Attorney for Pacman Upset at Treatment

Burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did what he is on trial.

Beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal trial is 11/12 jurors saying guilty. Anything less is it is not guilty.

 

I meant that in court, the bouncers story is presented, and it's uncontested until the defense tells their side of the story. The bouncer's story has certainly been contested by Pacman and his posse.


Criminologists certainly don't run the court, the lawyers and judges do. And I'm more than a casual observer of court, I've gotten a pretty decent dose of experience with them in the past two years.


It's fine to say you believe him because he's the victim and he's more credible than pacman to you. But to argue that Riverman is completely wrong by stating his opinion that the charges won't stick is where you go wrong. We have plenty of reasons to doubt the strength of this case, based on what has been filed, what hasn't been filed, and how lawsuits typically work. It's fine to argue what you believe, and to simply be saying that's what you think the jury will think as well. But it doesn't mean you're answering any of the reasons that Riverman has said are why the case probably isn't going anywhere.

 

Again, plugging in the victim language when it makes no sense. The burden of proof in a criminal trial is on the prosecution, which is not the victim, but the State. The burden of proof in a civil trial is on the plaintiff, which is the victim. Your murder victim question is irrelevant, criminal charges are brought by the state, civil charges are brought by the family of the victim usually, see the OJ trial.

If these are really new concepts to you, then just quit arguing about things you aren't familiar with, and listen to what Riverman and I are telling you. Despite what you seem to think, the bouncer will have to prove that Pacman was the shooter, or order the shooter, or some similar connection. The fact that he was arguing with the bouncer in the club before the shooting is not enough for a jury to conclude that he must have done it. NO DA would EVER try a case that weak. I am not familiar with the details of the Peterson trial, without being in court or seeing the transcripts, it's hard to say what actually happened, and why the jury found him guilty. Also, juries are notoriously unpredictable, so it's hard to speculate on what happened in a particular case without knowing more of the arguments. The reason Riverman and I are saying the case against pacman is unlikely to succede is because of the inconsistencies in the news reports. Those could be wrong, since most news articles are anything but. However, if the inconsistencies that we've mentioned before in this thread are real, then it will be VERY difficult to make these charges stick.

 

I went back several pages to try and see if this would be clear. Just so it is, here is a restatement of some of the reasons why I think (and I think Riverman would support this summary) that the criminal charges against Pacman have been badly handled and are unlikely to lead to a conviction...

1. There's been an enormous amount of delay. There was no immediate result from the police or the DAs office citing evidence to charge pacman. Numerous times they have said they didn't have enough evidence to charge him with ANYTHING. The police department had to bring the case to the DA three times before they brought two charges of coercion against pacman.
2. If the only charges are coercion, that means they don't think they can prove assault, battery, or conspiracy, all of which sound like they could be proven based on the bouncer's accounts. If none of those charges are being filed, the DAs office obviously thinks there are mitigating factors to the bouncers story and not enough evidence to corroborate it.
3. The video evidence is clearly not good enough. I forget who said it, but either the police or the DA stated to the media that the video from the club couldn't show anything.
4. The DNA results came back negative. Despite the fact that there can be errors from DNA tests, test results sit heavily with a jury. If the DA is bringing two charges of coercion, one of which is based on pacman biting someone on the ankle, but the DNA test goes against that story, it's going to bring the entire story into doubt in the minds of the jury.
5. The charges were announced before they were real. The papers hadn't been signed, and the media found out before Pacman did. It's highly inappropriate, and makes it look like it took longer than it did for Pacman to turn himself in.


These are the main things I can think of at the moment, I reserve the right to think of more later. The main reason behind most of these things is that they show what the DA thinks of the case and the evidence. The DA is the professional here. We don't know what the evidence is, or who would testify, but the actions of the DA show a lot. It definitely says something that the DA brought these two charges, but after a lot of fuss, there clearly hasn't been the proof that the police department expected, and they really wanted pacman charged. I don't think it's likely that they will succede.

 

Gotitans..

They have not arrested the shooter yet. If they had the shooter they could get him to plea to a lessor and testify against pacman. Without that they went for the coercion charge. That also probably explains the delay.

The DNA tests came back negative on pacman. Maybe someone else bit the guy and he thought it was pacman.

The very basic question is this; do you think pacman jones did anything wrong that night that he should be held accountable for criminally or tort? From your posts apparently you don't.

 

Not only have they not arrested him, I don't think they really have much idea about who the shooter was.

Well, I don't know what Pacman did, so I don't know if any of it was wrong enough for him to be held accountable in any court. My point with the above posts was that I don't think, based on the prosecutor's reactions, that they have enough proof to hold him accountable for whatever he may have done.

 

Gotitans..

So it is not about somebody doing something wrong and someone getting hurt as a result? It's what can be proven? The court is our moral compass?

My position is a moral one not a legal one. You start a fight and people get hurt as a result of course there is some responsibility there which is why this case can't be frivolous. Why would i take the position as pacman's legal representation when he probably caused others to be hurt? I think he did something wrong.


As for the shooter because pacman and his friends were fighting this bouncer i can logically assume that maybe someone associated with pacman was the shooter. Who else would be motivated to shoot this guy at that moment?

 

Bull.

This illustrates exactly why so many people get sick of arguing with you. This was not a moral argument, it was a legal one. Your position the ENTIRE time has been about the credibility of the victim and was in response to the initial discussion of the case against pacman. When you lose an argument, you just change the argument to make a new point. Don't turn this into a debate about moral judgment, this has been a discussion of the strength/weakness of the case against pacman, with comments about the tactics of Pac's lawyer and the DA in there as well.

I'm done with this, I think I made my point about a page and a half ago.

 

Huh?

WTF are you talking about? How can you win an argument when you have no position?

Pacman didn't cause a disturbance in that bar? Someone didn't get hurt? That's my damn position is that he was there, caused the disturbance and someone got hurt. Now someone has to be culpable morally and legally.

You are not pacman's legal counsel you are not obligated to make his case for him so stop kissing his buttocks.

I'm not trying to have a damn trial i'm saying that somebody did something wrong and people got hurt. Don't you care about that? Or are you just trying to find reason to liberate pacman from the mess he started.

 

Morally or legally.....would all this trouble have happened if Pacman had NOT been there?