Lots of Lawyers Mad at [Bill] O'Reilly

FoxNews ^ | Thursday, July 25, 2002 | Bill O'Reilly

[Michael2001]

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.

[scalia_#1]

LOL! That has to be one of the best non-answers I've ever gotten!

[Stone Mountain]

I can only refer to your original reply to me:

The defense lawyer's duty is to defend his client to the best of his ability under the law.

I'm not trying to distort your overall position, but the above sentence says nothing about guilt. "Defend to the best of his ability" (which presumably may include such tactics as I've alluded to) can easily be interpreted as meaning that the goal is to get the client off, regardless of other considerations.

Did you miss the last three words of what I said? Under the Law. The law does not allow a defense attorney to lie in court, allow a witness to perjure himself, and there are a bunch of other rules that a defense lawyer must follow to be with the confines of the law. See post 112 for details of this.

[parsifal]

Nonsense. Cases get dismissed all the time. If a lawyer files a frivoulous suit, the other lawyer can make the bad lawyer pay his (the good lawyer's) fees and cost. The problem is that people outside the "system" see a real distorted image of what goes on. Quit watching TV and visit a few courtrooms and watch some trials. You'll be surprised. parsy.

[oldironsides]

Criminal defense lawyers are pond scum until you have a little underage drinker that hits a tree and kills his best chum. People usually do not need a lawyer but when they do
they are as meek as anything. It is really interesting to listen to a parent explain how this kid is such a good kid and " I don't want him in jail" and please help him. Oh by the way, he had been smoking just one joint. He isn't too
nasty to his mother, only when she picks on him. Yadda yadda yadda.......it is all the lawyers fault....we hear it all the time. The best lawyer hater is the guy calling up the secretary and telling her he does not want an appointment, he just wants to talk to the lawyer a minute and ask him a few questions......................You should look into the world of the whacky clients. There are some real strange coo coo birds out there and the lawyers are bound by silence on client matters. The best hypocrites of all are the ones that say "my child would never.........."
Ya right.

[Dog Gone]

We probably are more in agreement than our discussion might indicate. However, my point is that it is not nearly as black and white as some on this thread might wish to believe.

While I am strongly opposed to any attorney attempting to create an impression that is knowingly false (much less attempt to blatantly deceive) in defense of his client, attempting to get a guilty client off the hook may very well be serving "justice."

[Mamzelle]

Losing lawyer pays, and that's a common end to frivolous suits? Heehee. In Fairyland, maybe. There's a world of wiggle in making the judgement of "frivolous"--and a judge is a lawyer, too.

That's like the ACLU's posturing that they do their work for "free" when the judge generally awards them "reasonable and customary" fees upon prevailing. The ACLU is just a plaintiff's racket (like Rutherford and ACLJ, too, BTW), only the public doesn't know it. They think pro bono means pro bono.

[Jhoffa_]

Every American lawyer has the right to withdraw from a case if, quote, "the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant."

Well, there's the rub..

:)

[parsifal]

No. The common end to frivoulous suits is that they get dismissed thru summary judgment. parsy.

[Dog Gone]

That would be the first question I asked! "...listen, I am your lawyer, and no matter what you say to me I can't say it outside of this room. So, knowing that, I need to know what exactly happened that night, and if you were a part of that..."

That certainly is the temptation, but it possibly prevents a lawyer from presenting the best defense for that client.

Generally, an attorney will assess the evidence the prosecution has, and ask his client if he wants to plead guilty and plea bargain, because the evidence is so strong. But the last thing the attorney wants to hear is a confession from his client and a demand that he fight the charges in court.

The reason is that the attorney is bound by the code of ethics from presenting false testimony, but only if he knows it is false. If the client tells you that he killed the victim, and you believe it, you can't put on testimony from an alibi witness who claims the person was somewhere else.

Many, if not most, attorneys believe that they can put on a better defense if they don't know the truth.

[RWG]

I'm sure there are some fine lawyers out there...no there aren't, Coulter is a commentator. I work with lawyer and although we have been friends for 25 years when he assumes the role of attorney he is a slime ball, just like all the rest of them.

I've had cause to rent a couple of these scumbags over the years. Every time they start something they say its up to you, what do you want to do, and then they go and do what it is they want to do for the most part and if it doesn't work out they say well I did what you wanted. More than one of them has said, if you say I said this I will deny it. Playing both sides for the benefit of their bank accounts.

[william clark]

No, I didn't miss those three words. To get back to one of my main points, "under the law" allows a lawyer to engage in a variety of manipulations which, while legal, may serve the client at the expense of actual justice. Again, it comes down to what one is able to do as opposed to what one is duty-bound to do. Johnny Cochran did all sorts of things "under the law" that subverted justice. I contend that he was not duty-bound to do everything he did.

[william clark]

As you say, we are probably more in agreement than not. It comes down to the distinction between "law," which may change, and the higher concept of "justice," which I hope does not. A blatant violation of the law in order to secure conviction for a breach of a minor one is not something I would call justice.

[grasshopper]

Try again.

Here I go again.
The numbers are merciless ‘cause they make you consider how many more WILL BE acquitted, how many of those executed were not guilty. And besides, these are statistics for the CONVICTED ones not for defendants who appear in court. Got calculator?

O’Reilly is a dumb ass to blame the verdict on the defense attorney.

[Iron Eagle]

Well -- it is possible that your state has different rules. It may also be that they follow the model rules, which are less onerous than many other states. In the Virginia, under Rule 3.3, Candor to the Tribunal, an lawyer may not knowingly offer false evidence to the Court. He is required, if that evidence is to be offered by his client, to first attempt to persuade that client not to offer the evidence. If that does not work, he must take remdial measures. That, essentially is interpreted to mean that he must withdraw. (though sometimes withdraw may not be allowed giving rise to disclosure). His duty to of candor trumps, though he need not always disclose the false evidence.

Now, I will concede, that if you know your client did it, "for sure" as O'Reilly says, and he does not attempt to offer false evidence or testimony, then you need not withdraw. Of course, it would seem that the case would not be very strong. Clearly, O'Reilly insinuates, and I proceeded from his insinuation, that the attorney knowingly provided support and evidence to a client who he knew was guilty and offering false evidence in defense. (Of course, O'Reilly is an idiot, and doesn't know anything about the case accept what his intern digs-up).

But, in Virginia, at least, you cannot knowingly offer false evidence. In fact, if you know that the criminal defendant is offering perjurious testimoney, the lawyer "MUST" reveal the perjurous testimony if necessary to rectify the situation.

[DugwayDuke]

Thanks for the answer.

This little hypothetical is not original. It's from a videotaped series on ethics done by the Annenburg Policy Institute (I believe) in the late seventies or early eighties. I won't share the answers given in the seminar at this time since I'd like to compare answers to those given by the participants. I will give those answers later.

BTW, on another thread where I posed the same question, the response was that since it was a civil case, there was no right to an attorney, therefore the lawyer had no obligation to discredit or impeach the witness. I really think that was a clever dodge so I'd like to change the hypothetical to a criminal case, let's make it criminal negligence.

Since you used to discuss ethics with attorneys, I'm sure you see how this case can present an ethical problem. I used to hang out with some attorneys as well. I must say I could not share their ethical standards. These standards seem to be that as long as you did not lie directly, or allow you client to lie, you were completely ethical. That your only other obligation was to the client.

Some on this thread have said things I find troubling. Such as blaming the other attorney or the jury for either not adequately preparing the client for their attack or the jury for not seeing through their subterfuges. I find that very self-serving as it can be used to justify almost all tactics.

I'm also troubled by the claim that the jury is the ultimate standard for truth. Truth exists independent of the juries verdict, particularly when that jury has been influenced by the arguments. To say otherwise is also a self-serving argument used to justify various tactics.

[Dead Dog]

Is he manipulating the system?

Of course not, he is defending his client by the letter of the law. He is attacking the basis of argument, not making baseless accusations about the personal lives of the witness.

Now, had the coppers served a warrant, all of these things transpired, and the lawyer claimed space monkeys flew out of a circus elephant's behind and planted the pot plants for medical purposes. that would be a fabrication.

This isn't about lawyers insisting on due process, it's about going beyond the call of duty so they can score another W with no regards to the damage done to the judicial system.

I've seen a public defender claim his client had "Demons Inside", trying to get a minimum sentence for an attempted murderer. By the way, the defendant had stabbed my fiancé in the throat three times, attempted to solicit her murder from jail, and told prosecutors that he still wanted to kill her....on the day of his sentencing.

That's a little different then getting off on a gross violation of the 4th amendment. What was a game for this lawyer was determining whether or not my wife or I would have a fight to the death in the near future. This is serious, and it is real.

Some lawyers don't seem to appreciate the power they command, and some really don't have the integrity to handle it. It should be a noble profession.

[Dead Dog]

Therefore, malpractice must precede a malpractice suit. A defective product must precede a products liability lawsuit.

Man, you have to know better than this.

[FatherTorque]

I'm sure there are some fine lawyers out there...no there aren't, Coulter is a commentator. I work with lawyer and although we have been friends for 25 years when he assumes the role of attorney he is a slime ball, just like all the rest of them.

You and O'reilly are both effing idiots!  I've stayed out of this thread up until now, but I've had enough of this crap.  

My brother and my sister-in-law are both criminal defense attorneys, specifically they are public defenders.  They work long hours for little pay, and they defend whoever gets dropped in their lap because that's their job.  They defend people they know are guilty because the constitution says EVERYONE gets legal representation and they defend their clients as hard as they can because to do less would be the same as spitting on the constitution.  

No matter what airheads like you think, it's the job of the prosecutor to ensure that the guilty go to jail, the job of the defense attorney is defend his client to the best of his ability.  You all want somebody to be mad at in the OJ trial, try Marcia Clark and that bunch of dunderheads that tried to prosecute him. 

[Dog Gone]

While I agree with your point, I'm not sure you're making the argument effectively.

The real question is "what percentage of those accused of a crime and brought to trial are actually innocent?" Despite the recent examples in Illinois, the answer is "not many." Over a period covering several decades of murder trials, we know of only 13 in Illinois, and that is because of the development of DNA evidence. I have no idea how many total cases were brought to trial, but 13 surely represents a small fraction of them. I would also have to assume that DNA is being used to clear suspects in new cases, so this number probably represents a one-time event.

Having said that, your point is still perfectly valid. Suspects who strongly maintain their innocence continue to be brought to trial for all sorts of crimes, and the evidence may seem overwhelming to the prosecution. That is no guarantee that the suspect committed the crime. Innocent people have been convicted of crimes in this country, and there's no reason to believe that no future mistakes will be made.

Even the hardcore attorney-haters on this thread might agree that an attorney who believes his client is innocent should employ every trick in the book to ensure that his client doesn't go to prison (or even be executed) for something he didn't do.

[Dead Dog]

If no shadow of doubt exists, then it is impossible to cast this shadow.

This sounds good, but it inherently false. That's why witnesses are attacked when their testimony can't be refuted. Some lawyers seem to thing their job is the divorce common sense from society. When they succeed, they subvert the judicial system.