Some days I really hate court

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:20 pm

I have been doing pretty ok attending every court date for the POS who hit me and ended my riding. Till today.

I can appreciate the prosecutor's hard job, I really can. BUT. I got paid just like anyone else, and I never had any guilt about the people I was sending home.

Today, as in every other court date, the prosecutor came out to talk to us after the procedings and had to, repeatedly, tell us what a "great guy" the defense attorney is. Now WHY does he think that anyone in my family would want to hear ANYTHING good about the guy who's sole mission in life is to prevent this ass from spending a minute in prison? I mean come ON, you can think all day that the guy is the second coming of Santa Claus, but guess what? I don't,and my family sure as hell doesn't either. Keep your screwy opinion to yourself, butthead.

Sorry, just had to rant a little bit. Thanks!

cars · Post by **cars** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:27 pm

It could be those guys are buds! :wah: But keep after yours to "get that pond scum drunk" sent to jail, & get you your just $$$$ due you!

Good luck!

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:29 pm

I understand how you feel, BR :-6

The next time he has the bad sense to say something like that, just tell him, "That's nice to know, but his client is and always will be a scumbucket"

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:37 pm

cherandbuster;490366 wrote: I understand how you feel, BR :-6

The next time he has the bad sense to say something like that, just tell him, "That's nice to know, but his client is and always will be a scumbucket"

Absolutely. And today my thin sheild of patience just took a walk, and I told the guy, "You can say that to us every day till you're blue in the face, but I will never agree, I don't care HOW smart you think you are." And I stomped off to the elevator. He came up to me outside and apologized which went a very long way with me. So obviously he has a couple of still-working brain cells yet.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:37 pm

I agree with Cher bring it to his attention next time, hell tell him now make a call and get it off your chest..

Uncle Kram · Post by **Uncle Kram** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:39 pm

Don't worry BR. The fact speak for themselves :yh_hugs

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:40 pm

CARLA;490377 wrote: I agree with Cher bring it to his attention next time, hell tell him now make a call and get it off your chest..

Carla's right -- your lawyer may not even realize he keeps saying it over and over. I bet if you bring it to his attention one time, it will STOP.

If it doesn't

Pinky and I will go beat him up for you :p :-4

911 · Post by **911** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:48 pm

I know what you mean, BR.

I had an aquaintance who was a defense attorney and was friendly with him and saw him nearly everyday at work.

Then one night my house was broken into and he ended up being his attorney. My aquaintance tried to make me look like a fool on the stand, accused me of playing detective and tried to influence the jury because of where I worked.

He tried to talk to me once afterwards and said he was just doing his job. I yelled at him and asked him to show me in any of his law school studies did it say to make an idiot of the victim in a case of burglary. BURGLARY! I was at work when it happened for crying out loud.

We ended in a hung jury. But I won out in the end. One day before his 3 years of probation was up, he was arrested for DUI. He was sent to prison to serve his entire original sentence and pay restitution. HA!

So, hang in there. Think good thoughts and even if you don't think he gets what he deserves this time. . . there's always later. Take it from me, he'll get it in the end.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:57 pm

I'm glad he apologized, and realized what a comment like that would make you feel.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:11 am

Sounds like he just wasnt thinking br.

Do you stare the punk down ? Make him fidgety ? :sneaky:

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:28 am

Nomad;491754 wrote: Sounds like he just wasnt thinking br.

Do you stare the punk down ? Make him fidgety ? :sneaky:
Oh yeah, Nomad....I very intentionally stare the little snail down. He refuses to look at me. While he's up there standing in front of the judge, I stare at his parents who allowed this to happen.

Oh, another interesting tidbit: The judge on this case recently lost a neice to a drunk driver. I thought it would remove him from the case in a conflict of interest clause but it didn't. Some ways, my luck is getting better.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:30 am

Im sure his attorney instructed him not to make eye contact with you. This is a jury trial right ? Can you get a feel for them or is it just too hard to tell ?

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:38 am

Nomad;491761 wrote: Im sure his attorney instructed him not to make eye contact with you. This is a jury trial right ? Can you get a feel for them or is it just too hard to tell ?
I just wish...ONE time, I could make eye contact with him. Once.

One thing I thought of today. That thread that my sister posted, "I'm just a biker", has every message I'd like cagers to learn. I want to add that in my victim impact statement, and then I'm going to ask the judge to require him to carry it with him and produce it on demand at probation. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. Either way it will be going in my victim impact statement.

Yep, this idiot is pushing this to trial. Best thing? The AAA insurance Mommy had on the car is going to have to pay the medical bills, which have so far exceeded $400,000. Then we're going to tie them up in court for years for pain and suffering. Court starts February 6th. It's going to be a long, drawn-out crappy deal. But my PI lawyer tells me that this case will retire me. We'll see.....Again, either way, I will be VERY happy to take that stand and tell the jury about the 36 days in the hospital. I plan on making the whole room cry. :sneaky:

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:59 am

I plan on making the whole room cry

That should go in your favor. You frequently make me cry. :wah: :p

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 1:43 am

Diuretic;491772 wrote: That's the problem with criminal matters, the victim is just a minor player. The aggrieved is the Queen (in my jurisdiction), or the People/State/Commonwealth of...in the US. Either way it doesn't matter a great deal, the process is pretty much the same. The victim is just a witness. Different in a civil matter of course but I know it pisses people off in criminal trials when they get shoved to one side by the system.

BR - are the victims allowed to make a statement to the court in Michigan (after conviction I mean, in the penalty phase)?

Good luck with it anyway.
D, my statement is in the form of a "Victim Impact Statement", besides my testifying. It's standard operating procedure in a case like this. The actual charge is "drunk driving by a minor causing great bodily damage."

The worst part of this "system" IS that the criminal has all the rights and the victim is like a side-show. The snail's past record of 3 previous DUIs isn't even allowed to be mentioned. Makes me sick to my stomach. I mean, let's face it....my history with our judicial system is NOT a pleasant one.

In the VI statement one of the things they ask is, "What type of punishment would you like to see made in this case?" The maximum time the snail can do is FIVE YEARS. My life is irrevocable changed and the most he'll do for changing it is 5 pitiful years. My husband defends his own life and prevents 2 other people from being killed and he gets 17 years. This guy MIGHT do 5. Sick. Sick and WRONG. :-5

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:09 am

Diuretic;491801 wrote: I can understand your frustration BR, the problem with previous convictions is - and I know you would be aware of this - is that it can influence the court (if it's a jury trial, the jury) about the facts of the current case. Same principle operates here. The prosecution can, in very limited circumstances, introduce what's called "similar fact evidence" but if this case was in my jurisdiction that wouldn't be allowed just as it seems to be the case in Mich.

If he is convicted then the sentencing process starts and damn complex it is. If this bloke is convicted (please note my comment is no way any reflection on the case, just a convention I'm following out of habit I think) then he should go down big time due to his priors. A****hole.

Did I say that?
You DID say that and it is very much appreciated by this biker.

I really do understand that the jury can't be swayed, but really, in my mind, his past history means something. It means he's habitual. He was not yet 20 years old when he hit me and he had 3 other warrants out for things like breaking and entering, assault, and failure to appear for probation. And this crash was his 4th drunk driving. That means that he's driven drunk MANY more times than this and just got lucky. Till now. In several ways.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:32 am

Diuretic;491830 wrote: BR - if I was that judge I'd be telling myself that this idiot should spend some time in the slammer.

With form like that he has worn out his chances. I trust it all works out the right way.

Yes he should, but unfortunately nothing the court system can ever do to him will make it right.

Mystery · Post by **Mystery** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:34 am

I'm a bit confused as to why his priors can't be brought up? Is that just a Michigan law? Here, he'd be considered an habitual offender, or has he no convictions? If they've nto been convicted then I could understand, or if some were juvenile charges, but this guy needs to go away, and the damn jury, IMHO, has the right to hear about his past. I know several lawyers here that would take an objection and a "stricken from the records" just to put that in the jury's mind.

Hoping this works out!

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:55 am

Reading through this makes me wonder if your attorney is trying to tell you NOT to be hostile toward the other attorney in court. You'd want the judge/jury to see you as an innocent victim, NOT as a bitter, argumentative witch. See what I mean?

This might be a stretch, but I can't think of any other reason for your attorney to keep hammering on what a great guy the other fellow is!

rachelg · Post by **rachelg** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:12 am

Hi BR,

I think Lulu is on the right track. Perception is everything in a court case. The jury is not only forming an opinion of the criminal but also of the victim. You want to be as appealing to them as possible. They need to be able to identify with you and if you come across angry and bitter (which you have every right to be) they won't feel as sympathetic. I'm sure they will love you:)

Erinna1112 · Post by **Erinna1112** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:01 pm

Mystery;492133 wrote: I'm a bit confused as to why his priors can't be brought up? Is that just a Michigan law?

I don't think it's just a Michigan law. The stuff like breaking and entering, receiving stolen property, etc., isn't considered relevant, and it's much too prejudicial. Revealing these priors in this case would give him grounds for an appeal, since it could be argued that his trial wasn't fair - the irrelevant priors being so inflammatory (mind you, this is the law, not my own opinion).

IMO, though, the priors regarding the drunk driving should be allowed. I'm not clear on whether or not they will be, but I haven't been able to make it to the last couple of court dates. If I recall correctly (and I'm no lawyer, so I could well be wrong), there are certain circumstances under which the prior occurrences of the same offense could be brought up. I think they should be; it goes to establish a pattern, and is evidence of how this waste of oxygen has no regard for the law or for the lives and rights of others.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:27 pm

Lulu2;492152 wrote: Reading through this makes me wonder if your attorney is trying to tell you NOT to be hostile toward the other attorney in court. You'd want the judge/jury to see you as an innocent victim, NOT as a bitter, argumentative witch. See what I mean?

This might be a stretch, but I can't think of any other reason for your attorney to keep hammering on what a great guy the other fellow is!
Honestly? Me not walking up and breaking his stupid skull for him is not being hostile for me. Allowing him to continue to breathe through his nose...that's not hostile. In this case I think it's pretty damn understanding of me. If this guy is going to get off because I lock eyes with him, our system is way more of a lost cause than even I know. And I know damn well it's in the toilet.

And the attourney is the prosecutor for the city, NOT "my" lawyer, exactly. He's the people's attourney. MY lawyer has an entire different game plan and he wants blood. I am 98% sure that the prosecutor is hammering about what a "Saint" the defense lawyer is, because he's a few sandwiches short of a picnic. Or a kiss-ass, one or the other.

Mystery · Post by **Mystery** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:27 pm

Erinna1112;492422 wrote: I don't think it's just a Michigan law. The stuff like breaking and entering, receiving stolen property, etc., isn't considered relevant, and it's much too prejudicial. Revealing these priors in this case would give him grounds for an appeal, since it could be argued that his trial wasn't fair - the irrelevant priors being so inflammatory (mind you, this is the law, not my own opinion).

IMO, though, the priors regarding the drunk driving should be allowed. I'm not clear on whether or not they will be, but I haven't been able to make it to the last couple of court dates. If I recall correctly (and I'm no lawyer, so I could well be wrong), there are certain circumstances under which the prior occurrences of the same offense could be brought up. I think they should be; it goes to establish a pattern, and is evidence of how this waste of oxygen has no regard for the law or for the lives and rights of others.

Yes, I agree the priors that are related to the current crime should be allowed as evidence for that very reason. The justice system is too sympathetic to the damn criminals.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:38 pm

Mystery;492133 wrote: I'm a bit confused as to why his priors can't be brought up? Is that just a Michigan law? Here, he'd be considered an habitual offender, or has he no convictions? If they've nto been convicted then I could understand, or if some were juvenile charges, but this guy needs to go away, and the damn jury, IMHO, has the right to hear about his past. I know several lawyers here that would take an objection and a "stricken from the records" just to put that in the jury's mind.

Hoping this works out!

As far as the law is concerned, the fact that the accused has broken into 1000 other houses does not prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he broke into this particular house on this specific occasion. The revalation of this fact might, however, cause the jury to assume that he did.

Thus prior history cannot be revealed before a verdict has been reached but must be taken into consideration when sentencing.

Mystery · Post by **Mystery** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:26 pm

Bryn Mawr;492505 wrote: As far as the law is concerned, the fact that the accused has broken into 1000 other houses does not prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he broke into this particular house on this specific occasion. The revalation of this fact might, however, cause the jury to assume that he did.

Thus prior history cannot be revealed before a verdict has been reached but must be taken into consideration when sentencing.

Okay see I was under the impression that the meaning was priors couldn't be used even during sentencing, and that shouldn't be the way it is.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:32 pm

Magenta flame;492543 wrote: Bryn Mawr You just beat me to it. I was about to say that.

I'm not up with the individual justice systems of your country baby rider, but there is one thing you can always count on with the courts. There is the 'truth' and then there is the procedures of the law. It's only in exceptional circumstances that a prior conviction can be brought into court before sentencing.

Good luck with it girl. I know this sounds pretty useless at the moment, but be as calm as you can during the procedings. It know it doesn't sound like it will help your cause but trust me it does.

As for your QC don't underestimate him. There is probably some wheeling and dealing going on behind the scenes, in your favour.

Chin up girl, you'll be right.

What keeps me "calm" is playing out various scenes where I get to hurt him with my bare hands. Several times. Over a few years....Then I can concentrate on reality.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:50 pm

BabyRider;492630 wrote: What keeps me "calm" is playing out various scenes where I get to hurt him with my bare hands. Several times. Over a few years....Then I can concentrate on reality.

Now that would be justice!

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:35 pm

Magenta flame;492740 wrote: There is one or two ways of bringing up priors. If the prosecution tricks him into doing it himself. You know, asking him if he feels he is a man of good character etc.

but his defense may be a little more switched on than that. Is his defense putting him in the box?
I am 99% sure this dumbass will take the stand. And whether the defense has any brains or not will be something we learn as the case progresses and still, this piece of dirt has a God-complex that is sickening. Especially with Mommy and Daddy constantly cleaning up his messes.

Even if he doesn't take the stand, the defense lawyer can't get past me.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:09 pm

B'R....you know you won't be alone in that courtroom! WE will all be there in spirit, and if you weren't so far away...I'd be there in the flesh! Imagine hundreds of hostile eyes boring into him?

Yes...downright GRATIFYING, isn't it? :yh_devil