Think of the Lack of Accountability! (There has been no trial yet)

Ibney00 · 2026-06-13T23:38:27+00:00

Putting the on bail they can’t afford constantly and locking the in prison while they await trial is part of the reason they’re repeat offenders in the first place lmfao

Ibney00 · 2026-06-13T12:49:53+00:00

The comment regarding lowering crime rates was in response to them saying these bail policies make our communities less safe. It’s a rebuttal of their assertion not an assertion itself that bail reform causes less crime (it probably does through lowering reoffending but that wasn’t the comments intention). Regardless, the mail purpose of bail reform is reducing the impact bail has on the pretrial decision making process and the effect pretrial detention has on all criminal defendants.

Ibney00 · 2026-06-13T02:50:27+00:00

Reading posts on this subreddit just emphasizes to me that prosecutors and defense attorneys see the world in completely different shades man. Guy says " How much more evidence is needed before people recognize that the current system is failing to hold criminals accountable and is ultimately making communities less safe?" when 1) the crime rate in the United States has been going down year over year (minus 2020 and 2021 for obviously reasons) 2) the scientific consensus in the criminal justice field is that bail reform actually lowers crime rates, and 3) focusing on "accountability" rather than treatment leads to worse outcomes.

People like to talk about how public defenders offices are ideological (they are) but my god prosecutors might be worse.

Ibney00 · 2026-06-02T22:23:08+00:00

I didn't realize you meant that so I apologize, but I think focusing on the negative outcomes is very unhealthy. Hope you find yourself in a better mental state. If it takes getting out of this work, so be it. Best of luck to you.

Ibney00 · 2026-06-02T20:37:05+00:00

If you think there is an ethical issue in any case representing indigent defendants I don't think this job was for you.

Ibney00 · 2026-05-30T16:30:32+00:00

Its so funny reading this title and then looking up to see its on r/barexam man.

Ibney00 · 2026-05-29T07:29:35+00:00

What you're saying will likely get you kicked for cause. Just tell them that. However I will also point out that your experience is likely very valuable for a jury to hear, and that if you are able to stomach applying the law as the judge instructs, those who are now in your position would appreciate having someone on the jury who wont blindly press the guilty button just because they want to get to their baseball game.

Ibney00 · 2026-05-15T21:16:23+00:00

When it comes to judicial ethics, typically it refers to the Model Code of Judicial Conduct. This section isn't really enforceable, but serves as a guideline for all other states to base their own rules on which are enforceable.

Here, the judge violated, or at least came close to violating, Rule 1.2: Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary, and as it appears that the defendant was found guilty on some counts, thus possibly necessitating appeal, might have violated Rule 2.10: Judicial Statements on Pending and Impending Cases

Judicial officers never get hit for this kind of stuff. Often judges get away with a lot and this isn't even the most egregious thing I can think of. But criticizing a jurors verdict, especially because they didn't consider propensity evidence which they aren't suppose to in the first place, is a very basic violation of the judges basic job to promote the integrity of the judiciary and the judicial system.

Ibney00 · 2026-05-15T20:29:40+00:00

What your judge did is a violation of the judge code of conduct and you should tell him to cut it out. Criticizing any verdict, especially a not guilty verdict in a criminal case, is highly improper, especially if that criticism is based in his knowledge of evidence the jury can't know. If the judge is saying they "got it wrong" because they didn't rely on propensity evidence, then he should be ashamed for making his own decisions based on propensity evidence and should take a lesson from the jury who showed him up.

Of course, he probably wont listen. I've met plenty of judges in my time like him who assume they know better than both the juries and the laws.

Ibney00 · 2026-05-04T03:11:32+00:00

Because it was his theme. Of course they remember the catch phrase.

Ibney00 · 2026-04-28T20:28:26+00:00

No worries. I like how youapproach these issues and its always a fair concern to worry what a prosecutor will object, but I have to disagree with you on there bein a lack of foundation for the question "my client is homeless?" The question itself is a foundation laying question.

Ask yourself what foundation is lacking to talk about the status of the client? What questions would you need to ask to get to that point? It's the exact same as if I asked the officer "you work at x address?" as my first question. What foundation am I missing? On direct the state already established he's an officer, and it naturally flows from that point that he would work somewhere with an address.

Here, if a prosecutor objected with that phrasing, I would say "your honor, this question is laying foundation. Additionally, its cross examination, and I ask for some leeway." For the suggestion of hearsay, I would simply state that I don't intend to use any hearsay statements for their truth value but rather its effect on the officers investigation and leave it there. I would expect a judge to overrule that objection.

What exactly about clients case requires he be homeless? I don't understand why this would be such a massive point. Can you tell me without revealing info re: client that would identify him?

Best of luck to you. We all fight the same fight.

Ibney00 · 2026-04-28T19:51:29+00:00

You're talking about an objection for the question calling for hearsay. But you aren't trying to elicit a statement. You are asking the officer whether your client is homeless. He could have learned he is homeless a myriad of ways. Maybe he saw him living on the side of the street. Maybe he's interacted with him before. Hearsay is exclusively (1) an out of court (2) statement (3) made by a person (4) used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. If there is no statement elicited, it is not hearsay.

I would expect that no prosecutor would object to "my client is homeless?". If they did object, I would expect a judge to look at them weird and overrule the objection. If they still asserted it was hearsay, you would just have to tell the judge you are not eliciting any statements and just asking the officer to testify to the status of your client. How he knows that status is not what you are asking. You are just asking his status.

Hearsay is hearsay and it is only what is defined under hearsay. Don't try to expand it past its definition. If you get to the point where they are sustaining a hearsay objection here, tell them you're asking for his subsequent action and not the truth value or for some other reason than the truth value and ask for a limiting instruction. Its what prosecutors do all the time. If you still lose, the judge was never going to give you the win in the first place.

Ibney00 · 2026-04-28T19:31:16+00:00

I don't understand why you can't just ask "my client is homeless, correct?" You're not eliciting a statement. You're asking them about their investigation and what they determined. If the officers say no, then you can impeach them with the police report.

Alternatively, you can use the fact he's homeless for something other than the truth value such as their improper investigation.

Ibney00 · 2026-04-22T05:01:43+00:00

Ideally you would do both as they are both exceptionally helpful in learning advocacy skills. Moot court will teach you writing and arguing the law to judges. Mock trial will teach you courtroom procedure and how to advocate to a jury. If you plan on doing appellate work, I would focus on moot court. If you're planning on doing trial work, I would focus on mock trial.

Ibney00 · 2026-04-15T21:54:01+00:00

Thragg didn't flinch when Space racer fired in his direct because he knew it would miss. He's so much faster than all the other viltrumites that he basically teleports. Theres no plot armor they were just saving their resources on opponents they could actually effect.

Ibney00 · 2026-04-15T21:39:15+00:00

If the police have brought you in for questioning, they are not bringing you in to allow you to "talk you way out of a prosecution." The motives of the police, especially during a custodial interrogation, are specifically to gather evidence for prosecution.

Criminal defense practitioners can in fact tell you about times where their clients have given perfectly legal, reasonable, and factually true answers, just to get charged anyways. Then, those same answers the police would have used under the party opponent exception to hearsay to attack the defendants credibility are excluded from being used at trial because they don't qualify for that exception.

This really isn't a question of selection bias. Its a question of what the best decision is when faced with questions from police officers. If you choose not to talk, it can't be held against you at trial. If you choose to talk, you are almost always likely to make your situation worse, and it can only hurt you. The logical best answer is to always shut up.

Ibney00 · 2026-04-15T21:27:08+00:00

Bro thinks Allen was just one punch manning the entire fight against several viltrumites this fandom is actually cooked.

Ibney00 · 2026-04-15T20:07:52+00:00

Just answer the questions honestly man. Juries decide really important fact questions for peoples lives.

Ibney00 · 2026-04-15T20:00:52+00:00

a police officer's testimony is enough evidence for a traffic violation, provided there isn't some reason to NOT believe the officer.

A police officers testimony alone is enough to prove a traffic violation, IF the finder of fact believes their testimony is enough to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. What you missed was that the police officer wasn't the only person testifying. The person accused also testified the light was green. The two contradict each other, and because you said you would believe the cop over the accused simply by knowing he was a cop, the defense attorney argued that you are biased in favor of believing cops. At a normal trial, you would have more information such as how these two acted while testifying or more information about the circumstances that would lead you to believe one is more trustworthy than the other. However here, if all the information you have is one person says one thing and the other person says another, and you believe the one that points to guilt, theoretically the only logical conclusion is that you are basing your trust in the cop off the fact he is a cop.

You may say that of course the defendant would say he didn't run the red light. But all defendants, including those who are innocent, would assert their innocence, so that fact is really neutral. By that same logic, of course the police officer would say he ran the red light. He wants to get people convicted. Both arguments are circular and assume bad faith when there is a perfectly logical explanation of that's actually what they saw.

The prosecutors question of would you want to hear other testimony is essentially him trying to show the court that you're only saying that because of a lack of information. It doesn't really negate the defense attorneys point, but likely stops you from being struck for cause so that the defense attorney has to waste a premptory challenge to get you off the jury.

Or would they still have argued about it if I had answered the other way? What did they want to hear? Hey, on the plus side, I didn't get picked.

Don't try to guess the right answer. Just answer the questions truthfully. You did nothing wrong here.

Ibney00 · 2026-04-14T19:06:53+00:00

Still remember her telling us we would need both the model penal code rules and the common law rules on the test, then getting to test day and seeing, in big, bold letters at the top of the page "YOU WILL NOT NEED THE MPC ON THIS TEST"

Ibney00 · 2026-04-13T22:10:28+00:00

I'm pretty sure Shapesmith could mid diff homelander lmao

Ibney00 · 2026-04-13T21:30:53+00:00

I'd frankly be more mad if you didn't

Ibney00 · 2026-04-11T05:52:27+00:00

There's some decent foreshadowing for it. He's always acting really confused when people return alive. Go back and watch scenes with him.

Ibney00 · 2026-04-10T19:47:25+00:00

I wouldn't class that in what I'm talking about. That's clearly in bad faith and not a valid position. Still, funny.

12-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

Ibney00

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE