Sean Higgins - Legal Proceedings

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Locke

Thats all I'm saying. I just find it odd.

I mean...and I understand this is cynical as all hell, but 35 years for a 43 year old? You might as well roll your dice.

It seems like the prosecution must be confident that they will get the conviction for the more severe charges and the only question is whether the sentences would be concurrent or consecutive.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Locke

Thats all I'm saying. I just find it odd.

I mean...and I understand this is cynical as all hell, but 35 years for a 43 year old? You might as well roll your dice.

I agree with this from his perspective IF 35 years actually means he serves 35 years, because there isn't much to lose from going longer.

If 35 years actually means parole in 12 then I could see taking it to remove the 60 year possibility.

[sureLoss]

According to the CBS article, New Jersey's No Early Release Act requires convicts to serve 85% of their sentence before they are eligible for parole.

So accepting a 35 year plea deal means he has to do a minimum of 29.75 years in prison.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I agree with this from his perspective IF 35 years actually means he serves 35 years, because there isn't much to lose from going longer.

If 35 years actually means parole in 12 then I could see taking it to remove the 60 year possibility.

NJ has an act for certain offences (vehicular homicide is one) which requires 85% of the sentence be served.

https://www.newjerseycriminallawfirm...nth%20sentence.

[woob]

Wasn't it reported he attempted to drive away but couldn't due to the physical damage to his vehicle? Will that never happen again as well? Or attempting to hide evidence?

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by woob

Wasn't it reported he attempted to drive away but couldn't due to the physical damage to his vehicle? Will that never happen again as well? Or attempting to hide evidence?

More damning is that he was arrested once before for DUI but charges were dropped because the arresting officer did not show up to court.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

NJ has an act for certain offences (vehicular homicide is one) which requires 85% of the sentence be served.

https://www.newjerseycriminallawfirm...nth%20sentence.

Ok, so if 35 years is 30 without parole I can see rolling the dice on getting the lower charge as the defendant. Once you're guaranteed to be incarcerated until your 70s the risk of longer isn't going to be much of a threat for losing at trial.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by woob

Wasn't it reported he attempted to drive away but couldn't due to the physical damage to his vehicle? Will that never happen again as well? Or attempting to hide evidence?

Yes, 5 of the 35 year plea deal was due to that.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by troutman

They make more money because they usually have a private practice (and may accept legal aid clients). Prosecutors are civil servants and are paid by the government. I would not say defence lawyers are better. Many prosecutors go on to become Judges.

And make far less money than defense attorneys. The best go into defense.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by butterfly

And make far less money than defense attorneys. The best go into defense.

Believe it or not, the best people at the job don’t always choose money over purpose.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by butterfly

And make far less money than defense attorneys. The best go into defense.

Not always. Many criminal lawyers don’t make much money at all. From my experience, prosecutors are on average better lawyers. Crown lawyers also get great benefits and pensions, and don’t have to worry about finding clients, or paying staff and overhead. Many Crown lawyers were top of the class and clerked in high level courts. Far better work life balance.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by troutman

Not always. Many criminal lawyers don’t make much money at all. From my experience, prosecutors are on average better lawyers. Crown lawyers also get great benefits and pensions, and don’t have to worry about finding clients.

Anyone can just start out as a defender, so you end up with a huge range of skill (and incomes). You need some level of skill to get a job with crown, and you will get fired if you are bad at the job. So there's a minimum skill level in crown you don't see in defence.

It's more of a difference in personality types, more than anything. I meet a of skilled crown lawyers, who obviously don't have the personally type to be a defence lawyer.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Believe it or not, the best people at the job don’t always choose money over purpose.

I’d call protecting one person’s constitutional rights against the entirety of the government a pretty big purpose.

There are thousands of people facing charges for things they didn’t do or are facing the introduction of illegally seized evidence. Sad that not all of them have the ability to hire a good defense attorney and instead are destined to keep the prison industry humming along.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by butterfly

I’d call protecting one person’s constitutional rights against the entirety of the government a pretty big purpose.

There are thousands of people facing charges for things they didn’t do or are facing the introduction of illegally seized evidence. Sad that not all of them have the ability to hire a good defense attorney and instead are destined to keep the prison industry humming along.

Crown lawyers, in Canada anyways, don't tend to be very concerned with "purpose". They tend to be the personality type that works well in a structured environment, is meticulous, dots their Is and crossing their Ts, is risk averse etc....Overall, more task orientated people.

Crown counsel work pays pretty well and you get a great pension and benefits. A high end defence lawyer will earn millions, but a low end one will earn nothing. Whereas being a senior crown counsel lawyer you're earning are $200-300k guaranteed, with full pension, vacations, more 9-5 hours, etc...

I'm not saying crown counsel lawyers are motivated by money, but they also aren't generally motivated by justice and putting people away for crimes, based on principled reasons.

It's a bit of a different story in the USA, where they elect judges and other local bureaucrats. There, prosecutor work can be a first step towards entering politics. You end up with crown lawyers who start their careers with a strong political principles and goals in mind.

Defence attourneys, in Canada, generally are quite principle motivated. As you say, if the justice and police system aren't watched like hawks, they run amok pretty quickly. If you have a strong interest in civil liberties, you are definitely working for the defence side and not the crown side.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by butterfly

I’d call protecting one person’s constitutional rights against the entirety of the government a pretty big purpose.

There are thousands of people facing charges for things they didn’t do or are facing the introduction of illegally seized evidence. Sad that not all of them have the ability to hire a good defense attorney and instead are destined to keep the prison industry humming along.

I agree. But it contradicts your previous point.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I agree. But it contradicts your previous point.

The point that they make more money? I wish everyone had the ability to pay for the defense of their liberties when accused of something by the government, but the fact that many don’t doesn’t make criminal defense less purposeful than prosecuting for the state.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by butterfly

The point that they make more money? I wish everyone had the ability to pay for the defense of their liberties when accused of something by the government, but the fact that many don’t doesn’t make criminal defense less purposeful than prosecuting for the state.

Read the posts from blankall and troutman. I’m not angling for some silly argument with you here, just pointing out that the best don’t make decisions solely based on where the pay is better (which is not always defense).

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Read the posts from blankall and troutman. I’m not angling for some silly argument with you here, just pointing out that the best don’t make decisions solely based on where the pay is better (which is not always defense).

And here I thought that was your MO.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by dustygoon

And here I thought that was your MO.

Definitely worth bumping the thread about bringing Gaudreau’s killer to justice for.

[mile]

https://www.nj.com/salem/2025/02/gau...rs-allege.html

Attorneys for the man charged with killing hockey star Johnny Gaudreau and his brother in a crash last year plan to ask a judge to dismiss his indictment in court papers that also say the hockey star brothers were drinking before the accident.