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.

[jude24]

So what the heck are we supposed to do? There's a constitutional right to counsel -- and that needs to be held inviolate. Beats the heck out of the Soviet rubber-stamp system!

Everyone hates lawyers until they need them. It's a dirty job, someone has to do it.

If by having effective defense counsel, we ensure the integrity of the criminal justice system -- I'll take the current excesses over the alternative. The idea of a system that runs roughshod over the rights of the accused but innocent should scare the tar out of you FReepers.

[Dog Gone]

Wow. It's exactly that kind of situation that I couldn't handle as a defense attorney. Even though I intellectually understand that even scumballs are entitled to a vigorous defense, I simply couldn't be part of it. I would have to withdraw from the case because I couldn't be an effective attorney for the client.

But scumballs are entitled to the same constitutional rights as the rest of us, at least until a jury has rendered a verdict which takes away some of them. You didn't say, so I suspect the vigorous defense by this creep's attorney was to no avail. If so, that's the way the judicial system should work.

[justshe]

You aren't an attorney? You should be. I have very much enjoyed your posts on this thread. Do you work in the legal profession in some other capacity?

[2OOOll]

O’Reilly is like that fat guy blaming McDonalds for his obesity.

Bill O. shouting,
- Would you, would you, would you sell that person a Grease-Burger knowing?! knowing??!!! that he’s going to be fat when he eats it???!!!!!!

[loveliberty]

Perhaps all of us might benefit from a review of a Russell Kirk essay on the concept of justice understood by America's Founders which can be found at http://www.townhall.com/hall_of_fame/kirk/kirk457.html.

[Pharmboy]

The answer is, what about all the citizens who will be damaged if the gov't gets to do what it wants with people

You missed my point, all-knowing parsy. I was ranting against the lying, misleading, corrupting, defense attorneys who game the system to get the guilty off. I am not saying that we not allow people a defense.

In my world, OJ gets Mr Happy Needle. In your world he still gets to make his tee times. THAT'S the difference.

[gunnedah]

On OReilly awhile ago Attorney Napolianto seemed to say an attorney should not or would not represent a client if he knew he was guilty.He also said that a client would never admit guilt,I believe that like the cow that jumped over the moon riddle.Every lawyer will tell his client to tell him the truth and let him deal with it,plus nothing makes a lawyer madder at his client than for the client to say something from the stand that the lawyer hasnt been told.I truly believe most lawyers tell their clients not to admit guilt to them because of this situation.

[Pharmboy]

And FWIW, one of Perry Mason's clients was convicted. Sort of. See "The Case of The Terrified Typist." 1956, I think. parsy the all-knowing,

Ahhh...much better. One guilty client out of, say, 300. That's keeping it real--no agenda there. Thanks for straightening it out for me.

[gunnedah]

No because he is not under oath!

[TJFLSTRAT]

An attorney once told me that lawyers never lie.

[Pharmboy]

No--he is not manipulatying the system. That evidence never happened because the police were there illegally.

[gunnedah]

The jury renders the verdict but who determines what information a jury is given?In most cases another lawyer setting on the bench.A jury very seldom gets all of the facts.The court system is really a farce and your guilt or innocence is is predetermined by lawyers.The law protects the guilty a whole lot more than the innocent,but without this situation you and I would and could be left at the hands of unscrupulous police officers.So,what is it crooked cops or crooked lawyers.Regardless the truth loses out.

[Pharmboy]

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.

Oh puh-leeze. Any jury of objective people would've fried the mook. Clark and her team did a reasonable job. The jury was paying America back for racism--there was no "justice" there.

[OPS4]

the biggest oversite here is the fact that this animal is going on trial for what he has done to this victim, drumming up his past and the system that fails the victims everyday should not be on trial.

There exists no perfect system in this world, and the only justice we have that can afford us liberty is the one we have. If the laws need changing its the courts and the legislature that have to be fixed, the lawyers can only work within the law as layed out before them.

Time to get proper representation and judges elected and appointed, leave the lawyers out of it.
Ops4 God Bless America!

[Pharmboy]

GBA friend.

[TJFLSTRAT]

The OJ jury could'nt figure out how pack sand into a rat hole. The whole DNA evidence was over their heads, they had a collective I.Q. of a toaster.

[MadisonA]

I agree with O'Reilly and here is the point.
O'Reilly is saying defense attorneys go above and beyond the call of duty in defending guilty clients. Even to the point of making things up and stating false facts to confuse the jury. They don't really have to hire bogus experts, try to chip away at every piece of evidence, confuse the jury with things that have no relevance to the case and flat out lie. They even try to stack the jury with people who will be dumb enough to believe any B.S. the lawyer comes up with to get their client off.

The greed of lawyers for notoriety in winning cases by any means necessary for $$$$$$ is the problem.

The solution to all this is juries should start using common sense and stop listening to defense attorneys all together. Defense attorneys would soon be drowning in their own irrelevance. It is my opinion that 99% of defendants charged are guilty.

When I'm on a jury it is up to that defendant to prove to me they are not guilty, not the other way around. If they don't take the stand they're guilty. I don't believe in this not taking the stand to defend oneself crap. I know juries aren't suppose to hold it against them, but that is unreasonable and ridiculous. Of course I won't tell anybody any of this when making my decision as juror. I will be using common sense not going by antiquated/obsolete rules.

[Michael2001]

I think you're missing the point of this essay. The point is that if the defense knows that their client is guilty (a la OJ) they shouldn't defend them.

[Dog Gone]

That evidence never happened because the police were there illegally.

That's simply not true. The evidence is quite real. The attorney is going to argue that this very real evidence of his client's guilt should be disregarded, not because his client is innocent, but for some unrelated reason.

The whole world, if it cares, knows that our defendant possessed marijuana in violation of the law.

[FatherTorque]

Oh puh-leeze. Any jury of objective people would've fried the mook. Clark and her team did a reasonable job. The jury was paying America back for racism--there was no "justice" there.

Are you kidding? Clark and that bunch screwed that trial up so badly it was no surprise to me that Simpson got off. They bungled up everything they touched. Their jury selection was awful, they messed up the handling of the "alleged" racist cop. They wasted entirely too much time trying to explain all the details of the DNA evidence, and the comedy of errors just kept continuing. Her and her team are the ones who lost that case.