CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #43

[RANCH]

BBM - yes, the attorney cannot pose a question that s/he knows is going to result in the client admitting guilt or lying. Why would they? They are trying to defend their client not convict their client. (there would be an exception such as Jody Arias, she admits she killed her boyfriend, but claimed self defense. The attorney could ask her if she killed him, because her defense was not that she was innocent it was that she killed him in self defense)


2nd part of your question:
A good attorney does not ask a question that s/he does not already know the answer to.
They have had plenty of time to research and discuss, it's not as if the first time on the stand is the first time their first meeting. They have gone over everything in preparation of their defense.

BBM

I agree that it would make little sense to call your client to the stand and have them admit their guilty. You would have had them plead guilty from the beginning.

And I understand why some defense attorneys don't want their clients to tell them whether their guilty or not. But I also see some attorneys who would want to know everything as soon as possible in order to provide the best defense possible.

Waiting for discovery to come in can take time and it's probably best if the client gives his attorney a heads up in order for him to prepare a defense.

MOO.

 

[jadejazzkayla]

So the defense attorney can only ask his client, while on the stand, questions that the attorney knows his client will answer truthfully? How would the attorney know whether his client was telling the truth or not?

i know right! that would be ridiculous.

 

[mijamawi]

Can someone link the CR texts again? I can't find them anymore.


ETA: Oops just caught up and saw someone else asked about the link. I'd really like to see the texts again.

Hate to quote myself, but does anyone have this link? I cannot find anything in the media thread. I originally saw these texts on DRN. Were they posted somewhere else where I can see them?

 

[RANCH]

If the attorney KNOWS that his client is guilty of a crime (as in my previous example of a bank robber) the attorney cannot ask the client on the stand - did you rob the bank. Because the attorney is either going to have his client say - yes I did (then the attorney was not defending his client and just allowed the client to admit guilt when they had plead not-guilty)

If the client say no, then the attorney caused the client to purjure himself.

The attorney should know his client.

Trials are about finding the truth, but sometimes the denfense hopes you don't figure out the truth.

I think that I'm getting what your saying now. A defense attorney won't ask his client on the stand if he's guilty of the crime that he's accused of because he knows the truth to the answer.

I'm still trying to figure out how the defense attorney knows what the truth is. MOO.

 

[NC Analyzer]

BBM

I agree that it would make little sense to call you client to the stand and have them admit their guilty. You would have had them plead guilty from the beginning.

And I understand why some defense attorneys don't want their clients to tell them whether their guilty or not. But I also see some attorneys who would want to know everything as soon as possible in order to provide the best defense possible.

Waiting for discovery to come in can take time and it's probably best if the client gives his attorney a heads up in order for him to prepare a defense.

MOO.

The big question is why do you believe an attorney needs to know "everything as soon as possible" in order to provide a defense? We see several posters right here providing an adequate defense to MR without knowing much of anything. You don't need details to provide a defense.

 

[song22]

Hate to quote myself, but does anyone have this link? I cannot find anything in the media thread. I originally saw these texts on DRN. Were they posted somewhere else where I can see them?

The last place I saw them posted was on the CMR facebook page.

 

[azgrandma]

I think that I'm getting what your saying now. A defense attorney won't ask his client on the stand if he's guilty of the crime that he's accused of because he knows the truth to the answer.

I'm still trying to figure out how the defense attorney knows what the truth is. MOO.

Yes - the first part is correct.

In regards to the second part:
The defense attorney may not want to know what the truth is. As previously said, they may stop their client from blurting out the truth so that they build their defense believing in their client's innocence. Or, they may know the truth and build their defense around discrediting witnesses & evidence.

 

[momshrink]

Hate to quote myself, but does anyone have this link? I cannot find anything in the media thread. I originally saw these texts on DRN. Were they posted somewhere else where I can see them?

I'm not sure, but could they be downstairs in the parking lot? I think there was a thread for the texts there.

JMO MOO

 

[RANCH]

The big question is why do you believe an attorney needs to know "everything as soon as possible" in order to provide a defense? We see several posters right here providing an adequate defense to MR without knowing much of anything. You don't need details to provide a defense.

I think that it would be a good idea for a defense attorney to have all possible information about a case as soon as possible.

I'm not sure that I've seen an adequate defense of Mark Redwine on this thread by anyone. In fact all I've seen is possible scenario's that don't involve Mark as being a perpetrator in the disappearance of Dylan and a majority of scenario's that do. MOO.

 

[mijamawi]

The last place I saw them posted was on the CMR facebook page.

I'm not sure, but could they be downstairs in the parking lot? I think there was a thread for the texts there.

JMO MOO

Ok, so once again, I'm confused. Are we allowed to discuss stuff from CMR? Are we allowed to bring stuff from the parking lot upstairs? If so, I gots plenty to touch on.

 

[song22]

I agree with MR's motive being revenge, but I'm also considering another motive. Is it possible DR knew something about MR that made him uncomfortable? I mean, he would have known all along what a jerk his dad was, but DR is getting older, and maybe he figured out there was something even more disturbing about his dad than he knew as a small child. Maybe the closed session with the judge had to do with this, and DR felt really uncomfortable being with his dad now. He may have been OK with it when he was younger, maybe, but now DR knows more. Maybe MR's motive could have been rage at DR for finding out his secrets. MOO. I think it was premeditated.

 

[song22]

Ok, so once again, I'm confused. Are we allowed to discuss stuff from CMR? Are we allowed to bring stuff from the parking lot upstairs? If so, I gots plenty to touch on.

Oh no! Are you trying to trick me? LOL! I just answered your question but I idon't think that counts as discussing does it?

 

[mijamawi]

The big question is why do you believe an attorney needs to know "everything as soon as possible" in order to provide a defense? We see several posters right here providing an adequate defense to MR without knowing much of anything. You don't need details to provide a defense.

BBM

Really? What defense would that be?

 

[RANCH]

Ok, so once again, I'm confused. Are we allowed to discuss stuff from CMR? Are we allowed to bring stuff from the parking lot upstairs? If so, I gots plenty to touch on.

I would have to say no to both. But your free to ask a Mod to make sure.

 

[mijamawi]

Oh no! Are you trying to trick me? LOL! I just answered your question but I idon't think that counts as discussing does it?

Haha, no, not trying to trick anyone. There was discussion earlier of the one-sided texts from MR to CR. I just wanted to see them but no one could provide a link. If they're on CMR then they're not allowed, or so I thought. If they were discussed in the parking lot, then they're not allowed, or so I thought. I'm just trying to figure out what is allowed and what's not. No worries, I reported my post to get a mod up in here.

 

[NC Analyzer]

I think that it would be a good idea for a defense attorney to have all possible information about a case as soon as possible.

I'm not sure that I've seen an adequate defense of Mark Redwine on this thread by anyone. In fact all I've seen is possible scenario's that don't involve Mark as being a perpetrator in the disappearance of Dylan and a majority of scenario's that do. MOO.

Sure. Possible information from police, possible evidence, who are the witnesses, your client's general information. Pretty simple.

As far as defense...pretty much all a defense attorney does is throw out possible alternate scenario's. Anything that doesn't point at his client.

 

[momshrink]

Ok, so once again, I'm confused. Are we allowed to discuss stuff from CMR? Are we allowed to bring stuff from the parking lot upstairs? If so, I gots plenty to touch on.

No, no I did not suggest anything downstairs could be brought up here. I was just trying to point you in a direction to find the information.
JMO MOO

 

[catswhiskers]

I think that it would be a good idea for a defense attorney to have all possible information about a case as soon as possible.

I'm not sure that I've seen an adequate defense of Mark Redwine on this thread by anyone. In fact all I've seen is possible scenario's that don't involve Mark as being a perpetrator in the disappearance of Dylan and a majority of scenario's that do. MOO.

Just jumping off your post here RANCH...
IMO the majority of posts here are based on personal opinions or interpretations, and are just suggested scenarios or theories -nothing more. Given what we know, none are necessarily more correct or accurate than any others. Also IMO, the loudest or most outraged and even strident opinions in online forums don't necessarily carry more weight or credence.
:moo:

 

[katydid23]

I think that it would be a good idea for a defense attorney to have all possible information about a case as soon as possible.

I'm not sure that I've seen an adequate defense of Mark Redwine on this thread by anyone. In fact all I've seen is possible scenario's that don't involve Mark as being a perpetrator in the disappearance of Dylan and a majority of scenario's that do. MOO.

If Mark is guilty, his best bet is NOT to tell his attorney about that part. Telling his attorney that he is guilty will hamper his defense options, imo.

My dad was a defense attorney. He used to have his interns do the initial consultation. We would prepare the clients for the consultation by saying the following:

If you are innocent of these charges, then please describe in great detail what you were doing at the time these incidents took place.

If not, then please describe in great detail exactly what happened between you and the investigators from the time they first contacted you.

 

[RANCH]

BBM

Really? What defense would that be?

I haven't seen anything that says it's impossible for Mark to be involved in Dylan's disappearance.

At the same time I haven't seen anything that convinces me that he's guilty.

So I'm still on the fence.