As I peruse X (formerly Twitter) I occasionally stumble over people who are not fans of law tube and I vaguely wonder why. Today the lightbulb over my aging brain lit up aided by someone mentioning the Depp trial. Why it took me so long to put this together, I do not know as I've already reminisced how certain aspects of the Read trial was taking me back to JD vs AH. Here's some key points that I see:
- At the beginning of Johnny vs Amber, many lawyers decided to come in as jurors, much like with the Read trial.
- Most of those lawyers originally opined that Johnny would probably "lose" as defamation is difficult to prove. Reminder: this was a civil trial so the bar is lower than in criminal.
- Many of these lawyers were shocked by the behavior of law enforcement (LE) in the Read trial.
- By the end of both trials the consensus was that Amber is a terrible actress and that the Commonwealth (CW) of MA had no business bringing charges against Karen Read.
Ergo, law tube sucks because they found Amber Heard/most of the CW's witnesses unbelievable. Some on X fail to realize that these lawyers did their very best to remain impartial. So those who are rabid about the guilt of Depp/Read have decided that law tube lawyers aren't actually lawyers, especially if they're not currently practicing. It's nonsensical, IMO.
Here's the thing, though: Our judicial system in the US is predicated on the belief that those accused are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It relies on law enforcement and prosecutos to act fairly. This is known as "due process." It also relies on vigorous defense in order to test proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Bad faith actors on either side throw the system into disarray. People seem to be predisposed to believe the prosecution over the defense which I don't think is fair. I've come to really respect criminal defense attorneys especially public defenders, where it seems to be a calling rather than just a job. I also appreciate former prosecutors turned defense attorneys such as those hired by Karen Read.
Now I'd like to take a sideways step into leaked DMs that someone gleefully made into a supposed "true crime" podcast regarding the case against Richard Allen in the tragic murders of Abby Williams & Libby German in Delphi, IN. From my lay person's perspective, it seems like Allen's defence attorneys have been fighting an uphill battle, which I don't believe is how it should be, but I guess regularly are or can be. In other words, Allen's due process seems nonexistant. And folks like those in the aforementioned podcast have no problems with violations such as these. They are more outraged by someone calling the judge a "rachet bitch" than the fact that an innocent-until-proven-guilty man is being housed in a prison, hours away from his legal team, rather than held in local custody.
I did not listen to the podcast and I have no intention of doing so. I want facts not salacious gossip and innuendo. They seem to be rather incensed that anybody would fight for a defendent, which is also nonsensical, IMO. Justice should be about finding the truth and prosecuting wrong doers within the confines of the law and according to the rights provided by the constitution. Investigations need to be above board with things like chain-of-custody rigorously adhered to. If law enforcement/courts can't be bothered to do their jobs correctly then there cannot be justice. Why is this concept so difficult to understand?
Anne Taylor, Bryan Kohberger's defense attorney was taken to task for jury questionaires that were sent out. It was later determined that she was well within her duties to do so. This is another high profile case where young people were murdered, known as the "Idaho 4." Tying the defense's hands in order to achieve victory isn't really a victory at all, IMO. A proper prosecution should be able to withstand a thorough defense, indeed it should invite it!
How about, instead of getting ticked off at defense for doing their job, we get mad at prosecution for not doing theirs?