Posted on 07/25/2002 12:23:41 PM PDT by Michael2001
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:34:15 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Well, I've got many American lawyers angry with me, and that is the subject of this evening's Talking Points memo.
Item, Alejandro Avila, the accused killer of 5-year-old Samantha Runnion, was charged with molesting two 9-year-old girls two years ago, went to trial, and was acquitted.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
And most plead guilty prior to trial- all of the focus of the critics seems to be on the 10% or less that reach trial. A defense attorney who knew his client was guilty would attempt to set up a plea bargain, since trials usually favor the prosecution. This "crisis" is overblown, IMO. There will always be error in any system run by humans.
That would only support your point if only 25 people were on death row, and all convicted criminals (regardless of crime) were sent to death row.
Try again.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "subversion." In an adversarial system, any lawyer who doesn't use all of the tools at his disposal to defend his client is guilty of malpractice. If a lawyer sees a legal way to advocate for his client, he MUST do so.
Pardon me, but this is precisely the premise which has brought us to where we are today and threatens to undermine the concept of justice well understood by the founding generation when they instituted our constitutional protections. It is the faulty premise promulgated by law schools and the Dershowitz's of the world, and it has nothing to do with doing justice or preserving the principles of our constitution.
It deals more with deception, distortion, and an "anything goes if it gets my client off" attitude, including inciting racial emotions, grasping at procedural straws that have nothing to do with guilt or innocence, and everything to do with putting "notches" on the defense attorney's gun for the greatest number of "wins" (call that "losses" for the society who must have these guilty criminals living in its midst).
How could anyone with a room temperature IQ be swayed by the flapping of their lying gums?
Even the good ones share this guilt to some degree, because they contribute to a system whose main thrust is to produce innocent verdicts for guilty defendants. If I were an attorney, I would practice corporate or real estate law, something that you could hope to be honest about, and that wouldn't result in my guilty client being let loose on the street, just to do more harm to yet another person. The last thing I would be is a trial lawyer. They are rotten, no matter how you try to justify them.
I much prefer the US "trial by jury," vs the European "code law" systems, where 3 judges decide your case, but you have to admit, if lawyers were up against experienced lawyers (judges), not braindead "peers" who can let Johnny Cochran persuade them to let a murderer "get off," they would be less of these travesties of justice. I know this: if the present system continues to decline, with more and more obvious guilty defendants getting innocent or reduced verdicts, the jury trial will be in danger of being lost, and that by a public that will have no choice but to dump it in order to have something that works, whether it is a better replacement or not.....
I grant that this is what the current standard is, but there are loopholes contained in it. First of all, it "under the law" has come to mean using any tactic legally available to get the client off, regardless of whether the client may actually be guilty or not. The point I was making is that the intent of "every man is entitled to a defense" has been subverted. I don't care what oath an attorney takes. In my view, his "duty" is to justice, not the particulars of a few recited paragraphs penned by whatever committee may have authority over the practice at any given point in time.
So in that respect, I reject the notion that an attorney has a duty to do everything legally permissible to get his client off. He may have the ability, or even the right. But his duty is only to see that his client, be it O.J. or Condit or one of these child murderers, is not convicted unjustly (fabricated evidence, lying witnesses, etc.). You cannot tell me that an attorney's duty is to try and set a guilty man free, though your statement allows for that.
I had a conversation with a coworker once who said that it would be impossible for any prosecutor to prove a case "beyond a reasonable doubt" to him. I could not come up with a scenario where he would admit that there was not reasonable doubt. I just don't understand some people.
LOL - who are you, Ned Flanders?
Nonetheless parsy, high-powered McDonald attorneys had to jump through hoops and cut side deals in order to purportedly extricate their client from this massive fraud...
Quite frankly the die has been cast my friend and for good reason -- greedy hyper-litigious lawyers are solely responsible for sky-rocketed insurance costs while at the same time having scamming their "fair share" of billions in the name of "liability" at every turn...
And did I mention how they've managed to subvert the law (read ACLU)and the Constitution?
O'reilly can't even get his arguments right. The law doesn't require that a lawyer not commit an immoral act. But, the code of ethics does require that if you know "for sure" your client is guilty, you must withdraw. In states, you must also, under your duty of candor to the Court, report the client if you know he or she is giving perjurious testimony. And, further, if you assist in a fraud on the Court, you may face charges as well.
Many lawyers do tread the line on these rules. And, frankly, many leap over that line. Of course, O'Reilly makes no allegation that such a situation took place here. He looks at the current case, and has the luxury of hind-sight to go back and assume the facts and evidence were clear and true in that case. Let's be clear, O'Reilly was not on that jury, so he doesn't know what the facts were that the jury was entitled to evaluate. Man, what a baffoon he is.
With respect to his "repugnant" argument, he's even a bigger fool. Of course a lawyer may refuse to accept representation of a case. Frankly, our system of justice is made great by the lawyers who take these horrible cases. If we cannot provide a defense for the unpopular, our basis of law crumbles.
Lawyers also have a duty to zealously represent their clients. They have a duty and obligation to explore every defense. Failing that duty, we have a system that rubber-stamps all who are indicted. As far as confusing the jury goes, the job of counsel is to discredit, where possible, the evidence against a defendant. Counsel's first job is to make sure no evidence is offered that is not accepted under the rules. For instance, while Bill prays at the alter of the lie detector, it is evidence that simply is not admissable. Why, because it is not scientifically sound to pass muster as reliable evidence. That's in every court. While it may be a good investigative tool, and while some experts may use it better than others, it is generally too unreliable to be used in a criminal proceeding where the standard for guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt.
Of course, the federal rules of evidence, established by legal scholars, years of case law, the common law, the constitutional principles, and our elected legislators, could be wrong. Maybe they all should just consult O'Reilly.
With respect to O'Reilly's argument on the 9 year-old girls, he is wrong again. Counsel had an obligation to test the credibility of those witnesses. If they had inconsistent stories, different facts, holes in their memories, or facts that could not stand scrutiny, counsel had an obligation to point out those facts, and to make that argument to a jury. If he had not, the defednat would have had grounds for appeal as his counsel might have supplied him insufficient assistance of counsel. Result, he walks or gets a new trial anyway.
Listen, this guy who kidnapped, raped, and killed this girl should die, if convicted, after a fair trail. And, I join the ranks of millions who would love to see him die if convicted. But I have a bit too much respect for that Constitution O'Reilly references, to deny the man his right to competent counsel, committed to represent him zealously, within the bounds of the law and the code of ethics.
Our freedom is based upon, and our country is made great not by those willing to stand-up for and treat fairly the sympathetic victim, but rather by our willingness, no matter how we feel, to provide those same rights to those we loathe. That's what many lawyers do, and frankly, many do it for far less than one might think. Everyday, in every jurisdiction, public defenders, and local bread & butter attorneys, represent poor and indigent accused, and they do so without glory, fanfare or dollars. There are very few O.J.'s out there. Most accused criminals have little money, less education, and poor support. Their lawyers are paid, if at all, by the State. That's the reality of criminal defense. I don't do it. I, in fact elect not to do it as O'Reilly suggests. But I at least recognize its value to our system, and I am thankful for those who do it. And, I'll put my conservative credentials up there with anyone. Including Bill O'Reilly.
So, as the attorney in Post #77, you would advise your client to forget about that silly constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and plead guilty?
Uh oh, I've been busted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.