Day's Objective Archived
I finally finished my part for my presentation on Thursday. I think the professor will find it quite interesting. Although I still have to elaborate on the facts and also beef up my conclusion. It is due Thursday so I think I can finish it in one more night.
There is something that I have been pondering for the past couple of days, I been reading a novel about a lawyer working on a big top law firm. I know this novel is fiction but I tend to only analyze the reality of it. Well in the novel there was a paragraph were it said that during court the prosecution’s job is to prove the client is guilty, where ‘as the defense only states the facts and occurrences that show otherwise. Now to my dilemma, what if the client is guilty? When the client is guilty the defense cannot really state the facts and occurrences because it will be aiding the prosecution. My conclusion is that when the client is guilty the defense brings forth dough to the court room's jury that there were some discrepancies in the investigation or any sign of wrong doing or violation of human rights. Hence the statement a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable dough in a court of law. I guess this is how O.J. Simpson went free.
Now was O.J. Simpson’s lawyer a good lawyer? I mean everyone knows that he did it. It was proven in the civil case. I think O.J.'s lawyer did his job, a very good job that is. A lawyer's job isn't to punish the guilty, their job is to bring forth facts that there was some wrong doing, in this case there was. It is sad but it is true. The lawyer proved that there was reasonable dough that he didn’t do it therefore the jury could not submit a guilty verdict.
Well I’m of to bed now, I have so much stuff to do tomorrow...
There is something that I have been pondering for the past couple of days, I been reading a novel about a lawyer working on a big top law firm. I know this novel is fiction but I tend to only analyze the reality of it. Well in the novel there was a paragraph were it said that during court the prosecution’s job is to prove the client is guilty, where ‘as the defense only states the facts and occurrences that show otherwise. Now to my dilemma, what if the client is guilty? When the client is guilty the defense cannot really state the facts and occurrences because it will be aiding the prosecution. My conclusion is that when the client is guilty the defense brings forth dough to the court room's jury that there were some discrepancies in the investigation or any sign of wrong doing or violation of human rights. Hence the statement a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable dough in a court of law. I guess this is how O.J. Simpson went free.
Now was O.J. Simpson’s lawyer a good lawyer? I mean everyone knows that he did it. It was proven in the civil case. I think O.J.'s lawyer did his job, a very good job that is. A lawyer's job isn't to punish the guilty, their job is to bring forth facts that there was some wrong doing, in this case there was. It is sad but it is true. The lawyer proved that there was reasonable dough that he didn’t do it therefore the jury could not submit a guilty verdict.
Well I’m of to bed now, I have so much stuff to do tomorrow...
written by Mr. Vasquez at 1:41 a. m.
5 Comments:
The standard of proof in a civil trial is lower than a criminal trial. So it is logically possible to be liable but not guilty.
Igots is right.
What the civil trial showed is that more likely than not OJ did it, but there is still a reasonable doubt.
I see, I understand now, it all makes complete sense. The only way he could have been found guilty in the civil case was because the standard of proof is lower...Criminal law is sounding a lot more interesting now, that might be one of my options along with intellectual property/copyright law and corporate law.
on the part of the prosecution, the duty of the state is to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. as to the accused, he may be held liable only after the requirements of SUBSTANTIVE and PROCEDURAL due process have been complied with, one of which, of course, is as you know now, that he is proven guilty beyond a shadow of doubt. with respect to the judge, on the other hand, the requirement that the accused must be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt entails not absolute but MORAL certainty.
Wow nina very well presented, I hope I sound like you after I graduate from Law School.
Publicar un comentario
<< Home