Quote:
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.