Ashley Okland Murder

That doesn't mean that the State doesn't push the County Attorney on things.
The AG can push all they want. The vast majority of county attorneys I've worked with over the past four decades would tell the AG to shove it unless they were completely on board. In this case, the AG and the county attorney are politically tight. I'm sure the AG will give the county attorney any support he wants or needs. By having both offices involved it could diffuse any blowback if the prosecution of the case fails. (I'm not saying it will.) Prosecuting cold cases are inherently tricky, especially without a murder weapon (i.e., the "smoking gun). Obviously, something has developed or changed since the initial investigation of the case. Both offices have to be completely on same page to make this work.
 
Maybe. I could not live with myself if I did what he does.
Yeah, there are some jobs that take a certain kind of person.

Law enforcement is much easier as it comes with with discretion. Ostensibly prosecutors get to do what is right.

Defense attorneys are largely obligated to faithfully execute their duties without question.

They’re more like soldiers who sometimes have to incur civilian casualties.

Whether killing an innocent person or freeing a guilty one is harder is probably a function of a person’s disposition and enculturation/ acculturation.
 
All you have to do is see and hear first hand accounts of people that were wrongly convicted to feel better about the work good defense attorneys perform.

Also, many times its not as binary as people want to make it, a guilty vs innocent verdict. There are many things in play like level of crime a person gets convicted of, if they have to sit in jail waiting for trial prior to being found guilty, the punishment for a conviction, etc.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Urbandale2013
I have 2 buddies that were defense attorneys at one point in their careers. They always said, it isn't my job to determine guilt, it is just to make sure they have a fair trial.
This is true and often times they tell clients NOT to tell them if they committed the crime. They dont always want to know the true truth. They arent dumb. They see the evidence. Hearing guilt is another thing entirely.
 
Parrish saying the prosecution reached out to tell the defense that some evidence has been lost or destroyed.
 
Yah, this isn't off to a great start for the prosecution...

I would be suprised if this makes it to a trial. I think she is guilty as crap. However, I don't know if they can make the case not of "reasonable Doubt". If it was just "you think she is guilty", she don't pass the text of an innocent women. However, she also right now don't pass the reasonable doubt test. Unless there is more evidence we are not aware of right now.
 
I agree with this guy. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is still a thing. I could change my mind if they come out with more evidence.

Yeah, it may seem like an obvious statement, but this really seems to hinge on the prosecution having a good deal more than they've shown so far.