Pacman faces two felony charges

[theogt]

All the DNA does is exclude him from the biting incident, which is not what he is being charged with.

I have no idea what he's being charged with, but the article mentioned the biting in connection with the charges. I could find the filing and find out, but I'm lazy.

 

[Vintage]

I have no idea what he's being charged with, but the article mentioned the biting in connection with the charges. I could find the filing and find out, but I'm lazy.

Felony coercion. They are claiming he prevented the bouncer from practicing his right to maintain/establish peace with PacMan's threat of violence. (NFLNetwork reported this yesterday, too lazy to go find the link).

DNA evidence doesn't exclude him from that.

It excludes him from the biting, only.

Edit: Here is a link that talks about it...

http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6686040

 

[Doomsday101]

Technically it's the prosecutor's job. A defendant innocent until proven guilty, so the prosecution has to prove that there are no reasonable doubts. In reality, the defense generally has to prove up some sort of believable defense, which in this case looks like it would be DNA evidence.

Come on the reality is even if the defense attorney knows his client is guilty he will attempt to poke holes in the prosecution case and try and raise doubt for the jury. I think people would like to think that court is about finding the whole truth and that is seldom the case

 

[Stash]

Technically it's the prosecutor's job. A defendant innocent until proven guilty, so the prosecution has to prove that there are no reasonable doubts. In reality, the defense generally has to prove up some sort of believable defense, which in this case looks like it would be DNA evidence.

Wow.

 

[peplaw06]

I have a question for the forum:

Whose job is it to raise 'reasonable doubt' with regards to a court case?

Raise Reasonable Doubt? I think you have it backwards. The State has to prove he did it "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt." So while the defense attorney will try to bring reasonable doubt to refute the State's case, the onus is on the prosecutor to prove he did it BARD.

It's voir dire 101. Attorneys hammer this into the jury panel's mind. If the State were to put on all this evidence and the Defense literally did NOTHING, you could STILL have a reasonable doubt, and lack what is needed to convict. Theo is right, in reality, this never happens. The defense always puts on a case. But if the State doesn't meet their burden of proof, they don't have to.

 

[peplaw06]

Come on the reality is even if the defense attorney knows his client is guilty he will attempt to poke holes in the prosecution case and try and raise doubt for the jury. I think people would like to think that court is about finding the whole truth and that is seldom the case

what does that mean?

 

[Stash]

Raise Reasonable Doubt? I think you have it backwards. The State has to prove he did it "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt." So while the defense attorney will try to bring reasonable doubt to refute the State's case, the onus is on the prosecutor to prove he did it BARD.

It's voir dire 101. Attorneys hammer this into the jury panel's mind. If the State were to put on all this evidence and the Defense literally did NOTHING, you could STILL have a reasonable doubt, and lack what is needed to convict. Theo is right, in reality, this never happens. The defense always puts on a case. But if the State doesn't meet their burden of proof, they don't have to.

The long and short of it is this:

The prosecution's job is to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defense's job is to show that reasonable doubt.

Just like the 'defense team' is attempting to do here.

 

[Stash]

what does that mean?

Sounds like a condemnation of the current joke that is our American Legal System to me.....

 

[peplaw06]

The long and short of it is this:

The prosecution's job is to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defense's job is to show that reasonable doubt.

Just like the 'defense team' is attempting to do here.

So anyone trying to raise doubts as to why you should convict him right now = a defense attorney? :laugh2:

By all means, don't let us stand in your way in a rush to judgment.

 

[peplaw06]

Sounds like a condemnation of the current joke that is our American Legal System to me.....

Please do educate me... How so?

 

[Stash]

So anyone trying to raise doubts as to why you should convict him right now = a defense attorney? :laugh2:

By all means, don't let us stand in your way in a rush to judgment.

Don't worry.

You haven't.

I see the guy for the scumbag that he truly is.

And I'm counting down the minutes until he goes to jail.

Tick tock.........tick tock...........

 

[theogt]

Sounds like a condemnation of the current joke that is our American Legal System to me.....

There have been a few jokes in this thread, but the judicial system isn't one of them.

 

[Doomsday101]

what does that mean?

It means what it says. A good defense attorney can get even the guilty off. I work at the courts and top defense attorneys will even brag about the this fact of having what seems to be a no win case and yet be able to work a jury enough and create enough doubt to get their client off the hook. If you would like to believe that the justice system is all about finding the truth then great but from what I have seen it is not about getting to the truth it is about raising doubt and other possibilities.

 

[theogt]

Come on the reality is even if the defense attorney knows his client is guilty he will attempt to poke holes in the prosecution case and try and raise doubt for the jury. I think people would like to think that court is about finding the whole truth and that is seldom the case

Did you not read my post?

 

[Stash]

Please do educate me... How so?

Do you really want to take this thread into that territory?

We'd get moved 'Off Topic' for sure.

 

[Vintage]

It means what it says. A good defense attorney can get even the guilty off. I work at the courts and top defense attorneys will even brag about the this fact of having what seems to be a no win case and yet be able to work a jury enough and create enough doubt to get their client off the hook. If you would like to believe that the justice system is all about finding the truth then great but from what I have seen it is not about getting to the truth it is about raising doubt and other possibilities.

And the justice system requires that you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty before he/she can be convicted.

And for reason.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Do you really want to take this thread into that territory?

We'd get moved 'Off Topic' for sure.

Yes you would...

 

[Stash]

There have been a few jokes in this thread, but the judicial system isn't one of them.

It's a joke all right, but nobody's laughing...........

 

[Doomsday101]

And the justice system requires that you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty before he/she can be convicted.

And for reason.

Depending on what court you’re in. In Civil law the burden of prove is much less than that of a criminal court which is why even OJ who beat the criminal case could not beat the civil. I also stand by what I say that court is not as simple as to think it is about finding the whole truth.

 

[Vintage]

Depending on what court you’re in. In Civil law the burden of prove is much less than that of a criminal court which is why even OJ who beat the criminal case could not beat the civil. I also stand by what I say that court is not as simple as to think it is about finding the whole truth.

Seeing as how this is a criminal court case, I assumed that you could figure out that I was talking about the criminal court.

My bad.