franznietzsche said:
It is. I've argued many times that the justice system here has serious problems, but 9 timesout of 10 the response i get is: well its better than the alternative! Which really irritates me. What alternative? As opposed to an actually good system?
The concept of innocent until proven guilty just seems to go against human nature I think. How many of you will pass someone being led away in handcuffs by cops and not think, "I wonder what he did wrong?" Do you ever question, "Gee, I wonder if that guy really did what he's being arrested for?" And now we have the same people sitting on juries. Look how easily people can be led to believe evidence exists where there is none, and you start to see the flaws in the system.
I watched some Court TV once upon a time (or some show like that where they tape actual court proceedings). The density of the lawyers was so incredibly frustrating to me. I remember this one lawyer dancing all around a question, asking 10 different things, when there was one clear question that kept jumping into my mind...just answer that one question and your innocence would be obvious (or maybe that person wasn't innocent, so they lawyer purposely avoided the question...I don't know). I don't know how the jury could have decided the case, because the lawyers never asked any of what I thought were the right questions to get straight to the heart of the matter. Maybe they are too busy grand-standing for the cameras on those shows.
I'm just so afraid that's what's going to happen to tribdog. The lawyers and the jury are going to look at his signature and thumbprint on the back of that check and jump to the conclusion he's guilty, when the burden of proof for this case is to show he knew it was a forgery. Is it his handwriting on the "Pay to" line? Or in the "amount" line? If the check cashing place didn't immediately recognize it as a forgery when that's their job to check, how could he have known what to look for? There is no way you can prove he knew it was a forgery when he accepted it and cashed it.
Actually, one thing that might help is that he's used this particular check-cashing place before for his paychecks. It might be suspicious if he never used the place before and then decided that one time to take it to a new place. But if that was his regular venue for cashing checks, it would help show there was nothing unusual about this pattern, that he wasn't going out of his way to avoid recognition, or anything like that.
When you use a check cashing place like that, don't you need to give them an address or something? Afterall, wouldn't they want a way to contact you if there was a problem with the check? If so, shouldn't they have tried contacting you to notify you of the problem?
Who is the one pressing the charges anyway? The check cashing place, or the person whose check was forged, or both? One piece of important evidence would be to show the handwriting on the check "Pay to" line doesn't belong to either the rightful account owner or tribdog, but to the third party who forged the check.
Look into how the original case was dismissed too. Was it dismissed without prejudice, or just dismissed? In the former, that leaves it open to have charges re-filed, but otherwise, you shouldn't be able to be charged more than once for the same thing. If it was dismissed, that should be the end of it. Look carefully how the records reflect the case being dismissed.
The lamentings of JimmyP the last time tribdog disappeared on him just returned to memory, so I had to say it. 
Just don't drop the soap! 
Where will I go for humor if he goes to prison? I've grown fond of the pup!
