Ari

It does, however, make the rest of us look smarter. @:-)

mmartin4600

I'm not disbuting anything. I just know that when I don't know what I'm talking about, I normally shut-up.

stupidhead

That's all I needed to know. Thank you.

Legalbee

As a criminal defense lawyer in Canada for 20 years, might I simply add that the advice given by PT is excellent, and those who choose not to follow it are doing so at their own peril . I have had 2 cases in the past year where what individuals have said on " anonymous " message boards have come back to bite them in the --- . Understand that I will explain but I have to be somewhat vague, and I will not go further than what I say in this post so dont ask....lol.
In one case it was a complainant (aka victim), who wrote a version of events, differing from his police statement, which we got wind of and were able to use to his surprise at trial. Quite frankly his credibility was destroyed when he , prior to being faced with his contradictory statement, denied that he had given "anyone , anywhere certain statements" .( There is no defence disclosure in my part of the world, so the element of surprise worked in our favour). It wasnt hard to show, that the postings came from him.
In the other case it was my client who chose not to follow the advice given to him namely "DO NOT DISCUSS YOUR CASE WITH ANYONE BUT ME ." It was definitely to his detriment that he chose to ignore the advice that he paid me for, and when he did so he operated on the presumption that I am hearing here...."no one will ever know it's me." I havent had the chance to ask him if he still posts on message boards from jail

SAT Lawyer

Your assumption is wildly incorrect and an egregious affront to the work of fine, honorable prosecutors throughout our country. A prosecutor's overriding objective is to do justice. Contrary to your erroneous assumption, prosecutors generally do care deeply about whether they can prove the accused guilty of the offense charged. This doesn't mean that prosecutors are infallible, of course, but to libel them as a class by making wildly inaccurate assumptions is a pretty despicable practice.

Lest this digression cause anybody to overlook the overriding point of this thread, let me repeat what I wrote earlier:
Based on some recent postings on FlyerTalk, I would generally urge a corollary to this principle with regard to civil litigation: if you are involved in a civil lawsuit or are likely to become involved in a civil lawsuit, it is extremely unwise to post any information here on FlyerTalk as, in virtually every jurisdiction of which I am familiar, such postings are likely to become discoverable witness statements. As with criminal matters, anything you say or write may be used against you in a court of law, and unlike with criminal prosecutions, parties to civil litigation can be called to the stand to testify against their wishes. So, faced with the prospects of criminal jeopardy or civil litigation, do the smart thing and let your attorney be your mouthpiece.

sethb

Sat Lawyer, what you write about "fine, honorable prosecutors throughout our country" is quite true. However, there are other prosecutors in this country; unfortunately, not all are fine and honorable.

mmartin4600

Can you provide source material to prove this? Or this your opinion?

Landing Gear

Let me add this, as I too am an attorney. Rarely does a week go by that I do not receive an advertisement or article promoting a course or service relating to the discovery of electronic documents ("e-discovery," as it's colloquially called). This is rapidly becoming a legal specialty in its own right and there are indeed investigators who specialize in obtaining such information.

Nothing written on the message boards of Flyertalk is immune from a subpoena. I would suggest the membership records are equally discoverable.

stupidhead

This is simply my opinion and I certainly never meant to "libel" anyone. It should only be taken as simply that; an opinion of someone who's increasingly jaded by the practices of Bush and Co. If anyone is offended, I apologize. It makes it easier for someone to crush their adversary if they consider their adversary despicable.

It is true that there are prosecutors who "do care about justice" but there ARE also prosecutors who will resort to unethical tactics to gain every last conviction, or prosecute people based on political motivation. I can't name examples but they're out there. Just like there are good cops and bad cops, there are good and bad prosecutors and good and bad defense attorneys. No profession is exempt from having the few bad members. Politicians, on the other hand.....

Although I doubt that you'll have defended defense lawyers if I said the same about defense lawyers.

I'm sure someone long dead and gone said this, but you lose if you underestimate your enemy, and you win if you overestimate him.

mclejc

FoxNews.com Friday, June 22, 2007
"Beleaguered and disbarred former District Attorney Mike Nifong, who prosecuted the Duke University lacrosse rape case, could wind up in jail if a motion is granted asking that criminal charges be filed against him."

Further at:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,285998,00.html

We have had a number of cases recently here in NC where death penalty sentences have been overturned based upon withholding of evidence. The prosecutors always maintain that they never withheld any evidence, but the appeals courts typically orders a new trial.


J...

SAT Lawyer

Guess again. I am primarily a defense attorney. A civil defense attorney.

Let's not ruin a valuable thread with commentary of dubious value.

L-1011

Does the name Nifong ring a bell?

mmartin4600

So you and setb have come up with one example. I don't think it is fair to consider all prosecuters accountable for his actions.

bankingconsultant

My local ex-prosecutor, who also had a practice on the side as is customary for a smaller jurisdiction, was recently disbarred for soliciting a different form of payment for his services. See Disciplinary Counsel v. Sturgeon.

I'm sure we can find any number of examples of goofballs who've served as prosecutors. However, I tend to agree with SAT Lawyer and the others who feel that prosecutors are for the most part an honorable group. Blanket statements such as the one that started this recent sidetrack do nothing to further the good information contained in the rest of this thread, so I'll hope that my off-topic thread is the last and that we can get back to the matters at hand.

Bart

Seems that certain blanket statements are acceptable until they offend certain people.

I've always found lawyers frustrating. In my previous line of work, whenever I conducted investigations, I grimaced having to work with our command's attorney because of the seemingly ridiculous restrictions he would place on us when common sense seemed to dictate otherwise. However, I did understand that he was trying to help us develop the strongest case possible that would withstand judicial scrutiny once presented in court. I also understood that intelligence investigations, unlike the standard criminal investigation, naturally drew more scrutiny and suspicion because of the Church Commission, Watergate and Iran-Contra. The bar was a little higher for espionage prosecution and other related crimes, and perhaps for good reason. But that didn't change the fact that it was indeed frustrating to work within such tight restrictions for what was, in my opinion, perhaps the most serious of all national crimes: treason and espionage.

The "operations" side was much easier and a lot more fun.