pardon my ignorance, but...
I watched The Practice on wed. one of my favourite dramas. Highly entertaining don’t ya think. How the lawyers always look so immaculate n fly in their suits n shit. And the actors/actresses can deliver their arguments so well. I think it’s a genuine talent to be able to orate. And the show is carefully crafted. it isn’t packed with legal gobbledygook- people like me can understand it
Once in awhile, the firm does lose a case. Being such a fan of the drama and its players, I am admittedly somewhat disappointed when the firm loses. Boo hoo.
But on wed, I reckon they should have lost. Illinor frut (I am spelling it phonetically, not sure if its correct) tried so save this woman (lez call her blackie, no racial slur intended) from being executed. She was convicted of 1st degree murder and had been on medication: she had to be sane just so she could be executed. So after awhile, she was feeling “well enuf to be executed”.
Illinior made her final attempt by arguing that the death penalty was a “cruel and unusual punishment” when applied to blackie. The 8th amendment (if memory serves me right) protects citizens of e US from “cruel and unusual punishment”. Since this was an argument (supposedly) on a point of law and not the facts of the case, it was heard before a single judge.
Both lawyers delivered their arguments, compact of rhetoric and legal facts, flawlessly. The prosecuting attorney indulged in an argumentum ad hominem, very successfully in my opinion, asserting that Illinior’s motivation behind this case was her opposition to the death penalty, and this clouded her judgement.
Illinior closed by quoting some case she memorised as a kid. It was an amazing peroration. although i reckoned she digressed a lil too much.
The judges’ decision comprised of 2 parts:
1) obiter dictum : he dint feel “comfortable” when a lawyer, defending a woman who murdered 2 young boys, “starts preaching to (him) about morality"
2) ratio decidendi: due to the “overwhelming” medical opinion that blackie was “if not mentally insane, then mentally infirm” when she commited the "heinous acts", he reduced her sentence to life imprisonment.
Lets see. The question about her mental condition was a fact of the case, not a point of law. Insanity is often argued in US, as a fact of the case. If (for example) illinior had argued that due to blackie’s mental condition, she could not give accurate testimony when put in the witness chair and hence her testimony was inadmissible, that would be an argument on a point of law ( the admissibility of evidence)
Therefore, the judge’s decision to reduce the sentence was made on a fact of the case: a re-trial should have been undertaken, or her appeal dismissed.
Perhaps when I know more about law id realise this whole entry was bullshit. But for now, the title says it all.
Once in awhile, the firm does lose a case. Being such a fan of the drama and its players, I am admittedly somewhat disappointed when the firm loses. Boo hoo.
But on wed, I reckon they should have lost. Illinor frut (I am spelling it phonetically, not sure if its correct) tried so save this woman (lez call her blackie, no racial slur intended) from being executed. She was convicted of 1st degree murder and had been on medication: she had to be sane just so she could be executed. So after awhile, she was feeling “well enuf to be executed”.
Illinior made her final attempt by arguing that the death penalty was a “cruel and unusual punishment” when applied to blackie. The 8th amendment (if memory serves me right) protects citizens of e US from “cruel and unusual punishment”. Since this was an argument (supposedly) on a point of law and not the facts of the case, it was heard before a single judge.
Both lawyers delivered their arguments, compact of rhetoric and legal facts, flawlessly. The prosecuting attorney indulged in an argumentum ad hominem, very successfully in my opinion, asserting that Illinior’s motivation behind this case was her opposition to the death penalty, and this clouded her judgement.
Illinior closed by quoting some case she memorised as a kid. It was an amazing peroration. although i reckoned she digressed a lil too much.
The judges’ decision comprised of 2 parts:
1) obiter dictum : he dint feel “comfortable” when a lawyer, defending a woman who murdered 2 young boys, “starts preaching to (him) about morality"
2) ratio decidendi: due to the “overwhelming” medical opinion that blackie was “if not mentally insane, then mentally infirm” when she commited the "heinous acts", he reduced her sentence to life imprisonment.
Lets see. The question about her mental condition was a fact of the case, not a point of law. Insanity is often argued in US, as a fact of the case. If (for example) illinior had argued that due to blackie’s mental condition, she could not give accurate testimony when put in the witness chair and hence her testimony was inadmissible, that would be an argument on a point of law ( the admissibility of evidence)
Therefore, the judge’s decision to reduce the sentence was made on a fact of the case: a re-trial should have been undertaken, or her appeal dismissed.
Perhaps when I know more about law id realise this whole entry was bullshit. But for now, the title says it all.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home