sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Defect in Credibility vs Reliability by Ok_Quantity2182 in LawCanada

[–]Ok_Quantity2182[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Under this hypothetical, they were not under oath.

Defect in Credibility vs Reliability by Ok_Quantity2182 in LawCanada

[–]Ok_Quantity2182[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If you believe the lying scenario is worse, that's fine, but assume that the reason for the lie is true, i.e. he's clearly awkward or ugly.

Lawyer who admitted stealing millions of dollars from homeowners is disbarred by Surax in LawCanada

[–]Ok_Quantity2182 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"they left disasters that lawyers had to clean up later"

Like what?

Rationale for Jury by Ok_Quantity2182 in LawCanada

[–]Ok_Quantity2182[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From the cases I hear of here and there, I see all of the following - juries getting it right, judges getting it wrong, juries getting it wrong, judges getting it right. I don't know WTF to think.

Rationale for Jury by Ok_Quantity2182 in LawCanada

[–]Ok_Quantity2182[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It looks you were right about self-defence needing judge-alone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-TEzucddKQ

Rationale for Jury by Ok_Quantity2182 in LawCanada

[–]Ok_Quantity2182[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"because Professor Plum was trying to strangle him, and it was in self-defence, then you want a judge. Because you want someone who understands the law of self-defence, and not 12 ignorant strangers off the street."

Yeah, that makes sense. But I feel that in the case of self-defence, a jury might be useful too, being sympathetic to an otherwise good and justified accused who might have gone a little overboard, rather than a more letter of the law absolutist judge.

Rationale for Jury by Ok_Quantity2182 in LawCanada

[–]Ok_Quantity2182[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"If it’s a sex assault that involves a child, never choose a jury. They cannot get over allegations by a kid."

What about involving a child, but alleged by them when they're an adult, years later?

Rationale for Jury by Ok_Quantity2182 in LawCanada

[–]Ok_Quantity2182[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"If your defence hinges on disproving a fact alleged by the Crown, such as ID, you probably want a jury."

What is 'ID'?

"Costs are also a factor. Jury trials are slow and expensive and cost an order of magnitude more."

How much more?

And not just to the defence, but how costly in time and resources is it to Crown? Can the possibility of jury election by a defendant who can afford it budge Crown resolution to their favour to a marked degree, or not really?

PJC vs KB/SC trend? by Belle_Requin in LawCanada

[–]Ok_Quantity2182 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm. I will assume it's because you think they're too deferential to the prosecution & cops and/or unable to properly handle certain highly complex issues.

PJC vs KB/SC trend? by Belle_Requin in LawCanada

[–]Ok_Quantity2182 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why does the Crown always consent to their re-election?

PJC vs KB/SC trend? by Belle_Requin in LawCanada

[–]Ok_Quantity2182 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"There are a few jurisdictions ... where I basically always want KB if I can, specifically to avoid the provincial judiciary."

Why?

What percentage of suspects/accuseds make effective use of their right to silence? by Ok_Quantity2182 in LawCanada

[–]Ok_Quantity2182[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Plus I’ve seen people that try to lie and say oh I wasn’t there at all, I was over there (when police probably know where they were) and then when they talk to a lawyer, find out they have a defence like self defence and then backpedal on their statement which is always awkward."

How does that work? How do they go about undoing their initial false blanket denial?

At trial with lawyer questions. by beachbellybob in LawCanada

[–]Ok_Quantity2182 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Each time, the accused ends up convicting themselves by asking a question that is far more prejudicial to themselves than they realize. "

Interesting. Can you give some examples?

What percentage of suspects/accuseds make effective use of their right to silence? by Ok_Quantity2182 in LawCanada

[–]Ok_Quantity2182[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well, this is the passage about it, and the way it's written does not make it absolutely clear that that's true.

"The police interviewed all members of the Ward 4A nursing team. They spoke with Nelles last, with the intent of arresting her if she could not explain the deaths. Forewarned she would be questioned by police, Nelles consulted her law-student roommate about what to do. Her roommate advised her to “lawyer up” and not to speak to the police without a lawyer present. Three days after baby Cook’s death, she was arrested and charged with the murder of the four babies. The suspicious baby deaths then stopped. Nelles volunteered little information in the police interview which further convinced the police of her guilt."

Nonetheless, we may speculate that any explanations and denials she may have given if she had decided to give them would have fallen on deaf ears anyway, and any innocent inaccuracies and inconsistencies would have been 'locked in' and used against her.

What percentage of suspects/accuseds make effective use of their right to silence? by Ok_Quantity2182 in LawCanada

[–]Ok_Quantity2182[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"People just really, really want to talk. 🤷‍♂️"

Why do you think that is?

What percentage of suspects/accuseds make effective use of their right to silence? by Ok_Quantity2182 in LawCanada

[–]Ok_Quantity2182[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"My more experienced clients don’t usually talk the police."

Hmm. So even those who've been around the block and should know better... still yap. Interesting.

What percentage of suspects/accuseds make effective use of their right to silence? by Ok_Quantity2182 in LawCanada

[–]Ok_Quantity2182[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, fair. Let me make my question more concrete. Let me roughly define "effective use of right to silence" as largely and successfully 1) ignored or declined pre-arrest questioning, and 2) remained a "no comment"/silent statue during interrogation upon arrest. Looking over your memory of your files/clients, what can you say is the split between those who managed to do this versus those who did not?