You are the defense attorney for a soldier...

[63dot]

...who comes back from tour in Iraq, is given certain pain killers for injuries, but gets addicted and holds up Pharmacies for those drugs later on.

How would you build your case as defense attorney? (We all have cases for the prosecution I am sure, but that can be a different thread, so let's see what defenses can be brought up).

What points would you bring up as his/her attorney?

Discuss.

[leekohler]

I couldn't even think of where to begin with this. It's kind of difficult. It's hard to justify robbery.

[63dot]

I couldn't even think of where to begin with this. It's kind of difficult. It's hard to justify robbery.

It's hard to justify any of the major felonies, but defense attorneys have to do it everyday with Burglary, Battery, Assault, Arson, Robbery, Rape, and Kidnapping, as well as all the homicide charges of Murder and Manslaughter.

Currently, a similar case is on the docket with the defense being post traumatic stress disorder.

[themoonisdown09]

I couldn't even think of where to begin with this. It's kind of difficult. It's hard to justify robbery.

I agree. Just pay for the medication. I know that's not the best advice considering it costs money, but still there is no way to justify robbery.

[63dot]

I agree. Just pay for the medication. I know that's not the best advice considering it costs money, but still there is no way to justify robbery.

What if you are the defense attorney, working for your county, and your boss hands you this case. You have a week to view and prepare for this case, among many, many others on your desk.

How do you prepare?

Let's say for argument's sake it's your job and you have two choices: 1) work the case and your job title as public defender, or 2) quit and do something else.

Or better yet, let's say you are JAG and your superior officer hands you this case as defense attorney, in a job you just can't walk out on. It's a direct order. :)

[robanga]

I could not justify stealing or defend it. I would probably not be a good defense attorney. I guess the best I would be able to do for someone is to make sure they received due process, and were not unfairly treated by the system.

To actually defend stealing, even with "mitigating circumstances" would be strange in the very least. I know people do this on a daily basis but none the less.

[themoonisdown09]

What if you are the defense attorney, working for your county, and your boss hands you this case. You have a week to view and prepare for this case, among many, many others on your desk.

How do you prepare?

I have no clue where to start. That's why I'm not a defense attorney, I'm a computer programmer.

I still don't care why he robbed the place, I think it's wrong. To think that he could get off because of an excuse like traumatic stress would make me angry if I was the store owner.

I wouldn't take the case... unless you have to.

[leekohler]

I could not justify stealing or defend it. I would probably not be a good defense attorney. I guess the best I would be able to do for someone is to make sure they received due process, and were not unfairly treated by the system.

Yeah- that's probably what I would do too. I would have an extremely difficult time with this.

[Koodauw]

I have been out of poli sci classes for to long to even remember where to begin. It is a good question though from a theory stand point. Are you asking the MR group to help you write your paper? ;)

[63dot]

I have been out of poli sci classes for to long to even remember where to begin. It is a good question though from a theory stand point. Are you asking the MR group to help you write your paper? ;)

I have actually been hitting forums all over the internet seeing what non law students would say to prepare for law school midterms. We are not crafting our answer for the teachers, or for other students. Our essay answers have to be largely devoid of legal/latin terms and be able to be understood by anybody out there in the real world. Grammar has to be no further than the 8th grade. I worked for the California Bar and that's how they grade the Bar.

Luckily two of my profs are former Cal Bar graders, so I have to get a feel of what the public at large feels makes sense. If I walk into a courtroom and argue to a jury, they will not be judges, lawyers, or cops. They are going to be everyday people, most likely peers of the felons, and in my county, most often people who did not finish high school.

Sure, you have felons committing robbery or larceny in order to get money for meth, but they are likely to be of an average 8th grade education, and more often than not, not from the United States. The jury will be most closely reflective of the person being charged, as peers.

One has to craft a defense, or prosecution, in terms that make sense to that jury, in a concise fashion due to limited time and with no crash courses in civil procedure or Latin. Under these circumstances, one has to work where they live and understand the culture of that county, and all circumstances.

This question, is actually very similar to a second part of a California Bar Exam question. The first part would ask you to show the prosecution's side and what crime was committed after showing a very short fact pattern off a police report. After weighing both sides gracefully, then you come to a "likely" verdict without making any statements that are considered too bold. Do that and you fail that Bar question. :)

[leekohler]

I have actually been hitting forums all over the internet seeing what non law students would say to prepare for law school midterms. We are not crafting our answer for the teachers, or for other students. Our essay answers have to be largely devoid of legal/latin terms and be able to be understood by anybody out there in the real world. Grammar has to be no further than the 8th grade. I worked for the California Bar and that's how they grade the Bar.

Luckily two of my profs are former Cal Bar graders, so I have to get a feel of what the public at large feels makes sense. If I walk into a courtroom and argue to a jury, they will not be judges, lawyers, or cops. They are going to be everyday people, most likely peers of the felons, and in my county, most often people who did not finish high school.

Sure, you have felons committing robbery or larceny in order to get money for meth, but they are likely to be of an average 8th grade education, and more often than not, not from the United States. The jury will be most closely reflective of the person being charged, as peers.

One has to craft a defense, or prosecution, in terms that make sense to that jury, in a concise fashion due to limited time and with no crash courses in civil procedure or Latin. Under these circumstances, one has to work where I live.

This question, is actually very similar to a second part of a California Bar Exam question. The first part would ask you to show the prosecution's side. After weighing both sides gracefully, then you come to a "likely" verdict without making any statements that are considered too bold. Do that and you fail that Bar question. :)

Now I know why I'm not a lawyer. :)

[63dot]

Now I know why I'm not a lawyer. :)

Actually, I have no ideas of being a lawyer, especially from what I have learned in school and from burnt out lawyers telling us horror stories, but my studies are directed to just protecting my own skateboard business, which is a target for lawyers, as you can imagine. :)

[xUKHCx]

To actually defend stealing, even with "mitigating circumstances" would be strange in the very least. I know people do this on a daily basis but none the less.

You are suppose to act as a communication channel for the defendant so that they can express themselves as if they had a law degree and knew the laws in question. Therefore it is important to understand why the person committed the crime.

It would be quite easy to stick a post traumatic stress disorder on there. But it would also prudent to review the medial procedure and if the guidelines for prescribing medication and such were followed. If it was found that these guidelines were not followed it could lead to a conclusion that the solider in question did not receive the proper medical safe guards to prevent addiction. Add to that the post traumatic stress it would be a reasonable case. That is of course assuming that some medical lines could be followed.

If due care was taken by the medical doctor research into the drug and the addictivness of it would help strength the case.

Then again I am no lawyer and have never done any law course. But if I got this job (for some bizarre reason) that is what I would do.

[leekohler]

Actually, I have no ideas of being a lawyer, especially from what I have learned in school and from burnt out lawyers telling us horror stories, but my studies are directed to just protecting my own skateboard business, which is a target for lawyers, as you can imagine. :)

Oh yeah, I can only imagine. I'm sure it's quite the target for opportunists.

[EricNau]

A soldier, suffering from PTSD (or, so we can say), and addicted to painkillers (through no fault of his own, because he was wounded in war and was legally prescribed these drugs), robs a pharmacy for the drugs he needs (well, at least he thinks so).

This case can practically defend itself; no jury is going to lockup a soldier for robbery, when they ultimately feel it wasn't his fault. He'll get off with drug rehabilitation and psychological visits.

[rhsgolfer33]

I'd probably argue that the soldier had PTSD which cause a temporary "insanity" like stage when he was committing the robberies. Like you said, I think the only defense is PTSD. I suppose I'd probably try to get some sort of deal worked out with the prosecution in light of his excellent military service to push for psychiatric treatment instead of prison.

[rdowns]

I think I'd attack it as the government not providing adequate care to its veterans.

[bigjnyc]

I would blame the army doctors for giving the patient an addictive medicine which he would become dependent on, attack the government for not taking care of their veterans financially so they can make purchases, and finally post traumatic stress causing the individual to act irrationally and irresponsibly while not in a good state of mind.

I dont condone stealing in any way but i am just answering the question the way the OP posed it, if i was a defense lawyer and this case was handed to me. :cool:

[Sesshi]

...who comes back from tour in Iraq, is given certain pain killers for injuries, but gets addicted and holds up Pharmacies for those drugs later on.

How would you build your case as defense attorney? (We all have cases for the prosecution I am sure, but that can be a different thread, so let's see what defenses can be brought up).

What points would you bring up as his/her attorney?

Discuss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminished_responsibility

Assuming there is no defensible doubt that he was the perpetrator of course.

[Blue Velvet]

How would you build your case as defense attorney?

I'd ask the defendant to try on the leather glove that was supposedly used in the crime.

[ibook30]

I'd ask the defendant to try on the leather glove that was supposedly used in the crime.

Nice! I think this has worked before,,,

I'd argue the defendants diminished responsibility due to the poor medical care offered by the military (use of an addictive drug when less addictive substitutes should have been available). Additionally his PTSD was caused by his service to the country. So - if this guy had not served, he would not have stolen.

Then look at his background and how he ended up joining the military, was he aggressively pursued by a recruiter?

When he was injured, was it due to regular combat activity or was a superior negligent?

I would look to tell a story of a person who has been given a bad break at every turn. Point out every instance he was let down by the military, to push the idea that if he had not been in the military, his circumstances would have been different (I'd also hope he/she did not have a criminal record before joining the service!).

Not that these arguments make it OK to steal or continue to use destructive drugs, just an insteresting line of thought.

[63dot]

Nice! I think this has worked before,,,

I'd argue the defendants diminished responsibility due to the poor medical care offered by the military (use of an addictive drug when less addictive substitutes should have been available). Additionally his PTSD was caused by his service to the country. So - if this guy had not served, he would not have stolen.

Then look at his background and how he ended up joining the military, was he aggressively pursued by a recruiter?

When he was injured, was it due to regular combat activity or was a superior negligent?

I would look to tell a story of a person who has been given a bad break at every turn. Point out every instance he was let down by the military, to push the idea that if he had not been in the military, his circumstances would have been different (I'd also hope he/she did not have a criminal record before joining the service!).

Not that these arguments make it OK to steal or continue to use destructive drugs, just an insteresting line of thought.

Thanks for all the great responses. I thought of PTSD and the duty of the VA for the soldier with any addictive drugs given to him. Negligence could fit pinning it on the VA with Duty/Breach/Causation/Damages and I could try and tie this in. I considered diminished capacity but did not look into diminished responsibility. Thanks for the tips. These are great suggestions. Crim law test on Thursday, Contracts test tonight. Yeeech! :)

[Vivid.Inferno]

I think I'd attack it as the government not providing adequate care to its veterans.

Thats exactly what I was thinking. PTSD would be a good defense. But arguing that the government didn't provide for a veteran in need would be the best bet.

[ravenvii]

Tell the professor to roll that paper up, shine it up real good, turn it sideways and stick it up his candy ass!

</The Rock>

[skunk]

Soldiers' conduct in every war, and especially illegal wars, is predicated on a suspension of most if not all normal restraints on civil interaction. Theft, robbery, mass murder, rape, assault, grievous bodily harm, arson, criminal damage, physical abuse, any number of normally actionable offences against the state, against private property and against the person are routinely carried out and routinely excused. To expect a soldier subjected to such an upending of "normal" process and "normal" values to automatically readjust to acceptable behaviours at the drop of a hat, especially without a comprehensive support network, is insanity. The waging of wars sows the wind.

[Sesshi]

Soldiers' conduct in every war, and especially illegal wars, is predicated on a suspension of most if not all normal restraints on civil interaction. Theft, robbery, mass murder, rape, assault, grievous bodily harm, arson, criminal damage, physical abuse, any number of normally actionable offences against the state, against private property and against the person are routinely carried out and routinely excused. To expect a soldier subjected to such an upending of "normal" process and "normal" values to automatically readjust to acceptable behaviours at the drop of a hat, especially without a comprehensive support network, is insanity. The waging of wars sows the wind.

<Prods skunk on high horse with stick>

This is what combat training nominally prepares you for, and the rules of engagement - even if bent - provides controls for, for the majority of combatants from a major military force (or a properly run independent contractor) with a structured training regimen, regardless of whether the conflict is illegal, borne of false evidence, etc or not. The rest of the coping is up to the (to many, surprising) adaptive capabilities of most brains.

It's not like you sign up, then they just toss you out of a helicopter with a gun you know - especially these days.

[skunk]

Emphasis on "nominally".

I just find the whole idea of criminalising a man for stealing pills after exonerating him for the use of extreme violence and destruction of property simply because somebody decided to call the illegal banditry they were engaged upon and coerced him to participate in a "war" to be utterly absurd.

My horse is only of moderate stature.

[blackfox]

Not that I can add too much here, as I have no legal knowledge or training whatsoever...

I guess I would like to know more about the defendant. What has his life been like? Childhood, Parents, Schooling. How long has he served in the military? Question fellow soldiers and superiors for insight into how he performed in this capacity. Figure out the circumstances around his injury and how he was treated by the military after the accident.

I guess this is basically to form an idea of the character of the defendant, which if positive and upstanding (relative to what life has dealt him), can be used to make the robbery out-of-character, the implications of such being a decent defensive starting point.

Of course, much probably depends on the forum which the case is being tried. If it is military court or civilian - as I am sure the rules are different. I don't know if certain civilian jurisdictions might have mandatory sentencing guidelines for this crime either, making a defense somewhat irrelevant.

In any case, I'd probably try to talk to the DA pre-trial with your findings and at least try to cut a deal - with minimal jail time, rehab and probation.

*edit*
I would also need to know the nature of the robbery - was it violent? Did anyone get hurt? These facts (and others) would also effect how zealous the prosecution might be, what charge(s) the defendant would be looking at, and how one would proceed in his defense.

I would also, of course, look into his addiction - interview people who know the defendant both before and after, and experts on the issue.

[63dot]

Soldiers' conduct in every war, and especially illegal wars, is predicated on a suspension of most if not all normal restraints on civil interaction. Theft, robbery, mass murder, rape, assault, grievous bodily harm, arson, criminal damage, physical abuse, any number of normally actionable offences against the state, against private property and against the person are routinely carried out and routinely excused. To expect a soldier subjected to such an upending of "normal" process and "normal" values to automatically readjust to acceptable behaviours at the drop of a hat, especially without a comprehensive support network, is insanity. The waging of wars sows the wind.


That is very eloquently stated for the closing argument. It's concise and gets to the heart of the matter. It goes to show that a person under duress, also a defense in the US, may have that problem in changing over to the civilian world.

So far I also have the defenses of diminished responsibility, diminshed capacity, PTSD, and addiction to prescribed drugs caused via negligence from the VA/Army. As a closing argument, this above statement mixed with the previous legal defenses may make a good defense attorney case. A typical exam would also have me state the prosecution side (like robbery is larceny using an illegal amount of force, often resulting in use of a deadly weapon without privilege of law or consent and that the five elements of a crime were present being state of mind (intent or thought)/act/concurrence/causation/harm).

Finally, I would have to equally weigh both sides, without judgment or prejudice, and come to a "likely" conclusion for the trier of fact (judge or jury). I think for a crime, this can work as a defense.

[skunk]

In this connection, the figures for the UK are astonishing:

MP’s concern over high number of ex-soldiers in jail

Sep 1 2008 by Matt Withers, Western Mail

NEARLY one in 10 of the prisoners in the UK’s jails are former members of the Armed Services, according to figures obtained by a Plaid Cymru MP.
Elfyn Llwyd, the party’s leader at Westminster, has unearthed statistics suggesting that as many as 8,500 former soldiers are currently in custody in the UK – many veterans of wars in the Gulf and Afghanistan.http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/welsh-politics/welsh-politics-news/2008/09/01/mp-s-concern-over-high-number-of-ex-soldiers-in-jail-91466-21645080/

[Sesshi]

Emphasis on "nominally".

I just find the whole idea of criminalising a man for stealing pills after exonerating him for the use of extreme violence and destruction of property simply because somebody decided to call the illegal banditry they were engaged upon and coerced him to participate in a "war" to be utterly absurd.

My horse is only of moderate stature.

Ah, but you assume that there is something to exonerate in the situation of someone who signs up to be a soldier and ends up in your example.

People sign up for all sorts of reasons, and many cannot cope, in which case if a crime is committed and there are circumstances which indicate this there is a case for diminished responsibility. However debating the legality of a war doesn't work in the defence of someone in this situation.

[63dot]

In this connection, the figures for the UK are astonishing:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/welsh-politics/welsh-politics-news/2008/09/01/mp-s-concern-over-high-number-of-ex-soldiers-in-jail-91466-21645080/


Dude, great link. You should sit in on my exam for me. :)

Ladies and gentlemen of the court, I show you exhibit 1 (pulls out article and hands it to jurors). :)

This article could cast doubt as the the full, sane act of the soldier committing a crime within the framework of a rational person. How rational could any soldier be after the war?

Should society instantly hold him/her to the same standards of a non combatant civilian without realizing that this person may have a hard time adjusting? And where was the VA in all of this? Do they have memorialization to the effect that they helped him/her after a tour in Iraq?

[63dot]

Ah, but you assume that there is something to exonerate in the situation of someone who signs up to be a soldier and ends up in your example.

But to convict, you have to prove a sane person, under normal circumstances, acted on the crime beyond reasonable doubt. It also has to be beyond a reasonable doubt that the soldier was not suffering from any ill effects from the medication and/or addiction. It has to show premeditation.

When a drunk person may get a lesser charge for battery and assault in the US based on a few drinks, how much more for a soldier addicted to a drug he may not have consented to or consented to when he was under a great deal of pain?

[Sesshi]

As I said, most combatants are capable of adjusting. The prosecution will blow that one out of the water. It comes down to proving diminished responsibility, and 'He was a combatant' won't work. I'm not saying it can't be part of a powerful closing argument you can have for the jury, but in terms of actually establishing criminal liability it is a completely useless line to pursue.

[skunk]

Ah, but you assume that there is something to exonerate in the situation of someone who signs up to be a soldier and ends up in your example.Indeed. I would contend that the classification of an unprovoked mass assault as "war" is an exercise in propaganda whereby actions which are usually regarded as the most heinous crimes are regarded as excusable if not routinely to be expected. Hence the obscenity of all wars of choice.

[Sesshi]

Yeah - if that horse is of a moderate stature, it surely sits on a very tall jack...

[63dot]

As I said, most combatants are capable of adjusting. The prosecution will blow that one out of the water. It comes down to proving diminished responsibility, and 'He was a combatant' won't work.


Under what time period is considered legally "reasonable" for a soldier to adjust? Can any doubt be cast on the possibly negligent actions of the VA?

Much of the case will also ride on what the VA did or did not do under the tort theory of negligence. Negligence is the breach of duty of due care which is the actual cause and proximate legal cause of the plaintiff's injury, where the plaintiff would be the soldier in this case and the negligent defendant the VA. The injury is the addiction to painkillers prescribed by the VA.

[skunk]

Yeah - if that horse is of a moderate stature, it surely sits on a very tall jack...It knows how to ascend an escalier de cheval. :)

[bradl]

What if you are the defense attorney, working for your county, and your boss hands you this case. You have a week to view and prepare for this case, among many, many others on your desk.

How do you prepare?

Let's say for argument's sake it's your job and you have two choices: 1) work the case and your job title as public defender, or 2) quit and do something else.

Or better yet, let's say you are JAG and your superior officer hands you this case as defense attorney, in a job you just can't walk out on. It's a direct order. :)

Wow.. reading the entire thread sounds like a great idea for a Choose Your Own Adventure (http://www.cyoa.com) book. :p

If you want to try the case as a prosecutor, turn to page 31.
If you want to try the case as in JAG, turn to page 42.
If you want to decline the case, turn to page 90.

Page 90:
Your partner in the firm is very disappointed in you, and asks you to leave the firm. Unfortunately, as you are walking out the door, a car slides on a patch of ice with you in its direct path. The street light is too slippery to climb. As your life flashes before your eyes, you leave yourself with one last question: What would Harm have done in your position?

The End

:D

Seriously, in reading this, you pretty much have solid prosecution and defense sides to this case. But with the above, there's another thing to consider.

The soldier has come back from a tour in Iraq. How does being on leave and active duty play into this? If he was back for a visit before going back again, would he still be considered on active duty?

I ask because wouldn't the soldier's status dictate where the case would be heard? If he got out after his tour ended, obviously the case goes to public court. But where does the jurisdiction end if he is still on active duty?

BL.

[63dot]

If you want to try the case as a prosecutor, turn to page 31.
If you want to try the case as in JAG, turn to page 42.
If you want to decline the case, turn to page 90.




...or if you want to decline this case, move to the front of the line at the unemployment office, newly disbarred. :)

[Sesshi]

Under what time period is considered legally "reasonable" for a soldier to adjust? Can any doubt be cast on the possibly negligent actions of the VA?

These are things I can't answer with any authority, since I never 'served' as such, and I'm not a lawyer, let alone one in the US. A procedural adjustment (in terms of how people behave) should be immediate, but a mental adjustment? I'm not sure but I doubt there is a prescribed period beyond 3-6 months or so if that, since the conduct of serving soldiers is also regulated and it is deemed generally unnecessary for a civilian court to be the 'mopping up'. I'm sure others can shed more light on these points.

Regarding the VA? I'd say absolutely, and that is a primary area for indepth research. And obviously, (non-serving) character witnesses from his unit(s) will also be key, if they could be relied upon to testify that he was under, or exhibited, extreme stress in his position.

The problem with your case and the fact skunk is missing in his wish to pontificate is that really, in terms of what is being tried, it boils down to the same as anyone else who gets addicted to painkillers and commits a crime. It's very obvious but you need to tie down his recent military history as the contributing factor to diminished responsibility, but simply saying he was in the military or joined for screwed-up reasons just will not cut it.

[ibook30]

Indeed. I would contend that the classification of an unprovoked mass assault as "war" is an exercise in propaganda whereby actions which are usually regarded as the most heinous crimes are regarded as excusable if not routinely to be expected. Hence the obscenity of all wars of choice.

Note to self- in case I need legal defense, PM skunk

[Tomorrow]

Or better yet, let's say you are JAG and your superior officer hands you this case as defense attorney, in a job you just can't walk out on. It's a direct order. :)

THAT makes it really tough. In a civilian court you could hope that the prosecutor wouldn't mention that being a veteran, the defendant has CHAMPUS coverage and doesn't even have to pay for his health care...you wouldn't pull that wool over the eyes of a military court.

If this thread isn't altogether hypothetical, I'd say you're going to have your hands full defending this one.

[sushi]

The soldier should be getting his medication through the VA or military hospital.

Maybe that would be an approach, that he could not get the needed medication through the normal channels, could not afford it, so he resorted to steeling.

[CalBoy]

...who comes back from tour in Iraq, is given certain pain killers for injuries, but gets addicted and holds up Pharmacies for those drugs later on.

How would you build your case as defense attorney? (We all have cases for the prosecution I am sure, but that can be a different thread, so let's see what defenses can be brought up).

What points would you bring up as his/her attorney?

Discuss.

If this was to go to a jury, the defendant would be very sympathetic.

Throw up some pictures of VA hospitals, explain to the jury how the addiction developed (VA doctors had too many patients to see addiction before it was too late), and make the case that a veteran should not pay the price for an incompetent government bureaucracy.

Of course in real life any prosecutor would have a hard time trying to put a vet on trial for stealing drugs. More than likely he would settled for rehab and a suspended sentence.

[63dot]

THAT makes it really tough. In a civilian court you could hope that the prosecutor wouldn't mention that being a veteran, the defendant has CHAMPUS coverage and doesn't even have to pay for his health care...you wouldn't pull that wool over the eyes of a military court.

If this thread isn't altogether hypothetical, I'd say you're going to have your hands full defending this one.

It's a hypo as I am studying for midterms, which thank God, are halfway over. And I never plan to practice anyway. But tests are a part of any student's life and this is just test prep. It doesn't help studying with law students because they, like me, only think what's in the textbook we spend reading 50 hours a week and supplemental materials. It's hard to see any concepts outside of law jargon and culture where the jury actually lives.

Unlike JAG on tv, which I used to watch, it's much harder to be a successful defense attorney in the real JAG (my former law school partner was one) and you can't win consistently as a defense attorney the way Harm and Mac to and make it look so easy in 44 minutes each week. :)

Of course the opposite is true if you are a JAG doing prosecution cases and then you have to hit the real world with "real" Cal Crim rules a million times more complex. I am sure other states are much more complex than military law, too, especially for the prosecutor.

[Counterfit]

Plan A: Pray I don't go up against Sam Waterson
Plan B: the Wookiee Defense.
Or better yet, let's say you are JAG and your superior officer hands you this case as defense attorney, in a job you just can't walk out on. It's a direct order. :)

It's worth it if you get to make out with Catherine Bell. :D

[63dot]

It's worth it if you get to make out with Catherine Bell. :D

b.
b..
b...
boner

:)

[nbs2]

As I said, most combatants are capable of adjusting. The prosecution will blow that one out of the water. It comes down to proving diminished responsibility, and 'He was a combatant' won't work. I'm not saying it can't be part of a powerful closing argument you can have for the jury, but in terms of actually establishing criminal liability it is a completely useless line to pursue.

Indeed. From what I'm reading of the scenario, with clear evidence that he was the culprit, your best bet would be to a) go after the procedure or b) advice a plea. The former may yield better results if you can find something - anything - to get the case dropped, but is less likely to work. The latter sucks, but you may be able to convince the DA to work with you, especially if you present the story in a sympathetic light with him and suggest that the media would feel bad too.

I could go back and read the original presentation, but I'm too lazy. I think the robbery was armed, so probation would be off the table, but if nobody got harmed, you might be able to swing a lighter charge, recommended minimal sentence, early parole, and addiction treatment. If it wasn't, I think probation would be achievable.

[skunk]

The problem with your case and the fact skunk is missing in his wish to pontificate...My intention is simply to point out the twisted travesty which passes for legality in the warmaking nation state, not to win a case at law. The figures I quoted, however, surely give grounds to suspect that the carefree inversions of meaning deployed in the justification of military conduct are not so easily assimilated by those who participate on the ground.