Standing

[Marc Stevens]

RealSkinny Wrote:I also tend to disagree about anyone actually stepping in to help out a murderer. I know Marc talks a lot about how lawyers try to keep this information "secret" for one reason or another, but that makes little sense to me. If you have a fool proof argument to win any case, why wouldn't a lawyer exploit that information? If lawyers are as crooked as Marc makes them out to be, I can't see why they wouldn't be using this info all the time to get clients out of trouble, whether the charge be speeding, drug dealing, or murder and rape.

As for me, I think you should use whatever information you like, no matter who might exploit it. I just don't think it's going to be very effective when a judge will know letting a drug abuser off the hook this week based on the "no state" argument could lead to a murderer getting off the hook next week using the same argument. I know the phrase PR gets used a lot here in reference to judges trying to save face. How does it look for the PR if they let you off for speeding this week because they decide there's no evidence of a State, but then next week they either need to let a rapist off the hook cause there's no state, or come up with a reason why there's evidence of a state's existence when the charge is rape?

If the whole point is to make the judge look like an idiot to reveal corruption or fight the system, then I think Marc might be on to something, but if the goal is damage control, I would personally prefer to avoid making a fool out of a judge in his courtroom 5 minutes before he decides the outcome of my case.

I don't think I wrote/said lawyers keep the info secret, I've mentioned they do not use the info to get complaints dismissed. The reason I give is one with a mountain of circumstantial evidence: money. There is more money taking huge retainers and going through a trial than getting it dismissed with a motion or impeaching witnesses at the preliminary hearing to determine probable cause.

While I do not advocate it with real crimes such as rape, yes, someone could very well use the "no state argument" in a rape proceeding. They need to be able to prove presence within the state and there won't be a competent witness to that. Just as the Wright brothers were probably horrified their invention was used as a tool of mass destruction, I would not want to see someone use my material if they have committed a real crime.

Damage control does not consist in only making the judge contradict himself. I have always said to scapegoat someone other than the judge and the system itself. That scapegoat is usually the cop or tax agent and is very easy for the judge to take the heat off himself or the criminal system he administers.

Soooo, the cop is not summonsed to appear or is declared incompetent. Path of least resistance.