...a vigorous defense...
William Sharp. 1954
What does "...a vigorous defense..." mean?
I have heard the term 'vigorous defense' as a right of all defendants,
but cannot find an actual Constitutional or Bill of Rights affirmation and definition.
Even so, here is my layman's point of view.
There seems to be an assumption that because of the phrase 'a vigorous defense',
defense lawyers should try to have their defendant found 'not-guilty', even when guilty.
I heartily disagree.
In my layman-mind, 'a vigorous defense' should mean a real dedication to 'due process',
yet should never advocate the guilty going unconvicted and unpunished.
Finding the guilty - 'not guilty'; seems outside the spirit and letter of the US Constitution.
And it is absolutely a perversion of justice in God's eyes -the Final Judge of all people.
More below...
prekopalnicmarko.si
Blood-splatter analysis
Blood splatter debates confuse me.
How is there any debate for something that is supposedly scientific?
If one party, either prosecution or the defense, can find an expert to disagree
with the findings of the other, this tells me:
> Blood spatter isn't a real science, or
>One of the 'experts' is fraudulent and should lose their job
and their reputation in the judicial community.
>Or one 'expert' is incompetent; should be censured and be required to have
additional training before being allowed to work again.
And juries should have the right to petition for a review
and possible revocation of the losing expert's credentials.
In one crime show on TV, the prosecution's blood spatter 'expert'
was found to be completely untrained.
In true science, everyone ought to say the same thing when reviewing the same evidence.
The Witness List
I wrote the first layer of this website in July of 2024, and I just came across something
(July 2026) that is very important in trials, and it can be manipulated to harm the opposition.
The Witness list. Apparently both prosecution and defense submit a list of witnesses they plan to call to testify during the trial. (They also have the right to cross-examine any witnesses the other side brings to the witness box. Each side gets the other side's list of witnesses to examine and try to discern how their testimony will affect the case.
This July of 2026, I heard a defense lawyer say on a crime show, that the prosecution will pad their witness list so the defense cannot possibly have time to strategize against every witness.
They presented this as being unscrupulous, and I would have to agree.
And this is even as I believe that defense lawyers are usually the least interested in the truth.
It seems that more prosecutors are guided by facts than are defense lawyers.
Even so, this point of padded witness lists struck me as valid.
What if ... each side simply had to call witnesses in the order they are listed?
Wouldn't that help cut the fog?
