Wood and Rams want 911 tape released

Shadow

Ya, but that's not unethical unless they switch sides on the same case (in which they'd be disqualified and run out of town on a rail). From case to case, the "same scientific" info rarely is because the particulars change i.e., a person's medical condition, whether they were drunk or on drugs, etc.

I just thought of a type of EW which irritates me and helps illustrate your point. A forensic path pal does a lot of shaken baby cases. He's so popular with prosecutors he now gets called by def attys. Sometimes he'll work on the def of a case where the baby was in a horrific circumstance, with all the signs of physical abuse by a defendant who is also brutal to the kid's mom. But if the doc does an autopsy and finds there was a previous condition of heart or brain damage, he can't very well attribute the death to SBS. I understand that intellectually, but it bugs me because I know the child had a lousy life. But that's not what the charges are about, so the doc is right and the client is lucky to have him.

 

FedoraX, I really do appreciate the insights you bring us on legal stuff and the inside info you get from talking with legal experts. I also truely respect your legal knowledge and opinions. You bring an "unemotional" and "text book" perspective to these discussions - one can almost see your legal brain whirling.

As a legally challenged individual, I have trouble accepting some of the actions by lawyers, expert witnesses, judges, etc. as OK simply because they are considered ethical and legal by law professors and our legal system. For example, I am sure a defense attorney attacking a rape victim as "wanting it" is legally and ethically OK. I have no doubt that an attorney is legally obligated to do what he/she can to put his/her client serial rapist/killer of little girls back on the street. And I'm sure expert witnesses have every legal right to rationalize their way into testifying one way today and another tomorrow.

While all of the above may be ethically and legally OK, I believe most people (including law professionals) do not believe they are morally or "humanly" OK. And this is why the legal profession needs "rationalization" like our bodies need blood...

 

Jeez, Shadow

You're so right -- there are things that would make anyone go pale. Probably even the guilty as sin defendant.

I have a defense attorney friend who gives brilliant legal lectures that I attend each year -- mock trials, etc. He once gave me a stack of papers he wrote for national journals on how to get drunk drivers off on technicalities, such as challenging calibrations of the equipment, and how to read airline pilot's BAC with a positive spin. I hadda draw the line and got medieval on his hiney. My hairs stand on end thinking about it. I wouldn't do that line of work for anything, but have to concede it's necessary. So if you go that far, you hopefully approach the question looking for the right intellectual argument. Ugh!

The King boys' case (murdered dad) was intriguing because the prosecutor charged the boys AND their pervy adult pal for the death, in front of two juries. It was a real oddity. You could see the pros was in a bind -- he didn't want to have the boys take all the punishment, but they were definitely guilty. And he certainly didn't want the pedo to go free. So he shaded things. Went easier on the kids and their EWs, and amped it up for the guy. The result was just fine, and there will be appeals that might make things even better. So that's an example of law morphing in front of our eyes. God bless Court TV!

I'm glad I sound somewhat knowledgable. If you only knew how blonde I seem to the multi-degreed people I hang with. They only put up with me 'cause I can beat them at poker.