Appelate Court Continue To Open The Door Releasing Murderers On The Most Frivolous Lies…

The strat­e­gy to put the police and evi­dence in seri­ous crim­i­nal cas­es on tri­al is noth­ing new; it is the right of defense lawyers to pull out all of the stops to get their clients out of jail.
However, one can­not resist the thought of whether, as offi­cers [of the court], some defense lawyers are not doing irrepara­ble dam­age to the insti­tu­tions of the rule of law? Or should I say what­ev­er is left of it?
The prac­tice of con­coct­ing mas­sive con­spir­a­cies in which the police always suf­fer a pub­lic rela­tions night­mare is com­mon­place. Yet defense lawyers in it for the mon­ey do not seem to care about the harm they are caus­ing when they attack the jus­tice insti­tu­tions to win their clien­t’s freedom.
Yes, I under­stand the need to mount vig­or­ous defens­es, but does that include tear­ing down the rule of law for a con­vict­ed murderer?
At what point does a lawyer say to them­self, this is wrong; I can­not do this?

Even as the con­sci­en­tious pon­der these things, the real­i­ty that defense lawyers are only doing their despi­ca­ble best must be con­tem­plat­ed in jux­ta­po­si­tion with the propen­si­ty of the court of appeals to inter­fere with the deci­sions of tri­al courts consistently.
Based on the appeals court record, the tri­al courts reduce the func­tions once the res­i­dent mag­is­trate’s court remit. That func­tion was to do pre­lim­i­nary exam­i­na­tions before a case is sent to the tri­al court for trial.
The res­i­dent mag­is­trate court’s job was to see if a pri­ma face case was made out by the pros­e­cu­tion, not to deter­mine inno­cence or guilt. Once a pri­ma face case was deemed to have been estab­lished, the case would be ele­vat­ed to the high­er tri­al court for trial.
By con­sis­tent­ly ignor­ing the doc­trine of stare deci­sis (let the deci­sion stand), pre­dictably inter­fer­ing in the ver­dicts of tri­al judges because of false claims made by unscrupu­lous defense lawyers, the court of appeals is destroy­ing the cred­i­bil­i­ty of the tri­al courts.

Convicted crim­i­nal defen­dants with deep pock­ets have lit­tle to fear; the court of appeals is extreme­ly amenable to grant­i­ng all kinds of con­ces­sions to the con­vict­ed, as long as they have the right lawyers and enough mon­ey to spread around.
In one recent case, the court shaved two years off a con­vict­ed mur­der­er’s sen­tence. By doing so, the court changed the tri­al court’s sen­tence and gave the defen­dant the open­ing he need­ed to make new claims of pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al impropriety.
It was exact­ly the open­ing the rapa­cious vul­tures who pos­ture as defense attor­neys needed.….they pounced claim­ing that the tele­phone which held the evi­dence which was crit­i­cal to the con­vic­tion of their client was tam­pered with by.….….wait for it.. the police.
The court quick­ly grant­ed the defense lawyers what they want­ed, which was to have a so-called defense expert exam­ine the device to see whether it was tam­pered with.
Here is the rub, how­ev­er, which the pub­lic needs to under­stand; even if the paid defense expert was to con­clude that the device was tam­pered with, how would they be able to say who tam­pered with it forensically?
Secondly, what­ev­er infor­ma­tion that would be phys­i­cal­ly stored on the device would also be in pos­ses­sion of the ser­vice provider.
Did the pow­er­ful police get into their com­put­ers too?

But isn’t that the whole point? Isn’t the scam to throw up so much smoke that there will be enough stink in the court of pub­lic opin­ion that the con­vict­ed mur­der­er will walk free, like so many have done before, and con­tin­ue to make music?
Isn’t the whole idea to throw enough shit at the wall and see what sticks? After all, the court did find a rea­son to shave some time from the sen­tence; why not just fly the gate?
The lat­est infa­mous gang­land fig­ure the appeals courts sprang from prison, Christopher Dog-paw Linton, is sit­ting real­ly pret­ty laugh­ing at the shitism that pre­tends to be a jus­tice system.
Why would Vybz Kartel be any dif­fer­ent? He has a large fol­low­ing of sheep and deep pock­ets, I pre­sume? With his mon­ey and fol­low­ing, he will be able to have him­self sprung from prison in short order.
What a fuck­ing joke.

.
.
.
.
.

Mike Beckles is a for­mer Police Detective, busi­ness­man, free­lance writer, black achiev­er hon­oree, and cre­ator of the blog mike​beck​les​.com.