Douglas Garland Trial - Guilty- 1st degree- 3 counts / 75 years no parole.

[StrykerSteve]

Horrible to read all of these things, can't imagine what these people had to endure before it was finally over. I hope this guy fries, one way or another.

[bigtmac19]

I didn't get the sense the parents made the connection at all, just the sister.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

Now that it's very easy to find where they live, I hope no vigilantes decide to take things into their own hands and try to harass the parents for their son's doings.

If they do, they'll find it empty. They no longer live there.

[Robo]

How can a lawyer try to defend this guy? I don't understand

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by Robo

How can a lawyer try to defend this guy? I don't understand

Having no knowledge of the inner workings of our legal system, or even who is defending this case for that matter, is it not one's right to have court-appointed representation in criminal cases? If so the defence may not have had a say in the matter.

Can't imagine any attorney in his/her right mind willingly taking this case, especially given the mountain of rock-solid evidence the Crown seems to have against Garland.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

Having no knowledge of the inner workings of our legal system, or even who is defending this case for that matter, is it not one's right to have court-appointed representation in criminal cases? If so the defence may not have had a say in the matter.

Can't imagine any attorney in his/her right mind willingly taking this case, especially given the mountain of rock-solid evidence the Crown seems to have against Garland.

All the more reason to have a good defence lawyer, and those two should be applauded for defending Garland. He has the full resources of the state against him. Let's say he is guilty, and it looks like he is. But without good defence lawyers to test the evidence and assure as a result the trial is fair, there wouldn't even be a reason for trials.

The police would gather their evidence, the Crown would lock them up, and that's it. Every single time. You're guilty because the state says you are.

A functioning free society requires defence lawyers brave enough to even defend the despicable, to ensure the integrity of our legal system and by extension our democracy.

[Clarkey]

Looks like the only chance the defence will have is mental illness.

[Johnny199r]

Originally Posted by Robo

How can a lawyer try to defend this guy? I don't understand

This question hurts my head.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

This question hurts my head.

Then pop an aspirin and go to bed. Or if you've got something to say, then say it. But don't turn this thread into a pissing contest.

[taco.vidal]

Originally Posted by Delgar

All the more reason to have a good defence lawyer, and those two should be applauded for defending Garland. He has the full resources of the state against him. Let's say he is guilty, and it looks like he is. But without good defence lawyers to test the evidence and assure as a result the trial is fair, there wouldn't even be a reason for trials.

The police would gather their evidence, the Crown would lock them up, and that's it. Every single time. You're guilty because the state says you are.

A functioning free society requires defence lawyers brave enough to even defend the despicable, to ensure the integrity of our legal system and by extension our democracy.

Its not like the Canadian justice system has never convicted innocent men of terrible crimes. Then throw in the numerous recent transgressions of CPS.

The system needs some checks and balances.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

Looks like the only chance the defence will have is mental illness.

I don't know how this works (kind of thankfully), but isn't the fact that we got this far kind of past the point where that would be considered? Like he couldn't look at the mountain of evidence and then try to suggest that after the prosecution presents their case?

[Northendzone]

I would expect that perhaps defence lawyers look at defending a guy like this as a professional challenge.

It is unfortunate that some of the boards experts in this field are unable to offer thier insights and opinions

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

I would expect that perhaps defence lawyers look at defending a guy like this as a professional challenge.

That would imply that they want to win. I'm quite certain that they'll be overjoyed to lose this case after putting up a vigorous defense.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

Looks like the only chance the defence will have is mental illness.

I thought that and I could be wrong that you pretty much had to declare that as your defense at the start of the trial so the prosecution can bring in their own experts.

Is revenge a mental illness, because the level of preperation this guy did and the cold way he went about it makes me think he's pretty well ordered.

I think from talking in other debating threads on this very board in Pittsburgh PA (whoops going for the cheap cheers). That the burden of proof for a mental illness defense is very hard to achieve.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Robo

How can a lawyer try to defend this guy? I don't understand

http://www.greenspanpartners.com/law...nspan-q.c.html

“People always ask: How can you represent a guilty man? There is a very simple, quick and complete answer. Our whole system of criminal justice is built on the basic premise that every man is presumed innocent until he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. His guilt must be shown by evidence produced by a prosecutor in a courtroom -not in a newspaper or a news broadcast.

I haven't the slightest moral conflict defending people accused of homicide, sexual assault, business fraud, environmental offences, or even crimes against humanity. I don't "draw the line" at anything. If I defended crime, maybe I would - but I don't defend crimes. I only defend people, innocent people. Until they are found guilty there are no other kinds of people for me to defend, and what difference does it make what an innocent person is accused of?

If you are a criminal lawyer, you stand between the abuse of governmental power and the individual. If you are a criminal lawyer, you stand between the abuse of judicial power and the individual. If you are a criminal lawyer, you are helping to mould the rights of individuals for generations to come.

In the search for justice, the criminal lawyer has a pivotal role to play. It is his or her responsibility to see that the accused is not unfairly deprived of his freedom. By protecting defendants, whether guilty or innocent, from the abuse of power by the State, the criminal lawyer protects us all.”

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Robo

How can a lawyer try to defend this guy? I don't understand

Essentially what Troutman posted.

It can be further boiled down to a scenario like this: if someone who appears guilty and is guilty is denied a proper defense, what happens to all the people who appear guilty but are innocent?

Our system relies on proving guilt, not assuming it. In a case like this, even the best will have a very hard time overcoming the facts.

[Slava]

So maybe I can ask a completely dumb question to some of the lawyers or people in the know here. Say you have a client like Garland here. Does he meet with his lawyers and give his version of events? I have no idea how this goes or really no experience with the system, so I've just always been curious. Does he basically say "yeah, I did this and here's how it went down..." and then his lawyers try to defend him? Or does he most likely lie and give some kind of story that is completely different?

[Kswiss]

Originally Posted by Slava

So maybe I can ask a completely dumb question to some of the lawyers or people in the know here. Say you have a client like Garland here. Does he meet with his lawyers and give his version of events? I have no idea how this goes or really no experience with the system, so I've just always been curious. Does he basically say "yeah, I did this and here's how it went down..." and then his lawyers try to defend him? Or does he most likely lie and give some kind of story that is completely different?

I wonder this as well. Like if you hear the real truth of a crime, how hard it would be to keep your bias at check. I know its the spirit of the justice system but man to hear some of these gruesome details...

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Slava

So maybe I can ask a completely dumb question to some of the lawyers or people in the know here. Say you have a client like Garland here. Does he meet with his lawyers and give his version of events? I have no idea how this goes or really no experience with the system, so I've just always been curious. Does he basically say "yeah, I did this and here's how it went down..." and then his lawyers try to defend him? Or does he most likely lie and give some kind of story that is completely different?

No defence lawyer answers this question.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Our system relies on proving guilt, not assuming it. In a case like this, even the best will have a very hard time overcoming the facts.

Thank goodness Johnny Cochran died