- 20 Jan 2023 10:24
#15262618
They are reading a transcript from a real murder trial. The voice actors are from the cartoon Rick and Morty, and the funniest (dirty) back and forth between a judge and the accused ever.
State of Georgia Vs. Denver Fenton Allen | Rick and Morty | Adult Swim - YouTube
I can see where he (the defendant) was coming from. His public-appointed lawyer had not obtained any of the information about the police evidence, to give to him, that was going to be used against him. And the scheduled trial date was only week away.
Imagine you are being accused of murder and you are not even informed in advance of the evidence against you. You won't get to hear what the evidence is against you until the trial, and then you might only have one or two days, maybe only hours, to be able to try to put up a defense against that evidence before the jury makes their decision.
Even if you were informed what the evidence was going to be several days before the trial, you are in prison, and you personally cannot do anything to investigate, verify, or research anything concerning that evidence. And now imagine that you are pretty much made entirely reliant on a court-appointed public lawyer whom you do not think is doing a good job, and so far has shown signs that they cannot be relied upon.
Sadly, this is very normal and all too common. Typically they do not want to give the defendant the evidence that will be used against them until the last moment. It's a way to take away power from the defendant, guarantee that the defense lawyer will be the one to handle things, making it convenient and smoothing things along for the judge. And it also practically forces the defendant to have to sign away their right to a speedy trial and delay things. This both gives the prosecuting attorney (and defense attorney) plenty of time so there is no rush, and also in some cases keeps the defendant in jail so it will be easier to help pressure them into accepting a plea bargain.
If this defendant had been rich, he would have had a lawyer of his choice. (Still not always an absolute guarantee the lawyer would do a good job, but at least he could have changed lawyers earlier if he did not like the first one)
It is also likely he would not be sitting while waiting for his trial, and in that case there would be no rush to go to trial. A typical murder trial usually takes place one and a half, sometimes two years after the person has been arrested for the crime. There is a lot of things that have to be done for both sides to be fully prepared for the trial, very commonly including a lot of back and forth between both sides.
Naturally it is understandable that this defendant did not want to be waiting in jail for so long without even knowing anything about the evidence against him.
It's kind of like morbid humor. Funny and ridiculous, but there is a very serious and concerning issue at play.
State of Georgia Vs. Denver Fenton Allen | Rick and Morty | Adult Swim - YouTube
I can see where he (the defendant) was coming from. His public-appointed lawyer had not obtained any of the information about the police evidence, to give to him, that was going to be used against him. And the scheduled trial date was only week away.
Imagine you are being accused of murder and you are not even informed in advance of the evidence against you. You won't get to hear what the evidence is against you until the trial, and then you might only have one or two days, maybe only hours, to be able to try to put up a defense against that evidence before the jury makes their decision.
Even if you were informed what the evidence was going to be several days before the trial, you are in prison, and you personally cannot do anything to investigate, verify, or research anything concerning that evidence. And now imagine that you are pretty much made entirely reliant on a court-appointed public lawyer whom you do not think is doing a good job, and so far has shown signs that they cannot be relied upon.
Sadly, this is very normal and all too common. Typically they do not want to give the defendant the evidence that will be used against them until the last moment. It's a way to take away power from the defendant, guarantee that the defense lawyer will be the one to handle things, making it convenient and smoothing things along for the judge. And it also practically forces the defendant to have to sign away their right to a speedy trial and delay things. This both gives the prosecuting attorney (and defense attorney) plenty of time so there is no rush, and also in some cases keeps the defendant in jail so it will be easier to help pressure them into accepting a plea bargain.
If this defendant had been rich, he would have had a lawyer of his choice. (Still not always an absolute guarantee the lawyer would do a good job, but at least he could have changed lawyers earlier if he did not like the first one)
It is also likely he would not be sitting while waiting for his trial, and in that case there would be no rush to go to trial. A typical murder trial usually takes place one and a half, sometimes two years after the person has been arrested for the crime. There is a lot of things that have to be done for both sides to be fully prepared for the trial, very commonly including a lot of back and forth between both sides.
Naturally it is understandable that this defendant did not want to be waiting in jail for so long without even knowing anything about the evidence against him.
It's kind of like morbid humor. Funny and ridiculous, but there is a very serious and concerning issue at play.
- By wat0n
- By Potemkin