Lawyer For Utah Teen Murderer/Rapist Slurs Mormons

[thesometimesaint]

MorningStar:

I said nothing about allowing him to go free. I also said nothing about so he'll kill another innocent woman. Please address the arguments I actually make.

[frankenstein]

So the one you're offering up is that maybe LDS juries really ARE nicer to murders if they are LDS?

how about you apply my quotes correctly, that is apply them as posted.

My first statement is

That in the attorneys experience PERHAPS IN THE ATTORNEYS EXPERIENCE PERHAPS, the attorney has found that LDS heavy juries are kinder to LDS defendants.

My second statement, which you also misconstrue and misrepresent, is that PERHAPS, there is another explanation than what smac is offering.

Notice that I am only offering alternatives to what smac has presented. why you take those very simply alternatives and make them something crazy is just astounding.

[Calm]

Hey, I'm one of the most conservative lawyers out there. But I'd pull those cards out of my hand and use them.

It seems like a logical thing for an attorney to do in any venue where the defendant is a minority (happens a lot on tv court dramas, lol). Do you know how often this type of request (at the original trial) or appeal (during the appeals process) occurs? Is there any way to find out this for various court districts?

Who hands out the sentencing in these cases? I thought it was the judge, not the jury.

[Mark Beesley]

And some of those "several reasons" are ... those darn Mormons!

Read on:

Mental health as a mitigating circumstance. I get that.

Decreasing likelihood of recidivism as he gets older. That seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel as far as looking for mitigating circumstances, but that's what defense attorneys are supposed to do.

But here's where Mr. Pace goes off the rails, IMHO:

Ah! Who knew those folks in Davis County were both racist and religious bigots?

After all, it's not like the jury could have been influenced by little details like these:

Nah. He's got a long prison sentence because Mormons are racist and religious bigots.

Oh, one last thing. The bio of John Pace (the attorney who presented these arguments) on his firm's website states that "Mr. Pace is an active supporter of organizations and individuals who promote commonsense problem solving and tolerance."

-Smac

I have not read all of the responses in this thread, so this may have been covered. In what way did the attorney for the defendant slur Mormons? He simply argued that the defendant's prior attorney erred in not moving for a change of venue because the jury pool in Davis County was not representative of the defendant's religious and racial background. I didn't see where he argued that any member of the jury pool was racist or bigoted. Defense counsel's argument is well-grounded, will probably fail, and should not be the cause of any discomfort amongst Davis County Mormons. LDS Christians should never get bent because of the zealous advocacy of a criminal defense attorney.

Edited off topic material

New edit: Yeah, it was off-topic. Funny thing about wars . . . they tend to spill over into places they don't belong. That's why we need to be really, really careful about starting wars.

[Scott Lloyd]

Who hands out the sentencing in these cases? I thought it was the judge, not the jury.

The attorneys on the board can address this more intelligently than I, but if I recall correctly from my days covering criminal justice for newspapers, murder cases in Utah can have what is called a "bifurcated" trial wherein the jury first determines the guilt or innocence of the accused and then, assuming the verdict is guilty, the proceeding enters a penalty phase wherein the jury hears arguments from both sides and then decides the penalty.

I may be mis-remembering (it has been nearly 30 years ago that I covered courts) so the legal experts here may feel free to correct me.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

What a tard. Sorry, but I am amazed the people like him can go home and sleep well at night.

Kill all the Lawyers…oh wait, sorry Smac.

[Bob Crockett]

It seems like a logical thing for an attorney to do in any venue where the defendant is a minority (happens a lot on tv court dramas, lol). Do you know how often this type of request (at the original trial) or appeal (during the appeals process) occurs? Is there any way to find out this for various court districts?

Who hands out the sentencing in these cases? I thought it was the judge, not the jury.

I'm not a Utah lawyer, but this appeared as Lloyd points out to be the penalty phase. The OP said the defendant pled guilty. The jury then gave him life. The news reports seem to indicate that the defendants' attorney thought that given the defendants' age, life without the possibility of parol was unreasonable.

I know this is a vastly unpopular subject -- criminal defense lawyers. I'm not one. But a criminal defense lawyer fulfills an important constitutional role -- to provide a defense to all no matter how heinous the crime.

Motions for change of venue are not routine but they are not unusual. Basically, OJ Simpson bargained for a change of venue from one jurisdiction to another where there'd be a high composition of African Americans. And it worked.

The value of a vigorous criminal defense system is that it tends to avoid false positives which means that some times the guilty go free.

I practice in California. Had I been representing a minority gang-banger who committed a crime in Beverly Hills, I'd be asking for a change of venue. This lawyer isn't calling out a whole group of people as racist and bigots; just that he'd like to see more of his own clients' "kind" on the panel. I thought smac was a lawyer; he should know the drill.

But, as an aside, we shouldn't be shocked that Mormons are considered insular, weird and that they stick to themselves. Several times I've tried cases involving members of the Church in California where the Church is not well-known. My jury consultants all say the same things about the Mormons (as to what a typical California jury would think) and they are not very flattering. It always brings me down to reality when sometimes I want to think how great we are.

[Calm]

It always brings me down to reality when sometimes I want to think how great we are.

There was a study awhile back (last election?) where it was determined that those who didn't know Mormons liked them the least and those that knew at least one Mormon generally had a good opinion of them. While it would be nice if the first was changed (and I think the Church PR department is working on that), I am more concerned about the second as that says something when we can overcome some pretty dramatic prejudice this way. How awful it would be if it was the reverse (less you know the more you like, the more you know the less you like someone).

It is very strange though to think of total strangers having strong opinions about the type of person you are when they don't even know your name.

[Mars]

Several times I've tried cases involving members of the Church in California where the Church is not well-known. My jury consultants all say the same things about the Mormons (as to what a typical California jury would think) and they are not very flattering.

Huh. Bummer.