So is being accused of killing someone while driving drunk. Specially after already getting a confession from someone else, and then having that other person suddenly recant it after having a talk in private with the cops and his boss. 
So is being accused of killing someone while driving drunk. Specially after already getting a confession from someone else, and then having that other person suddenly recant it after having a talk in private with the cops and his boss. [/quote]
ok mate you know a lot about this. I donāt see why this is getting posted on here anyways. Good luck to the guy if he is inncoent and if he is gulty well I feel sorry for all concerned anyways.
[quote=āfenlanderā][quote=āCharlie Jackā]Now, donāt you be whuppin no kungfu on me, fenlander, or whatever that stuff is you know; Iām willing to be corrected if Iāve misunderstood:
[quote=āOn March 28, fenlanderā]he took another human life not money or property a life and a human one. Whether accidentally or not this is really screwed up.[/quote] Foreigner in a Mercedes involved in hit and run - #43 by fenlander
So it was all right to form an opinion about Mr. Deanās guiltāno need to wait for more information?
But one shouldnāt rush to judgment about his innocence, or about the conduct of the police? One should be patient and wait for more information?
By the way, Iām waiting for more information, too. But I was also waiting for more information back then. I dunno, maybe you just havenāt been wrong about as many things as I have. 
As for Northcoast Surfer, maybe he was just acting the way a good defense attorney would act back in the U.S. of A.:
[quote=āConcerning counsel for defendant, U. S. Supreme Court Justice Byron Whiteā]Our interest in not convicting the innocent permits counsel to put the State to its proof, to put the Stateās case in the worst possible light, regardless of what he thinks or knows to be the truth. Undoubtedly there are some limits which defense counsel must observe but more often than not, defense counsel will cross-examine a prosecution witness, and impeach him if he can, even if he thinks the witness is telling the truth, just as he will attempt to destroy a witness who he thinks is lying. In this respect, as part of our modified adversary system and as part of the duty imposed on the most honorable defense counsel, we countenance or require conduct which in many instances has little, if any, relation to the search for truth.[/quote]āU.S. v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) (concurring and dissenting in part)
You know, as a partial counterweight to all the prosecutorial-type posts.[/quote]
No kung fu lol 
But could you translate that last section into plain English for me ? :roflmao: Iām not kidding it is very confusing legal talk. Put it in jury language please [/quote]
I think heās saying that in a courtroom a defense attorney is allowed to go a little beyond the Marquess of Queensbury Rulesāthat since the power of the State is arrayed against the defendant, his lawyer is allowed, and even sometimes obligated, to be somewhat of a mean, unfair bastard, within limits. In other words, if he were a boxer, heād be the kind that was rumored to be a little bit of a dirty fighter, and heās supposed to be that way (again, within limits).
And heās also saying that thatās why a criminal trial is not like a scientific discussion.
Of course, some people in the legal profession may disagree with the late Justice White about that. But I agree with him, at least for our (i. e., the U. S.) system.
Yes, it is a drink driving case, but it is also VERY MUCH a vice-related case, because so far it boils down to the word of Dean versus the word of a hostess bar (aka brothel or quasi-brothel) employee and perhaps its owners or powerful patrons. Which do you suppose is more likely to have connections or sway with the cops? (I say āso farā because we are all still waiting to see any hard evidence in the case.)
Thatās more true in an adversarial system where the goal of achieving procedural justice has a higher priority than it does in Taiwan and other Continental systems. Here (in Taiwan) the emphasis is very much on the search for the truth and many lawyers here will not represent defendants they know have committed crimes.
I still think you misread NC Surfer, fenlander. He simply said that Mr. Dean was right to be leery of that particular police station, and to support his sentiments, he posted evidence that there are corrupted law officers who are stationed there. Maybe you need to read his post again under that light. 
This is part of what he said or did i get confused with all the multiple quoting
" I wonder how many of the indicted officers in this story had a hand in investigating / interrogating / coercing / lying / setting up and framing Mr. Dean for the hit and run accident which tragically claimed Mr. Huangās life, for which Mr. Dean is innocent!"
If he had said āPerhaps it should be established if any of those officers were involved with the questioning and investigating of Mr Dean over his alleged involvement in a hit and run incidentā then it would have come across as very different in my eyes anyway.
There are many known cases where admissible evidence was withheld from publications. It all depend on how thoughtful the statement is and on how much foresight was put into it.
A defense attorneyās goal is to protect the rights of the defendant from any abuse of power by the state and to make the state prove its case. The defense attorney certainly should play by the rules.
A defense attorneyās goal is to protect the rights of the defendant from any abuse of power by the state and to make the state prove its case. The defense attorney certainly should play by the rules.[/quote]
I think my post originally started this flap, for which I apologize. Hereās the quote from my post:
[quote=āConcerning counsel for defendant, U. S. Supreme Court Justice Byron Whiteā]Our interest in not convicting the innocent permits counsel to put the State to its proof, to put the Stateās case in the worst possible light, regardless of what he thinks or knows to be the truth. Undoubtedly there are some limits which defense counsel must observe but more often than not, defense counsel will cross-examine a prosecution witness, and impeach him if he can, even if he thinks the witness is telling the truth, just as he will attempt to destroy a witness who he thinks is lying. In this respect, as part of our modified adversary system and as part of the duty imposed on the most honorable defense counsel, we countenance or require conduct which in many instances has little, if any, relation to the search for truth.[/quote]āU.S. v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) (concurring and dissenting in part)
I was asked for an explanation of the above, and while I feel I did my best, I admit that I probably didnāt explain it adequately.
What I meant was that the rules supposedly allow a defense attorney to do things that most people would think must be against the rules, for (a perhaps extreme) example, the lawyer(s) who upon being advised of the location of the bodies their client had buried, dug them up, photographed them, and reburied them. I think most people, and maybe most lawyers, would think there was something terribly wrong with that, but a court held that it was acceptable.
Additionally, thereās a defense lawyer in my hometown who in his younger day used to be jailed for contempt from time to time during criminal proceedings, and from what I heard, heād come out of the jailhouse as feisty as when he got cited. All things considered, I cannot say as a general matter that that sort of thing is wrong in all cases (in fact, I canāt help but admire that lawyerās courage). But itās not exactly playing by the rules. Now, that doesnāt mean I advocate wholesale disregard of the rules, but this lawyer openly violated the rule in question (except for the time that the state supreme court held that the judge who had issued the contempt citation, and not the cited lawyer, had been in the wrong).
Sorry to disagree, Tigerman (if I am disagreeing), but I feel strongly about this.
[A little note to the mods: Maybe you think this is off-topic, and Iāll take my lumps for that, but I think itās relevant. In this thread Feiren brought up the āContinental Systemā used in Europe. I remember years ago reading about āIl Mostro,ā the nickname given a serial killer in Italy. Italy has an inquisitorial (āContinentalā) system of criminal justice. In the article I read, the authorities were on their fifth Il Mostro. Every time theyād convict one, these signature-type murders would continue, so theyād release the person theyād convicted. Some time after reading the article, I read that theyād also released Il Mostro Number Five. This type of system is supposed to be a āsearch for the truth.ā Seems the authorities missed a spot or two.
Up until recently, the ROC had a āsearch for the truthā type system, and I suspect they still have one. The other system, the adversarial system, is flawed, too, but its very nature is an acknowledgment of its flaws, and of the fact that every system is flawed because itās implemented by human beings. The ācome, let us reason together in search of the truthā type system makes me suspicious, and nervous.]
Am I right in thinking that ZD still hasnāt been formally charged with anything yet?
No. He has been indicted, barred from leaving the country, and is now on trial. Prosecutors are asking for two years.
Interesting. If the burden of proof lies with ZD to prove his innocence, then the outlook isnāt good. But if the burden of proof lies with prosecutors to supply physical evidence putting him in the driverās seat at the time of the accident, then ZD may well walk away from this.
In my understanding, in Taiwan, the burden of proof of guilt lies with the prosecutors, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless that burden is met. Physical evidence would be a powerful tool to persuade the judges, but if there is an abundance of other kinds of evidence, I believe āphysical evidenceā may not be essential.
(I hope one of our lawyer members, or others more knowledgable about Taiwan criminal procedure than I, will chime in and correct me if Iām wrong about this.)
In my understanding, in Taiwan, the burden of proof of guilt lies with the prosecutors, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless that burden is met. Physical evidence would be a powerful tool to persuade the judges, but if there is an abundance of other kinds of evidence, I believe āphysical evidenceā may not be essential.
(I hope one of our lawyer members, or others more knowledgable about Taiwan criminal procedure than I, will chime in and correct me if Iām wrong about this.)[/quote]
Iām no legal expert, but I do remember reading in newspaper articles (if they are to be trusted) that Taiwanese judges give little or no weight to statements from witnesses and that either physical evidence or a confession is required for a conviction.
In my understanding, in Taiwan, the burden of proof of guilt lies with the prosecutors, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless that burden is met. Physical evidence would be a powerful tool to persuade the judges, but if there is an abundance of other kinds of evidence, I believe āphysical evidenceā may not be essential.
(I hope one of our lawyer members, or others more knowledgable about Taiwan criminal procedure than I, will chime in and correct me if Iām wrong about this.)[/quote]
Iām no legal expert, but I do remember reading in newspaper articles (if they are to be trusted) that Taiwanese judges give little or no weight to statements from witnesses and that either physical evidence or a confession is required for a conviction.[/quote]
Iād be very intrested to know if that was true. So if person A hits person B in front of three witnesses but there is no CCTV or DNA evidence then it will likely get thrown out ? mmmm
Iāve seen in person one instance of weight being given to the statements of a witness in a civil case here.
In my understanding, in Taiwan, the burden of proof of guilt lies with the prosecutors, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless that burden is met. Physical evidence would be a powerful tool to persuade the judges, but if there is an abundance of other kinds of evidence, I believe āphysical evidenceā may not be essential.
(I hope one of our lawyer members, or others more knowledgable about Taiwan criminal procedure than I, will chime in and correct me if Iām wrong about this.)[/quote]
Iām no legal expert, but I do remember reading in newspaper articles (if they are to be trusted) that Taiwanese judges give little or no weight to statements from witnesses and that either physical evidence or a confession is required for a conviction.[/quote]
Iād be very intrested to know if that was true. So if person A hits person B in front of three witnesses but there is no CCTV or DNA evidence then it will likely get thrown out ? mmmm[/quote]
No. Person B goes to hospital. Police get photos and a doctorās report, and those are filed as physical evidence. Iām not saying that statements from witnesses are ignored, but that on their own, they maybe given little or no weight. Of course they have value when supported by physical evidence.
Iāve seen in person one instance of weight being given to the statements of a witness in a civil case here.[/quote]
Fulfilling the burden of proof is generally much easier for civil cases because they do not require the same degree of certitude as criminal cases do. The three most common degrees of certitude are the most probable event, reasonable doubt, and beyond the shadow of a doubt. Civil cases only require reasonable doubt to fulfill the burden of proof whereas criminal cases require a higher degree of certitude beyond the shadow of a doubt.
There are CCTV cameras everywhere in Taipei (in the alleys, in front of banks etc)
Is it possible footage exists of of ZA and the driver getting out of the car, when the driver dropped him off?
Is it possible there is footage of the driver going back out onto the main road to hail a taxi or to get picked up?
This at least would place the driver in the car, or in the area of where ZD lives