1. Just a couple of days ago, I read a job description for a DA posted on a county web site (but I can't remember which one). That is where it said that the job is NOT to win cases, but to serve justice. Are you saying that comes with a "wink-wink" attached? The public for the most part is unaware of cases dealt with by the DA, so unless it is a sensational crime receiving much coverage, the public isn't going to vote out the DA for not winning lame cases. A good DA here would drop the charges, IMO.
2. I think you have that backwards, at least idealistically. The DA needs to prove the crime. The defense shouldn't really have to do anything except poke holes in the prosecution's case. Innocent Until Proven Guilty (or some such nonsense) Lol.
3. Right, I don't. The law is clear. In Oklahoma, you don't have to ID.
4. Yes, I've read them all so far.
1. I do not know if it was a "wink-wink" , but in my years of watching election issues involving most politicians is their stance on crime and crime prevention. This resulted in laws being passed to demonstrate the "toughness" of their position. The mandatory sentencing guidelines is a classic example of legislation that was implemented but proven to be a major failure.
Back to the DA aspect of the conversation. Every election cycle that I am aware of both sides have always used the win/loss or conviction rate as the measurement of their success or failure depending on what side of the equation your were on. Based on this I do stand my the premise that the public wants convictions and will replace those that fail to achieve them.
2. I agree 100% with you that it is the responsibility of the DA to prove guilt of the crime. However, the time to prove the guilt is at trial in front of the trier of fact be it a judge or jury. At this point, both parties have only submitted briefs/motions to the court of what they believe are the legal issues. There has been no evidence per se introduced to the court for the purpose of demonstrating guilt or innocence.
The defense does not have to prove anything at trial as the burden is 100% on the DA. However, the defense does have the opportunity in pre-trial motions to put forth their legal arguments. They can and must also put those arguments into the record in the form of objections etc. if they want to preserve issues for an appeal.
3. NNP was not charged with "Failure to ID". He is charged with obstruction so the decision before the court is did NNP's failure to provide ID cause sufficient obstruction to prevent the officer from carrying out his lawful duties. This is a decision that the "tried of fact" will need to make either based upon the pre-trial motions or during trial.
4. Did you learn anything from any of the documents that you previously did not have knowledge of? Did you find the documents to be helpful or should FAANClub not invest the time and effort to colle3ct and publish these types of public records?
Agreement is fine but not necessary as we can all grow as our differences are explored and we listen to the input of others with differing perspectives. Thank you