James McManus comments re: Tabish/Murphy acquittals

[Wyers]

Does anyone have any links to articles published by James McManus following the November aquittals of Tabish and Murphy? I remember there being an afterword in the paperback printing of Fifth Street stating the Nevada Supreme Court overturned the convictions.

I was curious as to his reactions to the subsequent acquittals.

Thanks.

[Felix_Nietsche]

I thought they were both convicted.

[Stephen Gray]

They got a new trial on appeal and were aquitted. Sandra Murphy was released immediately, but Rick Tabish is still in prison for a time on separate charges.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought they were both convicted.

[/ QUOTE ]

They were convicted, then the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the conviction because the prosecutors in the original case basically tried to try two cases at once, one involving Tabish and Murphy (the Binion murder), the other involving only Tabish, and the only connection between the two being a pair of thumb cuffs apparently.

They were acquitted in the retrial following the reversal.

I haven't read any murder-themed articles by McManus post-acquittal, but based on the tone of the afterword in "Positively Fifth Street" (and the fact that therein he makes clear that he has no clue as to what a defense attorney's role in a trial is) my guess is he's upset at the ruling and can't figure out how it happened.

[Peter666]

It just goes to show that "justice" is based on who has the best lawyers money can buy. I hope the Binion's do some old time frontier justice on Murphy's ass.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
It just goes to show that "justice" is based on who has the best lawyers money can buy. I hope the Binion's do some old time frontier justice on Murphy's ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

No matter how expensive your lawyers are, it takes 12 reasonable, average people to convict. If the state can't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt to twelve reasonable people, then they deserve to lose the case and the defendants deserve to go free - that's the way it is, and as far as I'm concerned it's the way it should be. I'm quite sure you'd want the same criterion applied to yourself if you happened to be accused of a crime.

Sure, Tabish and Murphy probably did it - that's not the point. The point is that the state has to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. Think of how many crimes you would be convicted of if the sole burden of proof on the prosecution was simply that you "more than likely did it."

[Peter666]

"twelve reasonable people"

Yeah, that's the key phrase. Considering 95% of the population are idiots, justice will never be done.

they did it.

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]
No matter how expensive your lawyers are, it takes 12 reasonable, average people to convict.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't. It takes twelve jurors.
Average and reasonable are frequently screened out.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
No it doesn't. It takes twelve jurors.
Average and reasonable are frequently screened out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Voir dire requires attorneys from both sides to accept a juror - neither the prosecution nor the defense have an inherent advantage in the jury selection process.

Of course, if you actually believed any of that oft-spouted drivel about how juries are worthless and unreasonable and justice is never served, you'd be out committing crimes - if the justice system were actually like that, crime would be very +EV.

[Peter666]

The only reason intelligent people do not commit crimes on mass is because of religious or cultural beliefs. The more Western Civilization collapses and these beliefs fall by the wayside, crimes of opportunity will increase.

"if you actually believed any of that oft-spouted drivel about how juries are worthless and unreasonable and justice is never served, you'd be out committing crimes - if the justice system were actually like that, crime would be very +EV."

Maybe I already am, but of course I will not give a straight answer to protect my +EV /images/graemlins/cool.gif Let's just say there are certain entities that do not get as much money from me as they expect.

[Peter666]

Then I am sure you would have no problem hiring Murphy as a baby sitter for your kids.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
Then I am sure you would have no problem hiring Murphy as a baby sitter for your kids.

[/ QUOTE ]

That comment shows a complete lack of understanding of the point of criminal trials under the adversarial system. Go back and read my post again.

[Peter666]

I understand your point. My point is that the adversarial system of "justice" has nothing to do with justice at all, but is a self propagating mechanism designed to make lawyers lots of money.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand your point. My point is that the adversarial system of "justice" has nothing to do with justice at all, but is a self propagating mechanism designed to make lawyers lots of money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, although I disagree - I think that our system strikes pretty much the right balance between protecting individual freedom and keeping a stable, just society; the fact that lawyers make a lot of money is simply a side-effect of the process (albeit an understandable one - after all, if you have a million dollars and want to be kept out of jail, you're not going to hire a $20/hr. lawyer even if you could). It's unfortunate that public defenders aren't the greatest lawyers in the world, but then again it's also unfortunate that the doctors performing government-provided free or low-cost health care aren't the ones who finished at the top of their class - there's just nothing we can do about it. Or to paraphrase Winston Churchill, the adversarial system of justice is the worst system in the world, aside from all the others.