Petition against the super-trial?
May 14, 2019 19:20:04 GMT
Lawman (LS1), frankg45, and 1 more like this
Post by cherylh on May 14, 2019 19:20:04 GMT
Perhaps consider asking some experienced DAs what they think first.
If you want your suggestions to be taken seriously, you should know as much as possible before making them.
For instance -- the issue of trying a person outside the jurisdiction where the crimes were committed is one that is faced frequently in criminal trials. When an attorney asks that the jurisdiction be moved, and the judge agrees, the jurisdiction can be moved. You've heard this referred to as a "change of venue."
Happens all the time, as in cases where the defendant's lawyers believe that the defendant cannot get a fair trial in a specific venue. It also frequently happens in cases where the crime took place many years ago, because it is assumed that the population in any one jurisdiction has changed over the years.
This is all stuff you can look up.
Also, consider what any DA will tell you about a old case: It's far easier for the defense to establish doubt about DNA evidence collected years ago under different evidence standards when you're looking at a single incident. When the jury must look at many incidents, many crimes, the defense has a far more difficult challenge. The defense attorney interviewed on the Unmasking a Killer podcast stated exactly that.
While it does take longer to do the discovery when there are numerous crimes, it will nevertheless take a long time to finish discovery on a single case, or a small handful of cases. It's also going to cost a lot of money, no matter what.
And then there's the issue of which survivors and families get see justice done for their crime, and which don't. Several family members and survivors have already stated publicly that they want JJD tried for as many of his crimes as possible. Have you run your idea past the suvivors and family members of victims?
There's a general sense here that the prosecutors are only interested in being "heroes" or building their political careers. That could well be true. In which case they are most interested in convicting him. That's the outcome they can brag about. Having him die before he's tried, or even worse having him found no guilty of one of these crimes, would be a disaster for their reputations and careers.
If you want your suggestions to be taken seriously, you should know as much as possible before making them.
For instance -- the issue of trying a person outside the jurisdiction where the crimes were committed is one that is faced frequently in criminal trials. When an attorney asks that the jurisdiction be moved, and the judge agrees, the jurisdiction can be moved. You've heard this referred to as a "change of venue."
Happens all the time, as in cases where the defendant's lawyers believe that the defendant cannot get a fair trial in a specific venue. It also frequently happens in cases where the crime took place many years ago, because it is assumed that the population in any one jurisdiction has changed over the years.
This is all stuff you can look up.
Also, consider what any DA will tell you about a old case: It's far easier for the defense to establish doubt about DNA evidence collected years ago under different evidence standards when you're looking at a single incident. When the jury must look at many incidents, many crimes, the defense has a far more difficult challenge. The defense attorney interviewed on the Unmasking a Killer podcast stated exactly that.
While it does take longer to do the discovery when there are numerous crimes, it will nevertheless take a long time to finish discovery on a single case, or a small handful of cases. It's also going to cost a lot of money, no matter what.
And then there's the issue of which survivors and families get see justice done for their crime, and which don't. Several family members and survivors have already stated publicly that they want JJD tried for as many of his crimes as possible. Have you run your idea past the suvivors and family members of victims?
There's a general sense here that the prosecutors are only interested in being "heroes" or building their political careers. That could well be true. In which case they are most interested in convicting him. That's the outcome they can brag about. Having him die before he's tried, or even worse having him found no guilty of one of these crimes, would be a disaster for their reputations and careers.