[News] Milan Lucic involved in domestic incident; Taking indefinite leave of absence

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Presumably from his doctors testimony?

In other words, from evidence put forward by the defence.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by butterfly

That is an extreme difference you’ve just described. The 2023 Coyotes versus, let’s say, the 70s Canadiens?

The burden of proof is on the state to convince a jury that a victim is in fact such. Typically there are persuasive defense opportunities done on cross examination of state’s witnesses.

It would be silly of them to actually play cards, but they can. The state can accuse me of being Rumplestiltskin, have fun proving it beyond a reasonable doubt.

You probably are not Rumplestiltskin though. Lucic has a wife that has injuries on her after he came home bombed from the bar. Probably easier to prove that Lucic committed the crime he is accused of beyond a reasonable doubt than to prove you are Rumplestiltskin.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

In other words, from evidence put forward by the defence.

My point was that the defendant would not need to testify to establish that.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

My point was that the defendant would not need to testify to establish that.

That wasn’t the point being debated. Butterfly was arguing the defence need not put forward any evidence because of the standard of proof.

Now, in the Lucic case let’s assume the prosecution’s case is only the victim’s testimony. And assume the defence didn’t lay a glove on her in cross-examination. Pretty much the only evidence they could assert to raise a reasonable doubt after that would be from him.

It’s moot anyway. This almost certainly will never go to trial.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

That wasn’t the point being debated. Butterfly was arguing the defence need not put forward any evidence because of the standard of proof.

Now, in the Lucic case let’s assume the prosecution’s case is only the victim’s testimony. And assume the defence didn’t lay a glove on her in cross-examination. Pretty much the only evidence they could assert to raise a reasonable doubt after that would be from him.

It’s moot anyway. This almost certainly will never go to trial.

I was arguing that the defense need not necessarily put forward any evidence because the burden of proof lies on the state. It isn't axiomatic that the mere existence of state evidence in the absence of any other evidence is sufficient for conviction.

It may be moot with respect to this particular alleged incident with Lucic, but in a general sense I don't think it is at all.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by butterfly

I was arguing that the defense need not necessarily put forward any evidence because the burden of proof lies on the state. It isn't axiomatic that the mere existence of state evidence in the absence of any other evidence is sufficient for conviction.

It may be moot with respect to this particular alleged incident with Lucic, but in a general sense I don't think it is at all.

Go back and re-read your posts.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by butterfly

No. Luckily for us, we don’t have Salem witch trials anymore. A denial is in the form of a not guilty plea. Then all the pressure is on the state to prove their case. There’s no pressure on a defendant to prove or disprove a thing.

This is what you wrote.

First, a denial in the form of a guilty plea is not evidence at all. It cannot be taken into account by a jury as such - it just sets the ground for the trial.

Second, of course there is pressure on a defendant to disprove the prosecution’s case. If left unchallenged, it leads to conviction because there’s no reasonable doubt. Doubt based on zero evidence is not reasonable.

[Reaper]

I love it when posters argue with lawyers over what legal aspects mean online. They're so confidently incorrect.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Reaper

I love it when posters argue with lawyers over what legal aspects mean online. They're so confidently incorrect.

That's better than debating what happened in a domestic dispute based on a line or two in an article on a hockey website.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

That's better than debating what happened in a domestic dispute based on a line or two in an article on a hockey website.

TBF there was a video of the first appearance and a reading of the police report by the prosecutor and that’s what most people are talking about

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

No one knows more details on this case than guys thousands of miles away who weren't there and never practiced law.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

No one knows more details on this case than guys thousands of miles away who weren't there and never practiced law.

Hey now, one of them is not a guy and needs us to know they are very well read despite believing that defence lawyers have literally nothing they need to do once their client pleads not guilty. Just sit back and relax and play cards.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Hey now, one of them is not a guy and needs us to know they are very well read despite believing that defence lawyers have literally nothing they need to do once their client pleads not guilty. Just sit back and relax and play cards.

If it pleases the court I'd like to rebuttal that ipso facto without prejudice the fundamental question at hand is will butterfly be as effective a defence lawyer as Gio. And they will be, even more so? But until they are, it's going to be hard to verify that they think they'll be more effective.

But it'll be many fork nights until we can no for sure. filibister.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

That's better than debating what happened in a domestic dispute based on a line or two in an article on a hockey website.

Is anyone basing what they know about the case on an article? The facts were read into the record in the courtroom.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

If it pleases the court I'd like to rebuttal that ipso facto without prejudice the fundamental question at hand is will butterfly be as effective a defence lawyer as Gio. And they will be, even more so? But until they are, it's going to be hard to verify that they think they'll be more effective.

But it'll be many fork nights until we can no for sure. filibister.

Putting Trumps voice to this post is perfect

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Is anyone basing what they know about the case on an article? The facts were read into the record in the courtroom.

Let's be honest with ourselves here. Maybe 2 people watched that youtube in full.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

If it pleases the court I'd like to rebuttal that ipso facto without prejudice the fundamental question at hand is will butterfly be as effective a defence lawyer as Gio. And they will be, even more so? But until they are, it's going to be hard to verify that they think they'll be more effective.

But it'll be many fork nights until we can no for sure. filibister.

Well just so we're clear - no one should hire me for their criminal defence case. It's been too many years since I did that. I'm just a regular litigtor with a small amount of experience with criminal law (and I had great criminal law and advanced crim profs - could they ever tell some stories).

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Well just so we're clear - no one should hire me for their criminal defence case. It's been too many years since I did that. I'm just a regular litigtor with a small amount of experience with criminal law (and I had great criminal law and advanced crim profs - could they ever tell some stories).

Objection!

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

You probably are not Rumplestiltskin though. Lucic has a wife that has injuries on her after he came home bombed from the bar. Probably easier to prove that Lucic committed the crime he is accused of beyond a reasonable doubt than to prove you are Rumplestiltskin.

Yes, it probably is easier, but it remains a challenge.

1. There are allegedly injuries on Lucic's wife's body.
2. A 911 call for service allegedly occurred.
3. The police claim that Lucic was intoxicated upon initiating contact.
---
4. Therefore, Lucic caused the injuries on his wife's body.

There needs to be evidence to substantiate 1-3, and even if there is, see how there is reasonable doubt about 4?

Originally Posted by GioforPM

This is what you wrote.

First, a denial in the form of a guilty plea is not evidence at all. It cannot be taken into account by a jury as such - it just sets the ground for the trial.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Second, of course there is pressure on a defendant to disprove the prosecution’s case. If left unchallenged, it leads to conviction because there’s no reasonable doubt. Doubt based on zero evidence is not reasonable.

A competent defense attorney will raise doubts about elements of the prosecution's case. It can lead to a conviction, not "it leads to conviction".

Originally Posted by Reaper

I love it when posters argue with lawyers over what legal aspects mean online. They're so confidently incorrect.

Highly valuable contribution to the discussion.

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Is anyone basing what they know about the case on an article? The facts were read into the record in the courtroom.

What the state claims was read at the pre-trial hearing. It seems that the purpose of the hearing was to set bond conditions which were very quickly mutually agreed upon.

The establishment of something as a 'fact' is a bit more than:

1. The police claim X occurred.
2. The district attorney took the case and also claims X occurred.
---
3. Therefore, X occurred.

[just_tim]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Is anyone basing what they know about the case on an article? The facts were read into the record in the courtroom.

First of all, this whole thread strikes me as icky. No matter what the eventually outcome, a marriage is in trouble and children are exposed to the fallout. Nothing said here makes a difference but it shows how little dignity exists online as personal lives of public people seem to provide endless hours of entertainment. Not dissimilar to the threads speculating about Kylington’s situation.

Second “facts” weren’t read into the record. A report, which may or may not be factual was.