The Trial of James Holmes

Certainly there are cases where the evidence is thin and questionable. But there are also cases where the evidence is overwhelming and the investigation becomes more of a circus show than a legal performance of duty.


Bear in mind as you read this that the opinions stated are solely those of Frank Borelli and do not in any way represent the opinions or thoughts of Cygnus Business Media, Officer.com, any of its employees, associates or representatives.  Now that I’ve got that legal stuff out of the way, I’m typing this morning to rant about… well… legal stuff… kinda.

Our nation along with people being fed the news around the world watched yesterday as reporters on every channel reported and commented on the horrific events at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado where one psycho shot over 70 people, killing 12 and wounding all the rest.  His victims were aged as young as three years old.  I’ve seen observations on various social sites about how the parents were wrong to have children so young at a PG-13 movie being shown at midnight.  Really? Agree or disagree, don’t you think that’s a conversation best held another time?  Separate from discussion of the heinous crimes James Holmes committed?

Yes, I said he committed them.  I didn’t say “alleged suspect,” or “accused gunman.”  I said James Holmes shot all those people.  And therein lies the genesis of this particular blog.  It was observed this morning that it would be difficult to find an unbiased jury at any future time regarding this incident.  You think?  (DUH!)  It was observed this morning that James Holmes is OBVIOUSLY insane and will OBVIOUSLY use that defense.  You think?  I’m not so sure…  Just because he committed a series of crimes that moral people find viscerally offensive and wrong does not mean that he was insane.  He was a PhD candidate with (reportedly) intact social interaction skills and no issues getting on with his daily life.  That he knew right from wrong is probably not arguable.

Still, some defense lawyer will take his case, for some huge sum of money, and hire a psychologist, for some huge sum of money, and they’ll do all they can to twist facts and observations to impress a jury, itself in the limelight simply by being on that particular jury, that James Holmes was insane and incapable of NOT committing this unfathomable series of crimes.

Now I’m going to make three observations that are, again, just my opinion.  I invite you to comment below.

One: no defense attorney in the world should take this case in an attempt to get James Holmes off.  There is no doubt that he committed those crimes.  He did, with malice aforethought, booby trap his apartment prior to leaving it; arm himself and travel to that theater; enter, set off an incendiary device of some type, and then began shooting people.  It was reported that he shot many in the back even as they ran away, trying to get out of the theater.  What a coward.  Worse is the defense attorney who takes this case, purely for the purpose of lining his pockets with cash, in an attempt to have James Holmes found not guilty.  And in general there is my observation/complaint: it is not the job of any defense attorney to get his (or her) client found not guilty.  Certainly that is the expectation of the accused, but it’s not the defense attorney’s job. The job of the defense attorney is to insure that the prosecution has and does obey the rules of law from the moment the accused is arrested to his (or her) presentation for trial and then throughout the course of the court prosecution.  I submit to you that any defense attorney who, knowing of his client’s guilt, attempts to have said client found not guilty is morally corrupt and serves as an accessory to the crime after the fact.

This content continues onto the next page...
301 Moved Permanently

Moved Permanently

The document has moved here.