Quote: (10-31-2013 04:57 PM)Sp5 Wrote:
The U.S. Congress enacted a burden-shifting rule on consent defenses for the US military a few years ago, but it got shot down by a military judge on US Constitutional grounds. For the time being, it is still the law in the USA that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent, and the defense of consent is allowed to be raised before the jury without any gatekeeping by the judge.
Another trend is the expansion of the definition of rape because of incapacity by intoxication. Incapacity used to mean the woman was unconscious or nearly so, unable to stand up or speak. Now, prosecutors are trying to impose a vague and shifting definition that includes ambulatory intoxication.
I know someone who does a lot of military cases and the current environment is so fucked up right now. There was a period where the definition of the crime wasn't even settled - "lack of consent" was no longer necessary to convict someone of rape. I'm not sure what the legal status is now, but he said there has been a major trend where two married service members will get caught in an affair. Since adultery is still illegal in the US military, the first thing the female member does is allege a sexual assault, whereby adultery charges against her are not filed and the male service member gets the double whammy of adultery and rape to defend against.
The SJWs of the world and their political allies refuse to acknowledge this, but it is a fact, a climate best described as "coitus regretus" in the minds of so many self-styled "victims" in the military.
(Assuming for the sake of argument that there is genuinely an epidemic of female service members getting assaulted the way we are meant to believe, Does it make sense having so many people in uniform who one minute cannot defend themselves against one alleged attacker yet are supposedly tough and competent enough pick up a rifle and join a battle against several aggressors? But I digress.)
Quote: (10-31-2013 04:57 PM)Sp5 Wrote:
The good defense lawyer has four things: (1) likes to Fight the Power; (2) knowledge of the law, especially the rules of evidence; (3) ability to thoroughly investigate the facts; (4) common sense about human behavior.
There are no other qualities you should be looking for other than those four qualities – I know great defense lawyers who are women, including lesbians, gay guys, black, white, Hispanic, etc.
I can think of one other thing - your lawyer has to be willing to go to trial, and be good at it, versus have you take a plea. Translation: pleas mean he's lazy and wants only to take your money and move the case along as quickly as possible, regardless of what's in your best interest. This behavior is too common with shitlaw solos who can't manage their own assholes and will take any case that comes across their desks just to get paid, regardless of whether or not they're competent to take it. Avoid any lawyer with too many areas of expertise in his letterhead/advertisement. This probably means half of your solo practitioners, right off the bat.
I recommend finding the best two or three crim lawyers in your area BEFORE you need them and put them somewhere in your contact list, just in case. For married guys out there, this is ditto for divorce lawyers - just don't let your wife find out.
As a side note, if you get an inkling that she's going to or file for a divorce, immediately run to the best lawyer you've made note of, describe your case to them and move on to the next one. Then pick the one you want. By this time, you've already discussed your case with the three best divorce lawyers in town and she will be "conflicted out" from using them - they will not be able to take her as a client after they've spoken to you about your case.
Quote: (10-31-2013 04:57 PM)Sp5 Wrote:
The lawyer must investigate everything about the case, the complainant, witnesses, understand the physical layout of the scene, any lab reports, police reports. Actually, the lawyer should hire an investigator to do a lot of this, because the investigator can talk to the “victim” and get her story on the record, along with any other witnesses. You can “lock in” testimony in your favor, because the investigator can testify at trial. Even though rape shield laws have limited exploration of some aspects of the complainant’s history, other aspects can be explored: past false charges, her psychiatric history, financial issues which could on motive to lie.
If you are in a social circle with the complainant, you may find some mutual friends willing to talk to you about “what she said,” dish dirt on her, or even talk her out of the charges. The latter is a delicate matter because of witness intimidation laws and if there is a no-contact order, as it could be “indirect contact,” so consult your lawyer and be careful. Still, if you could get a friend of the complainant’s to testify to her inconsistent statements or about any motive to get revenge on you, it’s golden.
Indeed - this is what Alan Dershowitz and some others did for a big Democrat donor millionaire down in FL when he got busted for having multiple teen age girls over at his mansion for sexual escapades. Dershowitz flew a team down there to start digging and whatever it was they found, it was enough to get the families of the teenageers to drop the case. He got nailed for solicitation of prostitution but it could have been much worse.
Same goes for Kobe Bryant (who in my opinion is guilty as hell). The victim in that case did not handle herself the way a victim would be expected to do so after a sexual assault. She was heard joking about the incident at a party - something Bryant's legal team used to persuade her to drop the case, no doubt. BTW, I am convinced Bryant is guilty as sin based on things I heard from the prosecution team - things I probably should not have heard. That guy is a scumbag who actually deserved to go to jail, but point is your lawyer makes all the difference - go with quality and forget recommendations from friends and neighbors without reputations and experience to back it up.
Quote: (10-31-2013 04:57 PM)Sp5 Wrote:
I told the judge I was doing it pro bono and the defendant had the right to counsel, and the DA had no standing to object. The judge wasn’t happy, but there wasn’t anything she could do to prevent me from cross-examining the complainant.
I asked a bunch of open-ended questions – When, where, what, who, why. Just to get her story on the record, on the tape recorders running in the courtroom. The complainant said she went back to the defendant’s house after the alleged rape. I asked her why she went to see him.
I'm a little surprised you ever asked "why" as that can get out of control quickly, but good going. What surprises me more is that the judge "wasn't happy." Why would she care? Or is she a self-appointed SJW man-hating twat like so many others? It's bad enough to have the prosecutors piling on but when the judge is upset at you for volunteering to represent someone for free (as lawyers are expected to do from time to time), wtf?