7/24/23 Trial of Usman Shahid -- driver who killed two Oakton teens

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't poop on Greenspun. He's doing his job. I'm mad that Usman took this to trial. He didn't take responsibility for his actions. I'm sure he was only willing to plea to "no jail time" and the prosecution wasn't willing to give that deal given two teen girls died. A defense atty can't make a client plead guilty. The defense atty has to work with what their client allows.

It's a tough job psychologically (to be a crimal defenseatty). I thought about doing it, but wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing I helped guilty people go free. Too much catholic guilt in me. Lots of catholic prosecutors because they grew up with clear black and white thinking.

thus.

Don't attorney's have rights on which clients to take and which not to? I don't understand why I am supposed to be impressed by some guy just because he's willing to throw darts at a wall blindly and hope they hit.

He's not blindly throwing darts. Every person has the RIGHT to a defense. While Oakton's speed is a huge factor in this case, it's not the only factor.

Let's think. What are the odds that if you drive 80+ mph in an area that has crosswalks and intersections you might kill or injure someone? Oh well, so innocent some people died. Let's try to get the killer off.

There's a lot of gray between those two goal posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Feels premature to criticize the defense attorney's arguments before we have a verdict. Maybe they'll prevail. Moreover, it's unclear if any of the people on this thread actually attended the trial.

My guess is that he advised Shahid to plead guilty but Shahid refused. It seems like he had nothing to work with and so he did his best to argue the 4 Runner driver is responsible, which is Shahid's only path to a not guilty verdict.

Yeah, let's teach our kids that money talks and to deflect blame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't poop on Greenspun. He's doing his job. I'm mad that Usman took this to trial. He didn't take responsibility for his actions. I'm sure he was only willing to plea to "no jail time" and the prosecution wasn't willing to give that deal given two teen girls died. A defense atty can't make a client plead guilty. The defense atty has to work with what their client allows.

It's a tough job psychologically (to be a crimal defenseatty). I thought about doing it, but wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing I helped guilty people go free. Too much catholic guilt in me. Lots of catholic prosecutors because they grew up with clear black and white thinking.

thus.

Don't attorney's have rights on which clients to take and which not to? I don't understand why I am supposed to be impressed by some guy just because he's willing to throw darts at a wall blindly and hope they hit.

He's not blindly throwing darts. Every person has the RIGHT to a defense. While Oakton's speed is a huge factor in this case, it's not the only factor.

Let's think. What are the odds that if you drive 80+ mph in an area that has crosswalks and intersections you might kill or injure someone? Oh well, so innocent some people died. Let's try to get the killer off.

There's a lot of gray between those two goal posts.

Riiight

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are very few who know the conversation that occurred between Greenspun and his client (and parents who I assume are paying the bill)

But we can have a pretty good idea, if he's a high end defense atty whose main concern is not for the victims and their families...

The parents would not be privy to the conversations.

And, ethically, the defense attorney’s job is to be concerned with his client’s best interests and constitutional rights. That’s a foundational part of our country. The defendant has the right to counsel.

Ethics? Sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't poop on Greenspun. He's doing his job. I'm mad that Usman took this to trial. He didn't take responsibility for his actions. I'm sure he was only willing to plea to "no jail time" and the prosecution wasn't willing to give that deal given two teen girls died. A defense atty can't make a client plead guilty. The defense atty has to work with what their client allows.

It's a tough job psychologically (to be a crimal defenseatty). I thought about doing it, but wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing I helped guilty people go free. Too much catholic guilt in me. Lots of catholic prosecutors because they grew up with clear black and white thinking.

thus.

Don't attorney's have rights on which clients to take and which not to? I don't understand why I am supposed to be impressed by some guy just because he's willing to throw darts at a wall blindly and hope they hit.

He's not blindly throwing darts. Every person has the RIGHT to a defense. While Oakton's speed is a huge factor in this case, it's not the only factor.

Let's think. What are the odds that if you drive 80+ mph in an area that has crosswalks and intersections you might kill or injure someone? Oh well, so innocent some people died. Let's try to get the killer off.

There's a lot of gray between those two goal posts.

Oh, the irony of your statement...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't poop on Greenspun. He's doing his job. I'm mad that Usman took this to trial. He didn't take responsibility for his actions. I'm sure he was only willing to plea to "no jail time" and the prosecution wasn't willing to give that deal given two teen girls died. A defense atty can't make a client plead guilty. The defense atty has to work with what their client allows.

It's a tough job psychologically (to be a crimal defenseatty). I thought about doing it, but wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing I helped guilty people go free. Too much catholic guilt in me. Lots of catholic prosecutors because they grew up with clear black and white thinking.

thus.

Don't attorney's have rights on which clients to take and which not to? I don't understand why I am supposed to be impressed by some guy just because he's willing to throw darts at a wall blindly and hope they hit.

He's not blindly throwing darts. Every person has the RIGHT to a defense. While Oakton's speed is a huge factor in this case, it's not the only factor.

Let's think. What are the odds that if you drive 80+ mph in an area that has crosswalks and intersections you might kill or injure someone? Oh well, so innocent some people died. Let's try to get the killer off.

There's a lot of gray between those two goal posts.

Like, 60mph would have been absolutely fine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are very few who know the conversation that occurred between Greenspun and his client (and parents who I assume are paying the bill)

But we can have a pretty good idea, if he's a high end defense atty whose main concern is not for the victims and their families...

The parents would not be privy to the conversations.

And, ethically, the defense attorney’s job is to be concerned with his client’s best interests and constitutional rights. That’s a foundational part of our country. The defendant has the right to counsel.

Ethics? Sure.

Yes. Ethics. Our system is set up so that each party has a lawyer representing their own interest. The jury considers all the information and decides. If one party has a lawyer concerned with the interest of more than just his party, then the system doesn't work correctly. The jury will get skewed information and will have difficulty deciding fairly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are very few who know the conversation that occurred between Greenspun and his client (and parents who I assume are paying the bill)

But we can have a pretty good idea, if he's a high end defense atty whose main concern is not for the victims and their families...

The parents would not be privy to the conversations.

And, ethically, the defense attorney’s job is to be concerned with his client’s best interests and constitutional rights. That’s a foundational part of our country. The defendant has the right to counsel.

Ethics? Sure.

Yes. Ethics. Our system is set up so that each party has a lawyer representing their own interest. The jury considers all the information and decides. If one party has a lawyer concerned with the interest of more than just his party, then the system doesn't work correctly. The jury will get skewed information and will have difficulty deciding fairly.

I understand well about the need for a fair, robust defense. I completely disagree that defense lawyers should try to pin blame on others and/or get a light sentence for the client who has obviously committed a crime. Feel free to rationalize helping to get lighter sentences for those who commit crimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't poop on Greenspun. He's doing his job. I'm mad that Usman took this to trial. He didn't take responsibility for his actions. I'm sure he was only willing to plea to "no jail time" and the prosecution wasn't willing to give that deal given two teen girls died. A defense atty can't make a client plead guilty. The defense atty has to work with what their client allows.

It's a tough job psychologically (to be a crimal defenseatty). I thought about doing it, but wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing I helped guilty people go free. Too much catholic guilt in me. Lots of catholic prosecutors because they grew up with clear black and white thinking.

thus.

Don't attorney's have rights on which clients to take and which not to? I don't understand why I am supposed to be impressed by some guy just because he's willing to throw darts at a wall blindly and hope they hit.

He's not blindly throwing darts. Every person has the RIGHT to a defense. While Oakton's speed is a huge factor in this case, it's not the only factor.

Let's think. What are the odds that if you drive 80+ mph in an area that has crosswalks and intersections you might kill or injure someone? Oh well, so innocent some people died. Let's try to get the killer off.

There's a lot of gray between those two goal posts.

Like, 60mph would have been absolutely fine

It is an interesting question - at what speed would the physics be different to the extent that the impacts would not have been fatal?

[Anonymous]

We are now going to a 40 minute lunch break!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are now going to a 40 minute lunch break!

We? Are you a juror??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are very few who know the conversation that occurred between Greenspun and his client (and parents who I assume are paying the bill)

But we can have a pretty good idea, if he's a high end defense atty whose main concern is not for the victims and their families...

The parents would not be privy to the conversations.

And, ethically, the defense attorney’s job is to be concerned with his client’s best interests and constitutional rights. That’s a foundational part of our country. The defendant has the right to counsel.

Ethics? Sure.

Yes. Ethics. Our system is set up so that each party has a lawyer representing their own interest. The jury considers all the information and decides. If one party has a lawyer concerned with the interest of more than just his party, then the system doesn't work correctly. The jury will get skewed information and will have difficulty deciding fairly.

I understand well about the need for a fair, robust defense. I completely disagree that defense lawyers should try to pin blame on others and/or get a light sentence for the client who has obviously committed a crime. Feel free to rationalize helping to get lighter sentences for those who commit crimes.

You can't be a successful defense lawyer if your drop your client when he rejects your advice to plead guilty. That said, we don't know the circumstances here. It's possible the CA never made a good offer; I can see them feeling pressure to get a stiff sentence in this case, given the publicity. If their offer wasn't much better than what Shahid would likely get after a trial, gambling on a not-guilty verdict could make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't poop on Greenspun. He's doing his job. I'm mad that Usman took this to trial. He didn't take responsibility for his actions. I'm sure he was only willing to plea to "no jail time" and the prosecution wasn't willing to give that deal given two teen girls died. A defense atty can't make a client plead guilty. The defense atty has to work with what their client allows.

It's a tough job psychologically (to be a crimal defenseatty). I thought about doing it, but wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing I helped guilty people go free. Too much catholic guilt in me. Lots of catholic prosecutors because they grew up with clear black and white thinking.

thus.

Don't attorney's have rights on which clients to take and which not to? I don't understand why I am supposed to be impressed by some guy just because he's willing to throw darts at a wall blindly and hope they hit.

He's not blindly throwing darts. Every person has the RIGHT to a defense. While Oakton's speed is a huge factor in this case, it's not the only factor.

Let's think. What are the odds that if you drive 80+ mph in an area that has crosswalks and intersections you might kill or injure someone? Oh well, so innocent some people died. Let's try to get the killer off.

There's a lot of gray between those two goal posts.

Like, 60mph would have been absolutely fine

It is an interesting question - at what speed would the physics be different to the extent that the impacts would not have been fatal?

I guess - 35. The other car would turn, and he would stop on red.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are now going to a 40 minute lunch break!

We? Are you a juror??

No, but we are waiting the room told us to come back in 40 minutes.

[Anonymous]

I just overheard that the CA could’ve done more of closing.