Should we try Tsarnaev in the USA?

[triforcharity]

No offense, but that's your own fault, entirely of your own making.

You, even as a young person, should have known your rights and protections under the law. That you didn't, falls mostly on you, but also on the school system, and your parents.

No offense, but it's your own fault. Don't attempt to place 100% of blame on the defense attorney.

 

[newyorkguy]

You should have asked to plea, get in front of the judge, and tell him the problem. Conflict attorney would have been assigned, and the lawyer in question would most certainly have been sanctioned by not only his boss, but also the courts.

Possibly but it's also quite possible it would've worked out very differently than you imagine. That was a risk I wasn't about to take.

It's a system. Hundreds of thousands of people are arrested in New York City every year. Do you think I'm the only person this has ever happened to?

In the same court, while I was waiting, a guy was brought before the judge charged with gambling. The plainclothesman who arrested him alleged he had been the lookout for a Three-card Monte game on 42nd Street. His Legal Aid lawyer argued for the charges to be dismissed for lack of evidence. The only evidence was the police officer's statement the guy had been the lookout.

I had been in the cage with this guy overnight. He told us he didn't even know the other two guys who had been arrested, the ones who were actually running the game. And the two other guys had told the cops that. He said he had no idea why the cop had arrested him. Well...he suspected it was because he was black street guy like the other two guys. And unlike everyone else in the crowd who were, like him, standing around watching the game. Most of them looked like tourists or office workers. When he said that all the other black guys in the cage with us nodded their heads.

You know what the judge said? First she asked the defense attorney was he aware the city had begun a campaign to chase the Three-card Monte games out of Midtown. Then she said this man had been arrested four times previously. His lawyer said he was aware of that, "But not for gambling your Honor." The judge said she didn't care. She said he had been arrested four times previously, he had been arrested again and he's "not walking out of my courtroom." She found him guilty and sentenced him to forty-five days on Rikers Island.

I'm not looking to assign blame. I'm simply agreeing with Jodie -- and I totally disagree with her that Dzokhar Tsarnaev should be convicted without trial -- but do I agree with her when she says that legal proceedings

...aren't applied fairly and evenly, are they?

I know from personal experience she's right.

I thought everyone knew that.

 

[triforcharity]

I don't believe that a judge can sentence someone right there, when they didn't plea guilty. That violates the man's rights to due process so blatantly, it's not even debatable. His conviction would be tossed so quick it'd look like a gazelle was loose. The rest is somewhat irrelevant and off topic. My advice? Have a lawyer on retainer. /OT

 

[linusrichard]

I don't believe that a judge can sentence someone right there, when they didn't plea guilty. That violates the man's rights to due process so blatantly, it's not even debatable. His conviction would be tossed so quick it'd look like a gazelle was loose.

This is correct. You have to have a plea, or a trial.

I don't see any way this story can be true as newyorkguy is telling it. Something's being left out.

 

[newyorkguy]

I don't believe that a judge can sentence someone right there, when they didn't plea guilty. That violates the man's rights to due process so blatantly, it's not even debatable. His conviction would be tossed so quick it'd look like a gazelle was loose. The rest is somewhat irrelevant and off topic. My advice? Have a lawyer on retainer. /OT

You don't believe it? No offense but that's because you don't know what you're talking about.

You can't be sentenced in criminal court unless you plead guilty? Seriously?

He pleaded Not Guilty. He was found guilty.

Nothing gets "tossed" unless an appeal is filed. That co$t$ buck$. That's out of the reach of many defendants. Lawyers don't work on installment plans. Either you pay upfront what they ask for or....find yourself another lawyer.

Go to a big-city criminal court sometime. Like in Miami or Tampa. Sit there for a couple hours. They'll let you in. Citizens can go in sit down and watch. Find out how it really works.

 

[newyorkguy]

This is correct.

I don't see any way this story can be true as newyorkguy is telling it.

You're calling me a liar? Nice!

Look I lived this. Believe what you want.

 

[linusrichard]

You're calling me a liar? Nice!

Look I lived this. Believe what you want.

No. I'm saying you didn't notice some detail that was happening, or misunderstood something that was happening and thought it was something else, or misremembered what happened, or something. (Or maybe you're a liar. I mean, I don't think you are, but it seems like it would be irresponsible to rule it out.)

I can think of several different scenarios that all sort of fit the story you're telling. Some of them are shockingly egregious. Some of them seem a little improper. Some of them are just fine.

 

[newyorkguy]

No. I'm saying you didn't notice some detail that was happening, or misunderstood something that was happening and thought it was something else, or misremembered what happened, or something. (Or maybe you're a liar. I mean, I don't think you are, but it seems like it would be irresponsible to rule it out.)

I can think of several different scenarios that all sort of fit the story you're telling. Some of them are shockingly egregious. Some of them seem a little improper. Some of them are just fine.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't know what your legal books say or how they do it in Lansing Michigan. I went through this process. I know other people who went through this process. You get arrested. You go to the precinct. They take your fingerprints and mug shot. Then at some point they transport you downtown to Criminal Court. If you can't make Criminal Court before they close you go to the House of Detention on Centre Street. The next day they take you to court. You go to an anteroom off the courtroom. You meet with your lawyer. They ask you how you want to plead.

Then the case is called and you go before the judge and they ask you how you plead. If you plead Not Guilty the judge asks the arresting officer to step forward. He explains why he made the arrest. What evidence he has. That's it. Then the judge asks a couple questions and decides the case. Judges in New York City brag about how many cases they can dispose of at a single sitting.

These are misdemeanors. You don't get a drawn out legal procedure in New York City for a misdemeanor. Trial by jury for a misdemeanor? In New York City? That's fantasy.

The way things work...there was a guy in the Bronx charged with murder. He was in detention for five years awaiting trial. Another lie?

 

[newyorkguy]

Then the case is called and you go before the judge and they ask you how you plead. If you plead Not Guilty the judge asks the arresting officer to step forward. He explains why he made the arrest. What evidence he has. That's it. Then the judge asks a couple questions and decides the case. Judges in New York City brag about how many cases they can dispose of at a single sitting.

Where I was mistaken above was, if you plead Not Guilty, yeah you are going to be held over for a trial. And I didn't say the Three-card Monte dealer never pleaded guilty. I would assume he did. I would assume he was coerced into it by the judge. He probably decided to do that because being held over for a trial could've meant six or seven months in jail.

What I don't understand is, we were talking (at least I thought we were) about whether everyone gets the same treatment in the Criminal Justice system. Instead of addressing that, people are nitpicking my credibility. Did I leave out a detail?

Dancing around the real issue here.

Is everyone treated the same in the US courts. Is there anyone who thinks if OJ Simpson had been a cab driver represented by a Legal Aid lawyer he'd have been acquitted?

 

[linusrichard]

I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't know what your legal books say or how they do it in Lansing Michigan. I went through this process. I know other people who went through this process. You get arrested. You go to the precinct. They take your fingerprints and mug shot. Then at some point they transport you downtown to Criminal Court. If you can't make Criminal Court before they close you go to the House of Detention on Centre Street. The next day they take you to court. You go to an anteroom off the courtroom. You meet with your lawyer. They ask you how you want to plead.

Then the case is called and you go before the judge and they ask you how you plead. If you plead Not Guilty the judge asks the arresting officer to step forward. He explains why he made the arrest. What evidence he has. That's it. Then the judge asks a couple questions and decides the case. Judges in New York City brag about how many cases they can dispose of at a single sitting.

You might want to write to the person who wrote this to correct it.

Regardless, my problem is not with how fast the New York City Criminal Court can handle its docket. My problem is this -- convicting a defendant on the basis of he's been arrested four other times. And that's where I get skeptical. Maybe that happened. Or maybe he was convicted because the judge believed the cop over the defendant, and then, at sentencing, the judge remarked that he had been arrested four other times, and used that to justify the 45-day sentence. Or maybe, at sentencing, the judge remarked that he had been convicted four other times, and used that to justify the 45-day sentence.

Or maybe, the website I linked to above is accurate, and you were watching an arraignment, and he was sent to Rikers to await trial. Or maybe the judge denied the motion to dismiss, and the defendant decided to plead guilty after that.

I can't know. So yes, if there's a judge in New York convicting people based on the fact that they've been arrested multiple times previously (on unrelated charges!), then that's a Bad Thing. Hopefully some lawyer or defendant finds it worth their while to appeal one of these Bad rulings.

But if there's a judge in New York who thinks that a defendant needs some jail time for his fifth misdemeanor conviction, I don't see that as a big deal.

These are misdemeanors. You don't get a drawn out legal procedure in New York City for a misdemeanor. Trial by jury for a misdemeanor? In New York City? That's fantasy.

Of course, I never said otherwise.

The way things work...there was a guy in the Bronx charged with murder. He was in detention for five years awaiting trial. Another lie?

Please tell us what the cause of the delay was.

 

[linusrichard]

He pleaded Not Guilty. He was found guilty.

And I didn't say the Three-card Monte dealer never pleaded guilty. I would assume he did.

Okay.

...people are nitpicking my credibility.

Hm.

Dancing around the real issue here.

Is everyone treated the same in the US courts. Is there anyone who thinks if OJ Simpson had been a cab driver represented by a Legal Aid lawyer he'd have been acquitted?

Based on what you're telling me, if OJ Simpson had been OJ Simpson, but had been arraigned in NYC Criminal Court, he would have been convicted. So I mean I see your point, but I don't see how what you're saying supports your point. Sorry if I'm being dense.

 

[newyorkguy]

Yes when I wrote that the defendant pleaded Not Guilty -- and didn't withdraw it -- I was wrong.

But that wasn't really the point. The point was not everyone gets the same treatment in the Criminal Justice system. I felt what you were doing was, you found one flaw in my statement and zeroed in on it to discredit everything else. I felt that was very unfair.

I don't see any way this story can be true as newyorkguy is telling it. Something's being left out.

If you had left out the highlighted part I wouldn't have had a problem with it. Especially because Triforcharity was involved in this and he has made many very insulting remarks to me -- I'm incredibly ignorant, pulling nuggets out of my underwear, vrrroooommm -- and I felt your response was going to incite him to attack me. And it still may.

Plus you're still ignoring the 800-pound gorilla in the room.

Does everyone get the same treatment in the Criminal Justice system.

Please answer yes or no.

Only we're w-a-y off-topic here, so I'm done. Back to the regularly schedule programming.

 

[SezMe]

My way to fix this is to treat it the same way they handle other less note worthy individuals that get dragged into the judiciary system and convicted with little or no evidence.

I completely agree with you that there are, in effect, two different legal systems - one for the rich and one for the poor schlub on the street. That's just not right.

But your solution is to lower the bar....to downgrade the system. I'd rather we maintain our values in this case and strive to better the process for the poor.

 

[linusrichard]

Yes when I wrote that the defendant pleaded Not Guilty -- and didn't withdraw it -- I was wrong.

But that wasn't really the point. The point was not everyone gets the same treatment in the Criminal Justice system. I felt what you were doing was, you found one flaw in my statement and zeroed in on it to discredit everything else. I felt that was very unfair.

I didn't mean to be unfair. I don't really see how the story demonstrates what you're talking about. Your story about yourself, yes. If you had been able to afford to retain a lawyer, there is a better chance you could have had the motion filed you wanted filed. But what would OJ Simpson have been able to do that the Three Card Monte guy couldn't? (Except not get arrested in the first place, but that's more about fame than money.)

If you had left out the highlighted part I wouldn't have had a problem with it. Especially because Triforcharity was involved in this and he has made many very insulting remarks to me -- I'm incredibly ignorant, pulling nuggets out of my underwear, vrrroooommm -- and I felt your response was going to incite him to attack me. And it still may.

Please, triforcharity, don't hurt 'im.

(But let's not forget the highlighted part was correct. The story was not true the way you were telling it. And I did not believe and do not believe you were lying. Just a mistake.)

Plus you're still ignoring the 800-pound gorilla in the room.

Does everyone get the same treatment in the Criminal Justice system.

Please answer yes or no.

Having an effective lawyer can be a very important factor in the way you will be treated in the criminal justice system.

Appointed counsel can be less effective than retained counsel because they are representing a lot of people at the same time, and may not have the time to devote undivided attention to your case.

So yes, if you have the money to hire a lawyer who is not juggling a number of cases, you will have a better chance.

So in that way, no.

 

[newyorkguy]

I completely agree with you that there are, in effect, two different legal systems - one for the rich and one for the poor schlub on the street. That's just not right.

I agree. If you don't have money you can't take advantage of many of the options like filling motions, hiring expert witnesses. In a high profile case like Dzokhar Tsarnaev's this might not be so big a problem as the government will probably allocate a lot of funds to avoid the appearance of an uneven playing field.

The defendant is basically indigent and it sure looks like he is getting a lot of financial help from the US. He has a team of lawyers including Judy Clarke a prominent death penalty lawyer. In these kinds of high-profile cases -- when tried at the state level -- I think legislatures actually sometimes have to pass bills providing extra funds for indigent defenders.

A clear admission in my view that even the system knows the public defender system is not adequately funded. It's bare-bones justice.

There are many many cases where defendants are convicted in large part because the public defender did not have the money available for testing, for private investigators, for expert witnesses, even for providing travel expenses for all the witnesses they would like to call.

Ironically in this case, that might not be such a big issue.

 

[Border Reiver]

Plus you're still ignoring the 800-pound gorilla in the room.

Does everyone get the same treatment in the Criminal Justice system.

Please answer yes or no.

The answer is yes. AND no.

Now to explain. The process is the same for everyone - everyone has to be made aware of the case against them, everyone has the right to be presumed not guilty until proven otherwise, everyone has the right to legal representation, and that the prosecution needs to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. So, with this I can confidently say that yes, everyone is treated the same, in that the process is the same for everyone.

Now, I'd have to be a grade A idiot to believe that just because the process is the same for everyone, that I would get the same treatment as say, a member of the Seagram family if charged with the same offence. The ability to engage a highend lawyer, to pay close attention to the particulars of my case, to parse all potentially relevant caselaw, etc. isn't in the fiscal reality of ol' BR, as I suspect it isn't for most of us here. Although I have a good understanding of the broad processes involved and can generally state, "slow down there and lets take a closer look at this, I want to do x, and as my lawyer you are obligated to work for my interests, not your own." while someone less aware may very well be pressured into pleading against their interests because the PD is feeling overwhelmed and because of whatever doesn't feel like doing more than the bare minimum that day. About the only way I can see to level the playing field is to make everyone use a PD, but then we run into a whole lot more issues. So in part the answer to your question is "no", not everyone will be treated the same by the same process.

 

[Mark6]

I think everybody in this thread is overlooking something very important:

We did try Tsarnaev in the USA, with horrific results.

Perhaps the better question would be, should we try Tsarnaev back in Chechnya?

What??

Did I miss the trial of Tsarnaev?

 

[newyorkguy]

<snip>
Although I have a good understanding of the broad processes involved and can generally state, "slow down there and lets take a closer look at this, I want to do x, and as my lawyer you are obligated to work for my interests, not your own." while someone less aware may very well be pressured into pleading against their interests because the PD is feeling overwhelmed and because of whatever doesn't feel like doing more than the bare minimum that day. About the only way I can see to level the playing field is to make everyone use a PD, but then we run into a whole lot more issues. So in part the answer to your question is "no", not everyone will be treated the same by the same process.

It's more than that just time constraints. Public defenders complain, with good reason, that they are often severely limited by the funds they have available in mounting a defense.

They are sometimes unable to file motions, hire private investigators, do independent testing of evidence, counter expert witness testimony with their own expert witnesses, counter allegations by bringing in witnesses from a far, all because they do not have enough money available.

I heard one public defender say, I'm paraphrasing, "It was just me, and the few dollars I could scrape together, versus the United States of America!"

 

[theprestige]

What??

Did I miss the trial of Tsarnaev?

It's a pun on the word "try".

"Here, try some of this Chechen Pressure-Cooked Chicken! It's delicious!"

"No, thanks, I'm quitting terrorist douchebags for Lent."

 

[newyorkguy]

Here's an example from Montana on how public defender justice is very much underfunded.

The Office of the [Montana] State Public Defender has been operating since 2006, following a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union saying the previous system, run by counties, was not giving fair defense to those not able to afford their own.

“They were underfunded from day one,” said Representative Steve Gibson (R-East Helena), chair of the House subcommittee which put together the budget on the public defender’s office. Attorneys in the office have very high caseloads; at any given time an individual attorney may be working on hundreds of cases and they make far less than attorneys with similar experience working for other state agencies or the private sector.

Link