner very little attention and don't result in a major payday. Many of us get paid very little to represent people who are accused of doing-- and perhaps actually do-- some of the most reprehensible things imaginable. (I’m in private practice, but you have criminal defense lawyers who work in public defender offices and make less than $50k per year while taking on enormous caseloads, working with some of the most difficult clients, and are frequently disrespected by their clients who often don’t view them as real lawyers.)

Whether we believe our client is innocent or guilty is irrelevant. It should not impact the effort we put into representing our client. It is also very rare for criminal defense lawyers to believe their clients are innocent when they are aware of overwhelming evidence of their guilt. But regardless of how guilty our clients may appear to us, if they want to fight the charges, it is important that we do our best to seek a dismissal or not guilty verdict. There have been cases where considerable evidence pointed to a defendant's guilt, but good lawyering (which includes investigating the case) turned up exculpatory evidence that exonerated the defendant. Sometimes that occurs before a defendant is convicted, but unfortunately sometimes it occurs after a defendant has been convicted and has sometimes spent years in jail. If a lawyer were to put less effort into their representation of a client due to a belief that their client was guilty, then there very well may be cases where innocent, falsely accused individuals are wrongfully convicted. And there have been such cases. There may be other cases where people who are guilty of some crimes but have been overcharged are wrongfully convicted of the more serious charges or excessive charges. And the people in such positions are usually vulnerable people. They often don't have a lot of money, they aren't connected to people in power, they often don't have much education, and they often don't have backgrounds where people will give them the benefit of the doubt. When those people want to hold the prosecution to its burden, their lawyer has the obligation to ensure that that happens to avoid the possibility that they are subjected to injustice.

Of course most cases don't go to trial. Most cases that are are not dismissed by the prosecution are pled out. It is our job as criminal defense lawyers to advocate for our clients in plea negotiations to get a just plea that takes into account the evidence, any mitigating facts related to the case, and any mitigating factors related the the client's background and characteristics.

In addition to being advocates, we are also advisers. We have to advise our clients regarding how the law applies to the facts of the case, the strength or weakness of the prosecution's evidence, the defenses available, the potential outcomes of the case (including potential punishments), and what the client's options are. We need to advise the client of when we feel the state's evidence is strong or when no viable defense exists. And in those cases, particularly when losing at trial could result in a lengthy sentence, we might advise our clients to take a plea if it will reduce their sentence exposure. But regardless of how strong the prosecution's evidence is or whether there is no viable defense, if the client wants to go to trial, it is their right and their lawyer is not allowed to override the decision. But a big part of the job is helping clients make informed decisions about how to proceed. Kind of like a doctor helping a patient make informed decisions about treatment options. And hopefully an informed decision will be a good decision.

As for arguments that are that are made at bond hearings and sentencings, even in cases where clients do extremely horrible things, it is our job to provide reasons why bond should be allowed, or why it should be lowered, and in sentencing hearings why the court should impose a more lenient sentence. Even people who do some of the most horrible things have good qualities or have done good things. And most of the time that won't matter. They are mainly going to be punished for what they did; not who they are. (Of course the decision to impose bond and determining the amount of bond is not a punishment; that's done to ensure the defendant appears for court and to assure the safety of the community). But it is important that the judge is put in a position to consider everything that may be relevant to determining an appropriate punishment, and in the event that someone who is being sentenced for a crime they committed deserves some benefit of the doubt that may warrant a lesser sentence, it is our job to show that reasons exist to give that defendant the benefit of the doubt.

 

[superrific]

ETA: So Robert's is a fucking arsonist and wants to jack off while the courts are burning?
Yeah and to think I used to want to go into law. Pox on the whole legal community as currently practicing.
Be the change you wish for the world?

Yeah, that tidbit about Roberts was not pleasing to me.

On the other hand, his sudden interest in helping Trump get elected could be a signal that he's ready to retire. It was Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement desire that led her to do what she did in Bush v. Gore.

So if Kamala wins, does Roberts retire anyway? I would think that, given a choice as to his replacement, he would prefer the next Jackson to the next Thomas. But I could be wrong about that, especially in light of recent revelations. And he seems prone to paranoid jeremiads these days (as evidenced by Trump v. US), so maybe he has in mind that Harris would appoint some truly BSC left-winger -- you know, the liberal version of the folks that the GOP has been appointing over the years, as opposed to the sober liberals.

 

[ZenMode]

In a recent incident, an ASU student attacked and repeatedly stabbed another student. Law enforcement is reporting that this was premeditated. Last week, the judge threw out first-degree attempted murder charges and it's being reported that those charges were thrown out because a grand jury indictment is imminent.

Why would charges be tossed next there is a grand jury indictment coming?

 

[lawtig02]

In a recent incident, an ASU student attacked and repeatedly stabbed another student. Law enforcement is reporting that this was premeditated. Last week, the judge threw out first-degree attempted murder charges and it's being reported that those charges were thrown out because a grand jury indictment is imminent.

Why would charges be tossed next there is a grand jury indictment coming?

Please post links to where you’re getting this information and I’m sure some of us will be happy to try to make sense of it.

 

[StrangePackage]

Please post links to where you’re getting this information and I’m sure some of us will be happy to try to make sense of it.

I don't know anything about Arizona criminal procedure but in North Carolina a felony charge stays in District Court until it is transferred to the Superior Court by either indictment or a probable cause hearing.

They may have dismissed that charge to avoid needing such a hearing.

 

[ZenMode]

Please post links to where you’re getting this information and I’m sure some of us will be happy to try to make sense of it.

I can't find the link where it talks about the possibility of the charges being dropped/lowered due to a grand jury indictment. Here's the link about the charges being lowered.

Family outrage as judge lowers charges for ASU knife attacker Family outrage as judge lowers charges for ASU knife attacker

 

[lawtig02]

I can't find the link where it talks about the possibility of the charges being dropped/lowered due to a grand jury indictment. Here's the link about the charges being lowered.

Family outrage as judge lowers charges for ASU knife attacker Family outrage as judge lowers charges for ASU knife attacker

Ok, sorry, way too little info there to know what happened, and the only other sources I can find are even less reliable than the Daily Mail. Would need more reporting to be able to answer your question. If this were real, though, I would expect to see something about it in at least the local press. Seems like nobody but right wing websites has anything about it.

 

[ZenMode]

Ok, sorry, way too little info there to know what happened, and the only other sources I can find are even less reliable than the Daily Mail. Would need more reporting to be able to answer your question. If this were real, though, I would expect to see something about it in at least the local press. Seems like nobody but right wing websites has anything about it.

Right, I was just asking a general question about the connection between grand jury indictments and dropping of charges...if there is one

 

[ZenMode]

Ok, sorry, way too little info there to know what happened, and the only other sources I can find are even less reliable than the Daily Mail. Would need more reporting to be able to answer your question. If this were real, though, I would expect to see something about it in at least the local press. Seems like nobody but right wing websites has anything about it.

Not sure if this is the additional info you're looking for. The suspect apparently wrote a note saying she planned to attack someone.

Arizona suspect accused in stabbing pleads not guilty to other charges

Published October 10, 2024 4:00am EDT

Arizona State University student Kaci Sloan, who is accused of stabbing a fellow student twice in a Glendale classroom last month in an apparently random attack, entered a not-guilty plea in Maricopa County on Wednesday after two of her four charges were dismissed last week.

Maricopa County authorities initially charged Sloan, 19, with four counts, including first-degree attempted murder, in connection with the attack against student Mara Daffron. After a preliminary hearing on Sept. 30, Sloan now faces charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and disorderly conduct, according to court records.

Judge Ashley Rahaman also gave Sloan a cash bail of $250,000 and listed the conditions of her release should she be able to post bail in full.

Sloan allegedly walked up to her classmate, Daffron, on Sept. 19 and stabbed her "multiple times," according to an affidavit obtained by Fox News Digital citing multiple witness accounts.

Maricopa County authorities charged Kaci Sloan, 19, with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and disorderly conduct with a weapon in connection with the attack against student Mara Daffron. (Maricopa County Sheriff's Office)

Matthew McCormick, a student who witnessed the attack unfolding in the classroom, took swift action to stop the alleged stabbing, potentially saving Daffron's life, according to FOX 10 Phoenix.

"In that moment, I didn't really have a thought going through my head, I just knew that I felt compelled to do something," McCormick told the outlet.

"As she was going for a third attack, I was able to grab her wrists and apprehend her before further damage could be done."

Approximately 13 witnesses present during the attack, including a professor, recounted the incident to police, who wrote in a probable cause affidavit obtained by Fox News Digital that the stabbing occurred "without any provocation or any words spoken."

Police corroborated McCormick's account in their report, stating that one of the witnesses "was able to disarm the defendant by pulling the knife away from the defendant's right hand and threw it away from them." Another witness then "kicked the knife to the back of the classroom."

The attack against Daffron was apparently random, according to court documents.

"Another witness described the defendant was sitting in the classroom at a desk and suddenly got up and ran at the victim as the victim entered the classroom and stabbed her multiple times," the affidavit states.

Detectives found a handwritten note inside Sloan’s backpack that apparently referenced an act she was "about to commit," but it did "not specifically state what she was referring to."

"After reading her Miranda Rights, the defendant admitted she came to class to hurt somebody and was planning the attack since the night prior."

— Probable cause affidavit
Sloan also allegedly expressed the desire to "hurt somebody" in class that day in an interview with detectives after the incident and targeted Daffron because she was "an easier target" than the other person she apparently considered attacking, who she referred to as "a veteran."

The stabbing occurred in a classroom on ASU's campus on Sept. 19. (FOX 10 Phoenix)

Authorities quickly arrived at the scene and took Daffron to a nearby hospital, where she received treatment.

"ASU Police continue to investigate a Sept. 19 on-campus stabbing of a student. Kaci Sloan was immediately detained and arrested on suspicion of first-degree attempted murder; aggravated assault with a deadly weapon; interfering with an educational institution; and disorderly conduct. She is being held on a $250,000 cash only bond," an ASU spokesperson told Fox News Digital in a statement. "ASU and the entire ASU West Valley community are deeply saddened by what happened. ASU West Valley is a close-knit campus of students, faculty and staff. Counseling support is available to all."

Sloan has an initial pretrial conference scheduled for Nov. 21.

Arizona college student accused in random classmate stabbing has attempted murder charge dropped

ASU stabbing suspect Kaci Sloan has entered a not-guilty plea. Sloan is charged with stabbing a fellow student multiple times in a classroom on Sept. 19.

www.foxnews.com

 

[NCK9]

Cognizant guilty of discriminatory conduct, US jury finds

IT service giant denies claims, will appeal against verdict

www.theregister.com

Cognizant discriminated against non-Indian workers in H-1B visa case, US jury finds​

A US jury has found that employment practices at Cognizant constitute discriminatory conduct toward non-Indian workers in a case that originated in 2013 and claimed the tech giant favored H-1B visa holders from India over local workers.

Those bringing the case alleged that Cognizant engaged in employment practices or patterns that favored South Asian employees based on nationality and race to the detriment of other workers. They allege these practices are against US civil rights law.

In the 2017 complaint, the plaintiffs said only about 12 percent of the US IT industry is South Asian, while at least 75 percent of Cognizant's US workforce is South Asian, primarily from India.

Cognizant hires people then allocates them to client work. When those client jobs come to an end, they can be placed on the "bench" to wait to be allocated to another client project.

The allegations state that Cognizant maximized the number of H-1B visas it applied for in the lottery by allegedly claiming it needed to fill jobs that effectively did not exist.

"Cognizant's explicit preference to staff visa holders in US positions minimizes or eliminates competition for the jobs from non-South Asians residing in the US. Similarly, 'visa ready' individuals often are used to replace non-South Asians working for Cognizant in US positions. Non-South Asians are then disproportionately relegated to the bench, as jobs are given to visa-holding Indians," the complaint said.

A Bloomberg report claimed Cognizant had the highest number of H-1B visas of any US employer from 2013 to 2019, according to Citizenship and Immigration Services.

The allegation also maintains that Cognizant's firing policy also favors South Asians as it allegedly terminates employees who are on the "bench" for more than five weeks, and "non-South Asians are benched at disproportionate rates compared to South Asians," or so the complaint claims.