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.

[Polonius]

America's Founders would be astounded to find that many of today's defense lawyers believe it to be their constitutional duty to help guilty persons avoid the consequences of their acts. Their actions are in direct opposition to the Founders' understanding of justice (meaning that each person is equal before the law and should receive that which is due him--no more, no less).

Absolutely wrong. The Founders came from the same kind of adversarial legal system we have today, a system that predates the Constitution. It's likely the Founders would have found the lack of ethics among some lawyers abhorrent, but they came from an adversarial system and enshrined it in the Constitution because it is the best system invented so far.

[Polybius]

And while I'm at it, how come Perry mason never had ONE, not ONE, guilty client in all his years on TV?

Come to think about it, did Perry Mason ever have a single case that went to the jury?

[Polonius]

Clark and her team did a reasonable job.

Take a look at Vincent Bugliosi's "Outrage" some time. In it, he does a great job of demonstrating just how badly the prosecution in the OJ case botched what should have been a slam-dunk case (beginning when DA Gil Garcetti decided to file the case downtown rather than in Santa Monica, where the prosecution could have gotten a more favorable jury).

[blackbart.223]

"If the system is not able to prove someone is guilty, then he is innocent."

Not quite. If a jury finds a defendant not guilty it's because the prosocuter didn't present evidence suffecient to warrant a guilty verdict. A jury is asked to declare a verdict of guilty or not guilty. Innocent doesn't come into the picture.

[L.N. Smithee]

And while I'm at it, how come Joe Friday never had ONE, not ONE, innocent man arrested in all his years on TV? Were we supposed to believe that everyone arrested by the cops was really innocent??

Dragnet was based on actual LAPD cases that resulted in convictions. Joe Friday was a composite figure.

That's why.

[RogerFGay]

I'm going to fight hard against anyone who claims that the application of basic individual rights in the Constitution is a perversion of justice. The 5th explains clearly that there is a right not to incriminate oneself. A person has a right to an attorney. But some of you are claiming that the right to an attorney voids the 5th amendment. Next you'll be saying that attorney's should question their clients regularly to discover any and every little flaw in their lives and report them immediately to authorities. As I mentioned previously, there are countries where individual rights do not exist. If you are strongly opposed to individual rights -- you can have what you want. Just go live in one of them.

[sakic]

False premise. Lawyers don't give a rat's ass about O'Reilly.

[RogerFGay]

Pay attention, will you?

Your question was, "And your plan to protect the innocent?" Not "And your plan to protect the criminals who lie about being innocent?"

I am paying attention. You haven't provided a rational response to the question. Repeating the question and suggesting that I "pay attention" doesn't improve the logic of your response.

[knuthom]

I read the link about the McDonald's hot coffee case. I didn't learn anything I had not already heard about. I still disagree with the case. This is the part that still makes me think she should not have gotten the money.

Liebeck placed the cup between her knees

I think a grown woman should know better than to place a cup of coffee between her knees. Coffee is expected to be hot. She knew that. I am sure that in her lifetime she has made coffee using water as hot or hotter than that in her cup. Arguing about the degree of hotness is not the point. If she had used common sense, she would not have been injured. I think her foolish action was the cause of her injury.

[Pharmboy]

Look guys--I'm no lawyer but I watched it on TV. MUCH more of the blame has to go to that effin' jury. Was Ms. Clark too concerned with her outfits and hair? Did she take her eye off the ball? No question.

But any fair person with an IQ in triple digits finds the mook guilty of premeditated murder based on objective and circumstantial evidence. Period.

[knuthom]

Lawyers can't sue unless something happens. Therefore, malpractice must precede a malpractice suit. A defective product must precede a products liability lawsuit.

The case is usually not about whether something happened, but why. To say "malpractice must precede a malpractice suit" is assuming that malpractice has occurred whenever there is a malpractice suit. In that case, why bother with a trial?

[SpinyNorman]

Helping a criminal, admitted or guilty by reason of evidence, makes you an accessory to the crime in my opinion. The jury decides, "by reason of evidence," whether to convict someone of the crime for which they have been accused. If the jury finds them not guilty, they are not a criminal (on that charge). What part of innocent until proven guilty do you not understand?

The part where a lawyer, with knowledge of the guilt of his client, seeks to hide or obscure the guilt, such that the jury cannot make a decision based on ALL the facts or evidence, and the guilty are freed. I did not say to convict him/her without a trial. You know the old routine, "just answer yes or no," which can completely change the actual answer. Don't get me wrong, both sides do it. Let's append your sentence to read "innocent or guilty by reason of ALL the evidence." No more O.J. debacles.

My point is that the truth, and ALL the truth should be revealed for the jury, be it DNA evidence, prior convictions etc.

Any lawyer who gets a client off that is demonstrably (during the trial) guilty of a crime on a trivial technicality, is scum as far as I am concerned. You know the types, the ones that represent a murderous drug crazed intruder, helping him sue a women acting in self defense when she shot him. The kind that advertise on the tube for people like the old broad the spilled hot coffee on her lap and sued the company that made it. Any lawyer that degrades the legal system for his/her own personal gain, and tears down the country in the proscess.

Judges should throw out frivolous lawsuits, as they bog down the system, which, in turn, lawyers use to get settlements etc. due to the time it takes to get to trial. A vicious cycle at best, and ruining the country at worst.

[Dead Dog]

Yah, they pled out so it never went to trial, but we were warned by the DA to expect the defense to accuse me of the attack and using the loser as a patsy. That, IMO, goes beyond a vigorous defense. It's just an outright fabrication, and intellectually dishonest. If it worked, it would have sent a nut job out on the streets to finish off my wife, or someone else's. But I would agree with you, had evidence been collected against him illegally, and that evidence was critical to the prosecutions case, he should have walked. As bad as it would be. Just one reason why cops should be paid better.

As it turns out, he got almost 40 years, he could get out in 36 on good behavior. Had he been successful in killing her, he would have served around 14 years. The system worked, so I really can't complain.

While this was going on though, I really loathed lawyers. When your looking at someone hunting your loved one down, and a defense attorney making a career out of facilitating him, you really lose track of the thin line of ethics.

[Dead Dog]

Was he smiling?

[RWG]

Even without regard to criminal prosecutions its the slimeball lawyers who have twisted our tax code into something with secret benefits for themselves and their clients. It is the scumbag lawyers who have helped engineer the wall street crash. It is the slithering dirt bags who have so perverted statutes in order to protect vested interests that there is no free market anymore and the elite by whom they are employed and for whom they work own the government that each day takes more and more of our freedom. Check the occupational history of most legislative bodies, they are all pieces of cesspool debris. If your brother and sister-in-law were good as attorneys they wouldn't be public defenders.

[Stone Mountain]

You aren't an attorney? You should be.

Thanks! I don't take that as an insult as many here would... : )

Do you work in the legal profession in some other capacity?

Nope - I work for a software company. I'm just a Court TV junkie with some lawyer friends!

[Stone Mountain]

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.

Sigh...

[Stone Mountain]

Since you used to discuss ethics with attorneys, I'm sure you see how this case can present an ethical problem.

Absolutely. It's cases like these that make legal ethics discussions interesting. I'm looking forward to the seminar answers...

[Lurking Libertarian]

uh..I'm certainly not a lawyer, but what would be the correct course of action if a defense attorney knows his client is guilty, but also knows that the prosecutors don't have enough evidence, or have somehow skirted the rights of the accused?

There are things a lawyer is ethically forbidden to do-- manufacture fake evidence, help his client hide or destroy evidence, put his client or another witness on the stand if he knows they're going to lie, etc. But there are things a lawyer ethically can do for a client, even one he believes is guilty-- argue that the prosecution's witnesses are unreliable because they weren't wearing their eyeglasses; make a motion to suppress evidence which was illegally seized; argue that the statute is unconstitutional or that the statute of limitations has expired; etc.

[Stone Mountain]

Sure, and Perry Mason was based on fictional cases that resulted in acquittals. The point I was trying to make is that on TV, the main character of a series generally tends to win.