Moscow murders

[Coug90]

You are correct that everyone is entitled to a defense, maybe even competent defense, although that is certainly open to interpretation. I am quite sure that there is nothing in the constitution that says someone is entitled to nearly unlimited funds for their defense. Or even anything that says they are entitled to as much money for their defense as the government spends on prosecution. I see nothing wrong at all for having some limits on how much is allowed for defending accused criminals. And there are judges that are tasked with being impartial arbiters for both sides to keep the prosecutors in line.

As something to compare it to I refer you to "food stamps". Should we as a society have a moral obligation to make sure that our citizens have enough food to eat? I think that is a good thing. However, should there be limits on that? Absolutely! Should they be allowed to purchase alcohol or cigarettes or weed gummies with those benefits? Absolutely not. Does it make sense to limit which foods they are allowed to buy? I believe so. Why should they be allowed to buy t-bones, wagyu steaks, caviar, and expensive junk foods when millions of tax payers do not spend money on such things because of the expense of them. Limit the expenditures to basic solid food items to avoid hunger, but do not finance the purchase of 300 Twinkies/month, high brow water at $5/bottle, etc.

Twinkies have a shelf life of 27 years. That’s a very practical purchase. In fact I have a doomsday shelter full of them!

 

[95coug]

You are correct that everyone is entitled to a defense, maybe even competent defense, although that is certainly open to interpretation. I am quite sure that there is nothing in the constitution that says someone is entitled to nearly unlimited funds for their defense. Or even anything that says they are entitled to as much money for their defense as the government spends on prosecution. I see nothing wrong at all for having some limits on how much is allowed for defending accused criminals. And there are judges that are tasked with being impartial arbiters for both sides to keep the prosecutors in line.

As something to compare it to I refer you to "food stamps". Should we as a society have a moral obligation to make sure that our citizens have enough food to eat? I think that is a good thing. However, should there be limits on that? Absolutely! Should they be allowed to purchase alcohol or cigarettes or weed gummies with those benefits? Absolutely not. Does it make sense to limit which foods they are allowed to buy? I believe so. Why should they be allowed to buy t-bones, wagyu steaks, caviar, and expensive junk foods when millions of tax payers do not spend money on such things because of the expense of them. Limit the expenditures to basic solid food items to avoid hunger, but do not finance the purchase of 300 Twinkies/month, high brow water at $5/bottle, etc.

I'd be generally on board with that. In the food stamps scenario, I'd agree with limiting use of them to foods within a certain range of nutritional content. For example, they can be used for fresh produce, meat, fish, milk, eggs, and bread...but not for premium items like Wagyu beef, custom-ordered cakes and breads, or the special this-week-only seafood. They could not be used for alcohol, tobacco, or - in my scenario - nutrient poor foods like donuts and potato chips. Basically, the stuff around the outside of the store is food stamp eligible, the ultra-processed stuff in the middle of the store is not.

Translating that to legal defense...the staples should be funded, which means a competent defense. The public won't pay for Johnny Cochrane or some $1,000/hour attorney, or for cutting edge technology. And they shouldn't have to - the state is already footing the bill to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty - they should not also be paying to prove that someone is not guilty. We're not supposed to have to prove innocence anyway, so if the state can't prove guilt with the resources they're using....the defense's resources should be moot.

 

[Stretch 74]

I'd be generally on board with that. In the food stamps scenario, I'd agree with limiting use of them to foods within a certain range of nutritional content. For example, they can be used for fresh produce, meat, fish, milk, eggs, and bread...but not for premium items like Wagyu beef, custom-ordered cakes and breads, or the special this-week-only seafood. They could not be used for alcohol, tobacco, or - in my scenario - nutrient poor foods like donuts and potato chips. Basically, the stuff around the outside of the store is food stamp eligible, the ultra-processed stuff in the middle of the store is not.

Translating that to legal defense...the staples should be funded, which means a competent defense. The public won't pay for Johnny Cochrane or some $1,000/hour attorney, or for cutting edge technology. And they shouldn't have to - the state is already footing the bill to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty - they should not also be paying to prove that someone is not guilty. We're not supposed to have to prove innocence anyway, so if the state can't prove guilt with the resources they're using....the defense's resources should be moot.

I am on board. 👍👍

 

[VandallHuskerJulie]

The defense is using whatever it can to get reasonable doubt for their client. That's their job, after all. When it comes to the knife shield, that's a different matter as it was widely reported that it was found under/next to one of the victims.

From the Idaho Statesman:
So how did a sheath for a fixed-blade knife get there, and how did Bryan Kohberger’s skin cells allegedly wind up on it if he was not involved? (Defense atty) Taylor acknowledged that is the most significant issue ahead at trial. “I mean, that’s the ultimate question that will be before a jury,” Taylor said. “What does a knife sheath at a scene mean?”

(Judge) Hippler shot back: “If you’re killed with a knife, that probably means a lot.”

“It might,” she said.

Read more at: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article299620254.html#storylink=cpy

 

[Coug90]

The defense is using whatever it can to get reasonable doubt for their client. That's their job, after all. When it comes to the knife shield, that's a different matter as it was widely reported that it was found under/next to one of the victims.

From the Idaho Statesman:
So how did a sheath for a fixed-blade knife get there, and how did Bryan Kohberger’s skin cells allegedly wind up on it if he was not involved? (Defense atty) Taylor acknowledged that is the most significant issue ahead at trial. “I mean, that’s the ultimate question that will be before a jury,” Taylor said. “What does a knife sheath at a scene mean?”

(Judge) Hippler shot back: “If you’re killed with a knife, that probably means a lot.”

“It might,” she said.

Read more at: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article299620254.html#storylink=cpy

Something of that nature could easily be planted by another assailant though. You could steal someone’s hunting knife, Commit the crime, and leave the sheath there intentionally. I still think he’s guilty but that’s not a crazy argument to make for the defense. You’ve still got to place him there, which hopefully other evidence does.