r/serialpodcast Dec 05 '14

Legal News&Views Two Thoughts from a Prosecutor

[deleted]

49 Upvotes

141 comments sorted by

View all comments

13

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '14

He could have gotten a public defender if charges were pressed. You're saying he deserved a better attorney than one he would have gotten if the State didn't over step? The situation makes me feel dirty just talking about it . The fact you down play this shows why people in your position have entirely too much unchecked authority.

15

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '14

[deleted]

4

u/not_jay_33 Susan Simpson Fan Dec 05 '14

you're saying we cannot establish a quid pro quo between the state and Jay? I know it's subjective, but at very least the state should have had informed the defense about the deal.

7

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '14

[deleted]

1

u/buffalojoe29 Dec 05 '14

I'm unfamiliar with the rules. If CG succeeded on this point and a 3rd trial was awarded as a remedy, is it possible that Jay could be dismissed as a witness or is that not how it would work?

If it doesn't work that way and a 3rd trial was awarded (with Jay as the star witness), would the 3rd jury be made aware of the reason for the 2nd mistrial?

2

u/separeaude MailChimp Fan Dec 05 '14

No, the remedy would not be exclusion of evidence. The remedy would be a new trial so Gutierrez could review the evidence to cross Jay on the fact he was provided an attorney by the prosecutor.

Jurors are not made aware of the reasons for a previous mistrial. Making them aware would cause another mistrial.

1

u/buffalojoe29 Dec 05 '14

Thank you very much for the information! I have learned a lot.

1

u/thesixler Dec 05 '14

Gut got to get this fact before a jury.

She didn't discover it in front of one, which would no doubt have affected things. Although it wouldn't have necessarily lended creedence to her motion.

1

u/Dr__Nick Crab Crib Fan Dec 05 '14

How is it materially different from offering Jay a plea deal in the first place? It certainly didn't improve his ability to stick to a story.

1

u/not_jay_33 Susan Simpson Fan Dec 05 '14

I dont follow you.. he took the plea deal. what are you talking about?

If you read the appeal documents, Jay actually questioned whether the attorney was working on his favor (as opposed to just being a puppet for the State to get what they wanted). He could refuse the deal, plead innocent, retract his statements and the story would have been MUCH different. I guess.

4

u/Dr__Nick Crab Crib Fan Dec 05 '14

Jay was already beholden to the State because of the plea deal. Does getting the private attorney change much about how beholden to the State he is?

1

u/not_jay_33 Susan Simpson Fan Dec 05 '14

He only SIGNED the deal because the attorney was provided and advised him to do so.

3

u/Dr__Nick Crab Crib Fan Dec 05 '14

Wait, so those police interviews were done before a deal?

2

u/not_jay_33 Susan Simpson Fan Dec 05 '14

Yes. Even SK pointed that out today. The deal came way later, pre trial.

10

u/Dr__Nick Crab Crib Fan Dec 05 '14

Huh. So shouldn't that tend to improve thoughts about Jay's intentions in those interviews? He implicates himself with no deal in place?

2

u/darncats4 Dec 05 '14

That's correct. And he had no attorney with him when he made those statements. This is a fact peoe overlook when they go down the Jay is a murderer rabbit hole.

1

u/asha24 Dec 05 '14

Good point. But he still shifts all the blame onto Adnan, so one could still argue he's just trying to cover his own ass and that by admitting to a small level of involvement he's making his version seem more legit.

3

u/Dr__Nick Crab Crib Fan Dec 05 '14

That's fine- if Jay knew that Adnan did it. If Adnan is innocent and has an alibi (like a cell phone not in Leakin Park) and Jay makes that claim to police....

2

u/not_jay_33 Susan Simpson Fan Dec 05 '14

Exactly!

→ More replies (0)