Deceased/Not Found CA - Sierra LaMar, 15, Morgan Hill, 16 March 2012 #19 *A. Garcia-Torres guilty*

[chewygooey]

AGT confessing to his lawyer (which many lawyers strongly discourage) would not impair his defence. It would mean he could not put AGT on the stand but many defendants decide not to go on the stand and receive an adequate defence anyway.

Confessions should be received skeptically anyway. Some incredible percentage of unjust convictions involve false confessions. So even if AGT confessed, his lawyer should receive it with a spoonful of salt.

There are more strategies than simply aiming to prove his client innocent of the charges. One would be to acknowledge that AGT is guilty of something criminal but that does not fit with the charges as filed, for instance.

Again, I have a feeling that a judge would take that statement with a "stop whining and do your job" response.

I am not a lawyer, the above is just from my observations over the years.

yeah..lawyers arent allowed to present anything that they have a reason to believe is untrue. if he confessed to the killing,kidnapping (lets say he blurted it all out for instance " i took her, i killed her, ill tell them where her body is if youll just get me a deal!"), that COULD hinder his ability to defend him.

thats why in my experience..the lawyers dont want to know if you did it,specifically.

ive never heard of this spoon full of salt thing.i cant think of a reason i would confess to my lawyer something that was untrue..to the cops yes..not the lawyer.

its a moot point now, but still. if he HAD confessed,and he was specific enough, i think it would be hard for the public defender to serve him to the best of his ability (as opposed to before he had the knowledge.)


ETA:
"The only limits to a defense attorney's obligation to present your defense are that a defense attorney cannot knowingly present false information or ask a question that he knows you are going to lie to under oath. An attorney can request that you not tell him certain information, so that he will be unaware of whether you are telling the truth or not when you are put on the stand, but he cannot knowingly help you to lie."

http://www.superpages.com/supertips/defense-attorneys.html

 

[GrainneDhu]

can u tell ur lawyer u did it and then him defend u and say u didnt?

There are many ways to imply that someone is not guilty without actually coming out and claiming "this person is factually innocent of anything to do in this case."

As a purely made up example, if a lawyer stands up and says in their summation "those words 'not guilty' are so powerful and yet so difficult to believe. Saying my client is not guilty is so easy to discount, so easy to just brush off as more rhetoric. My part in this trial has been to show you that the case against my client is weak and full of holes... the technical term is beyond a reasonable doubt. There's a good reason there is so much room for reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case and I trust you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury to apply your common sense to come to the correct verdict."

That statement sounds like the lawyer is saying the client is not guilty but if you read it carefully, no such claim is made.

Many (most?) lawyers discourage overly confidential moments with clients. They want their client to answer their questions and not confide an iota more.

 

[Whisperer]

can u tell ur lawyer u did it and then him defend u and say u didnt?

I was under the impression that if a lawyer knew his client was guilty because of discovery (and that includes admission) that he would not be allowed to defend him....that he must plea him out.

.....but defense attorneys get away with murder (pun intended)

 

[Whisperer]

I remember in the OJ Simpson case that Johnny Cocoran said after the trial that he never asked OJ if he did it because Johnny didn't want to be prejudicial while representing OJ.

I believe that if a Defense attorney is TOLD by hid client that he did it, he must plea him out. These attorneys do not want their client to tell them any such thing. This is precisely one of the things that annoys the heck out of me regarding defense attorneys.

They also don't want them to tell them where the child can be found either...disgusting!

 

[krkrjx]

I was under the impression that if a lawyer knew his client was guilty because of discovery (and that includes admission) that he would not be allowed to defend him....that he must plea him out.

.....but defense attorneys get away with murder (pun intended)

Sometimes when a defense attorney knows the evidence is irrefutable they will advise their client to plead guilty in exchange for something...usually a reduced charge and with that a lighter sentence. Prosecutors often make such a deal because a guilty plea avoids the jury trial and saves the state money (trials can be costly).

If a defense attorney knowing his/her client is guilty would require them to enter a guilty plea instead of putting on a defense at trial, that would effectively take away the defendant's right to a defense...which is a right all citizens in this country have.

 

[Whisperer]

Of course, we are back to THEIR constitutional rights but not a caring word about the victim, such as a child. That child can just rot...as far as they are concerned. Some of the defense attorneys advise their client and family to hush up and not divulge anything...yeah, the good ole Constitution. I think it needs review.

Old Cochran used to argue with a Bible at one end and the Constitution at the other. Combine that with a bunch of people that are not able to digest the meaning of "Reasonable Doubt" and you have a win...and really isn't that all that matters in the end? uke:

:truce:

 

[chewygooey]

I believe that if a Defense attorney is TOLD by hid client that he did it, he must plea him out. These attorneys do not want their client to tell them any such thing. This is precisely one of the things that annoys the heck out of me regarding defense attorneys.

They also don't want them to tell them where the child can be found either...disgusting!

youre on the right track..but..

the attorney MUST follow his clients wishes. he cannot plead him out if he doesnt want to plead guilty or take a deal.
his options would be resent the case to the best of his ability.
OR if he is unable, recuse himself from the case.

 

[JDB]

Of course, we are back to THEIR constitutional rights but not a caring word about the victim, such as a child. That child can just rot...as far as they are concerned. Some of the defense attorneys advise their client and family to hush up and not divulge anything...yeah, the good ole Constitution. I think it needs review.

I don't know seems the constitution has been working well for how many years now? Got to take the good with the bad.
Besides if we changed the defendants rights. That would mean if pulled over for speeding could not fight the ticket.

 

[chewygooey]

Sometimes when a defense attorney knows the evidence is irrefutable they will advise their client to plead guilty in exchange for something...usually a reduced charge and with that a lighter sentence. Prosecutors often make such a deal because a guilty plea avoids the jury trial and saves the state money (trials can be costly).

If a defense attorney knowing his/her client is guilty would require them to enter a guilty plea instead of putting on a defense at trial, that would effectively take away the defendant's right to a defense...which is a right all citizens in this country have.

that isnt exactly true

as long as the knowledge of guilt wasnt too specific..he could present some sort of case. he could present the possibility of someone else doing it, which could lead to reasonable doubt.

 

[Whisperer]

that isnt exactly true

as long as the knowledge of guilty wasnt too specific..he could present some sort of case. he could present the possibility of someone else doing it, which could lead to reasonable doubt.

We've seen that one work on a bunch of people a year ago. A precious toddler killed with DNA in the trunk of the car and the jury found "reasonable doubt" when there was none. Personally, I want professional jurors....or at least all educated and thinking (logical) ones.

 

[krkrjx]

Of course, we are back to THEIR constitutional rights but not a caring word about the victim, such as a child. That child can just rot...as far as they are concerned. Some of the defense attorneys advise their client and family to hush up and not divulge anything...yeah, the good ole Constitution. I think it needs review.

Old Cochran used to argue with a Bible at one end and the Constitution at the other. Combine that with a bunch of people that are not able to digest the meaning of "Reasonable Doubt" and you have a win.

I am not wanting to take away the rights of the accused because I feel that would endanger all citizens' rights in general. In a legal arena, a person is innocent until proven guilty.

I would, however, like to see more rights and legal consideration given to the victims and their families.

O/T, but...There was a case in my state a while back where a man shot his ex-girlfriend to death and then turned the gun on himself. He survived, but with extensive damage to his face. He was only able to eat pureed foods because he could not chew and swallow solids. In prison, he petitioned for plastic and reconstructive surgery to restore his face so that he could eat solid food again, and the state had to pay for the surgery, which was estimated to cost at least $300,000. Since an inmate is entitled to medical care, he is (apparently) entitled to reconstructive surgery at state expense.

Now...here's what bugs me about that: If his girlfriend had lived, the state would neither owe nor offer anything to her to reconstruct whatever damage the perp's bullet caused. She might qualify for a small portion of the total needed for surgery from the state's victim's rights fund, but that would not even begin to cover her medical expenses.

The scales are seriously tipped in favor of the bad guys, even after they are proven guilty. I would not mind seeing some changes that would give victims equal consideration.

 

[Whisperer]

fftopic:

You got that right Krkrjx! I don't know whether they are still doing it but the prison system in CA was giving the inmates the right to transgender and providing all the hormones, psychotherapy and surgery. I thought I was in a co-ed prison.

One of the funniest things happened. Someone in the system suggested since there are now female inmates, they should be shipped to a female prison. Oh, the uproar over that one!..LOL The last thing these guys wanted was that to happen as they were having the best of both worlds....sitting right there in the all male prison...servicing, etc. .....I wonder what happened with that. I don't know whether the State is still paying for make-overs or not anymore. :jail:

Our Forefathers should be turning in their graves.....

 

[krkrjx]

that isnt exactly true

as long as the knowledge of guilt wasnt too specific..he could present some sort of case. he could present the possibility of someone else doing it, which could lead to reasonable doubt.

...what isn't true?

 

[Whisperer]

I want this AGT to talk. This is really bugging me...constitutional rights being acknowledged on this forum and all. This is getting ridiculous. Perps are now hiding bodies better, and if they get caught, they take the chance on a jury being fooled by "Reasonable Doubt" and roll the die. It getting worse, folks.

 

[krkrjx]

I want this AGT to talk. This is really bugging me...constitutional rights being acknowledged on this forum and all. This is getting ridiculous. Perps are now hiding bodies better, and if they get caught, they take the chance on a jury being fooled by "Reasonable Doubt" and roll the die. It getting worse, folks.

Yes, it's getting more and more difficult to find citizens who take jury duty seriously. And of course we saw last July what happens when you seat people who really couldn't care less about justice for a victim.

I can only hope that the evidence in this case is strong, and that the people in CA where the jury will be chosen are more on the ball than those 12 from Pinellas County FL.

 

[chewygooey]

...what isn't true?

what you said...you know, what i was referring to..try rereading:seeya:

 

[chewygooey]

We've seen that one work on a bunch of people a year ago. A precious toddler killed with DNA in the trunk of the car and the jury found "reasonable doubt" when there was none. Personally, I want professional jurors....or at least all educated and thinking (logical) ones.

totally agree on all points.

there should be some kind of basic comprehension exam, at least. its scary if you think about it...a jury of your peers. i would think "im screwed" if some of the idiots i have met in my life were in charge of my fate. its amazing the things people can buck up if given the opportunity.

 

[cluciano63]

I can't help secretly wishing that the public defender got a look at all of the evidence and said "yikes, no way." And then went and found some evidence of the suspect's father having come by their law offense once...instant conflict.

I know it is not the case, but I hope there is that much evidence...

JMO

 

[krkrjx]

I can't help secretly wishing that the public defender got a look at all of the evidence and said "yikes, no way." And then went and found some evidence of the suspect's father having come by their law offense once...instant conflict.

I know it is not the case, but I hope there is that much evidence...

JMO

Well, that's not really farfetched. It wouldn't have to be a true conflict to be acceptable to the court. IOW, AGT's father having been at any point involved with any attorney in this PD's office, doesn't necessarily mean conflict of interest that would prevent adequate defense of AGT. But it could be something that might raise eyebrows with an appeals court down the road if AGT is convicted and appeals based on inadequate counsel.

The PD could look at it in one of two ways: He can put in all the time and effort necessary into AGT's defense and still lose, and his client goes to prison, appeals, and wins a new trial with a new PD. Or, he can do all in his power and by the luck of the draw win an acquittal, and his client gets released to go out and victimize more females.

Either way, attorney might just see it as a "'no-win" situation and if he has a legal out he is going to take it.

JMO, all of it!

 

[Thirteen]

IMO they should search where AGT grew up for Sierra. Usually perps take the victim to a place they feel safe. If they have searched his usual hang outs its going to be someplace from his childhood that he took her to.