I'm an attorney. (But don't hold that against me). What are you looking to learn?

lol @ airborne

airborn, i no, im not 2 years old or stupid (hence the fact that im on this site)

groverloaf, the case was about someone who threw a rock through a window during the republican national convention, and the prosecution brought up 2 witnesses who saw the guy do it (supposedly it was him) but there were some discrepancies. Then the defense didnt exploit that and instead brings up the man that the defendant was with (who had pled guilty to the same crime) and the man himself, and according to my dad, instead of helping the case, hurt it because the friend couldnt/wouldnt say that the defendant hadnt done it , he just said he didnt see the defendant do it and stuff like that.

any thoughts?

First of all, I assume from the past tense in your OP that the case is over, otherwise we shouldn't be talking about it....

Sounds like a pretty standard prosecution case--2 eyewitnesses. Sure there were discrepancies, but that's normal when 2 witnesses see something.

The defense, however, seems odd. Normally you would attack the divergent testimony pretty aggressively. I'd guess that if the other defense witness had already pleaded guilty to that crime, he was not willing to specifically testify that the defendant didn't do it because either a) he really didn't know, or b) he was afraid that if he said too much the prosecution might go after him for perjury. But that's total speculation. Anyway, was the defense private or the public defender? I know that both Ramsey and Hennepin counties have pretty good PD offices (I used to live in MN), so they probably had a reason to do what they did. It's tough to say much more without knowing more details.

yes, the case is over, and the defense was private. what i want to know was what could the defense have done better other that attacking the witness discrepancy?

I can see you're not in the U.S., because in the U.S., you are ostensibly innocent until proven guilty.

i am in the US, in MN

"the case was about someone who threw a rock through a window during the republican national convention"

hmmm....come to think of it, i havent seen Sicarius in a while
i wouldnt put it past him

It's not the jury's job to adopt the defense's view of witness credibility, Duncecat.

You're right Acosmist--it's the jury's job to decide whether or not the prosecution has provided persuasive evidence for the allegations.

It's not the jury's job to presume the defendant is guilty.

It's tough to say what else the defense might have done, based on the evidence available to them. It sounds like the defendant testified in his (or her) own defense and I assume denied throwing the rock. Unless there were other eyewitnesses, video of the event, or some sort of physical evidence showing that the guy didn't do it, then I don't know what else they could have presented in defense. It's the jury's job to determine the credibility of the witnesses, and if they convicted, they apparently believed the prosecution witnesses over the defendant. My only other comment is that the other defense witness--the guy who couldn't specifically say whether the defendant actually did it--probably hurt the defense by making them look wishy-washy since he didn't provide any hard testimony denying the claims. In any event, that's the sort of case where it's a tough defense (and also a tough prosecution) , it all comes down to witness credibility.

thanks

As an extension of attacking the discrepancies, the defense could have pointed out how many people were around and causing problems and how undependable a witness could be because there could be a lot of similar looking people. If the witnesses knew the person then that would be a pretty strong witness. But if the witnesses just saw "a man" do the act and this man happens to look about right, that would be pretty weak.

Heck, they may have seen the two men together and saw the rocks being thrown and just assumed that both men threw the rocks when really only one did. Without personally knowing the two men it would be hard to be sure who did what, especially with all the craziness that was going on.

Rock throwing got a jury trial? A few rocks have been thrown into our fraternity house and I assumed it would pretty much just be a ticket or something. There must have been more going on than just the vandalism to have it go so far, although the fact that it was during the convention might be enough. It could be as simple as the district attorney wanting to look to be tough on hooligans, but that's just as guess. Any other info you could provide?

I just happen to be a pre-law student. This coming semester I take my first legal-ish class.

"It's not the jury's job to presume the defendant is guilty."

Who says it did? The prosecution met its burden of going forward with evidence tending to establish guilt, and the jury made a credibility determination, as it's entitled to do in its fact-finding capacity.

This reminds me of Twelve Angry Men. I love that play.

And also I just turned 18 and I can't wait to get called for jury duty.

I got called for Jury duty for the first time last year and I'm 36. It was only a 2 day trial and my work still pays me so was a great experience. I feel for those that are self employed or don't get paid time off for jury duty and only get a pittance for their time.

"The trick is to say you're prejudiced against all races."

Homer Simpson on getting out of jury duty.

@ Acosmist:

The prosecution needs more than an argument ‘tending to establish guilt’. In a criminal case, it should establish guilt beyond all doubt! (Well, beyond any *reasonable* doubt; the jury needn't worry about whether Martians did it and zapped the witnesses' minds with false memories to the contrary, even though technically that is possible.)

In other words, the jury *should* ‘adopt the defense's view’ (presume that the defendant is innocent), until the prosecution shows them that the defense's view is unreasonable. I agree with Dunecat that thejoeman's description doesn't make it clear that that happened (although I don't think that thejoeman was trying to describe everything; the focus was on the defense arguments).

I didn't say anything about an argument, I said "evidence" :/ If you don't know the law, it's ok - don't talk about it.

In the last 40 years I have been called for jury duty about 4 times and finally got on a jury about 4 years ago. It was a life memory and surprisingly a very inspiring experience that also in many ways reenforced some positive views of what it is to be an American.
I strongly urge everyone to participate in all jury summons with a positive attitude.

Fine, evidence, whatever, asshole.

I can't wait to get on a jury so I can acquit somebody, instead of sending innocent people to prison like we do now.

(That should be @ Acosmist, not Edi of course.)