transcripts are fun

I have my very own appeal now. I've been reading the transcripts of the case for the past couple of days. The defendant insisted on taking the stand even though the two main witnesses contradicted themselves on numerous occasions. His long rambling narrative answers to questions went on so long that even he forgot the question that had been asked. He went on to mimic the states witnesses and contradicted himself numerous times. When the prosecutor called him on it he just denied making the statement. His testimony was impossible to follow even after reading it three times. His story seemed to be made up as he went along, filing in details as they seemed necessary and rejecting previous parts of the story that no longer fit. I'm sure this is old news and happens all the time for the real PD's out there, but I can't believe that people are so stupid as to believe a jury will buy a story that is obviously bunk.

Shockingly the client was convicted of a drug offense, as an accomplice, with a very very small amount of the substance (police scales couldn't even record the amount, lab had to weigh it for them). Sentencing range was between 60-120 months. The state asked for 90 months. Luckily the judge was a reasonable man and gave him a sentence far below the standard range.

I went and watched some cases at the trial level today. Got to hear a suppression hearing in a homicide. A homicide where two different guns were used, one was fired multiple times the other only once. The police convinced the defendant that if he turning in the gun he used would help his case. Turning in the gun would be in his best interest, they explained, because it would prove that he hadn't used the gun that fired multiple times. Even if he didn't turn in his gun, they assured him they would find it and that they would find his DNA on any bullets in the gun if he so much as touched them. In the alternative he could turn in the his partner's gun and they would DNA and fingerprint test it to prove that he didn't use it.