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.

[FreeTally]

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.

SM replied: Sigh...

I just came across this thread, and I must say, it is full of some of the scariest stuff I have seen posted on FR in a long time. I never thought I would see so many people imply that a person accused by the state is automatically guilty, shouldn't be represented and has to prove their innocence. The little faith I had left in people is quickly vanishing.

[L.N. Smithee]

I am paying attention. You haven't provided a rational response to the question.

It's only irrational in your mind.

Repeating the question and suggesting that I "pay attention" doesn't improve the logic of your response.

My response doesn't need improving. It's perfect as it is. I said "the truth" is a plan to protect the innocent. What's irrational about that? Do you know of defense attorneys for innocent clients whose strategy is to commit perjury?

[parsifal]

Agreed. Perry Mason is a fun read, and you can learn some law in the process, but people seldom confess on the stand. OTOH, his depictions of prosecutors was pretty darn accurate. parsy.

[cinFLA]

And your plan to protect the innocent?

You totally missed the point! You are complaining about unethical lawyers; so is O'Reilly! He believe is protecting the innocent but MANY lawyers make a living of getting the guilty off.

[cinFLA]

In our system of justice, even a guilty man is entitled to representation. If a lawyer who would defend this man to the best of his abilities is considered an accomplice, then our system of justice fails. This is why I said it betrays a lack of understanding of our system. When an adversarial system is used to determine guilt, there must be advocates on each side willing to argue for their side.

So it is ethical to argue your client is innocent when you know he is guilty? That is the reason most clients do not go on the stand; it submits the client and lawyer to perjury charges.

[cinFLA]

However, they MUST advise an innocent plea if they believe that is in the best interests of their client.

Event if he is guilty?

[cinFLA]

I wouldn't either. But I am glad that there are people out there willing to take these cases. Otherwise, we would need an entirely different system of justice. If every single lawyer in the country refused to defend this guy, what do you think would happen? He would probably have to be let free under our Constitution. I have a problem with people who criticize lawyers for taking on unpopular cases unless they break the law in doing so.

If lawyers refuse, then it would be assigned to a public defender. O'Reilly supports this action and had no argument against pubic defenders. However, the pubic defender should not be obligated to get the guy off; only ensure that he is treated fairly by the court system.

[cinFLA]

The (OJ) prosecution was poor, but the stupid jury wouldn't have convicted OJ if they had seen him do it!

Bump. It pre-ordained when the judge changed the venue.

[DugwayDuke]

The panel was split. The attorneys argued that it was completly fair, even obligatory for this to be introduced. As I remember, one attorney objected saying that he would not introduce this. The other attorneys attacked him for failing his client, saying things like it should be left up to the jury to sort this out. The non-lawyers on the panel thought bringing this into play would be reprehensible and came to the aid of the beleagered attorney.

Actually, most of the attorneys, sounded to me, very self-serving. They seemed more interested in winning the case than in achieving justice. BTW, there was an interesting exchange on just what is justice? The attorneys focused on procedure and the non-attorneys on outcomes.

This is really a good series that most large libraries should have. The panel participants change from tape to tape as they subject changes. Gingrich was on most of them. A very young, slim and trim Gingrich. Scalia was there. Geraldine Ferraro too.

This was the series where Dan Rather said he would let a US combat unit walk into an ambush rather than warn them since he owed his allegience to journalism. He was heavily attacked, recanted, and said he had missed that part about being able to warn them.

[RogerFGay]

blah, blah, blah

[RogerFGay]

You totally missed the point! You are complaining about unethical lawyers; so is O'Reilly! He believe is protecting the innocent but MANY lawyers make a living of getting the guilty off.

You and O'Reilly are giving me an idea for a sci-fi movie. It's about how in the future, we'll know who the guilty are without trials or anything. Maybe we can predict crimes and who's going to commit them before they happen. Or has that already been done?

[Polonius]

MUCH more of the blame has to go to that effin' jury.

I never said otherwise. I'm simply responding to people who seem to have a beef with the entire basis for our system of law, a system that has served us well since before the American Revolution. Some stricter ethical standards may be needed, but the system is sound and juries are indeed to blame for their own stupidity in most cases. In other words, I'm trying to keep the conservative message alive — don't fix it if it ain't broke.

[dogbyte12]

There is a difference in questioning the chain of evidence, the police respecting the bill of rights when arresting the client, and obtaining evidence, and of trying to convince a jury that some boogey man did it, or the kids are lying in a pedophilia case.

It should be criminal for a lawyer who knows his client molested some kid to accuse a child of lying. If his client tells him he didn't do it, and the kid is lying, it is the lawyers obligation in that case, to try and break the witness down. It's a fine moral line, but it needs to be followed.

[Tourist Guy]

>>>after the OJ trial<<<

Why? His oldest son 'did' it.

[connectthedots]

Defense attorneys are generally scum, UNTIL YOU COMPARE THEM TO PROSECUTORS who hide evidence favorable to the defendant, lie, overcharge crimes in order to convince an innocent person to plead guilty to a 'lesser crime' rather than risk conviction, stack charges, put witnesses on the stand whom they know will lie, trade the perjurous testimony of prison inmates for promises of lesser sentences or favors while in prison, and the list goes on.

A defense attorney's job is not to get a guilty person off; his job is simply to make ensure the prosecutor does his! If a guilty person gets off, it is almost always because the prosecutor failed to do his job properly.

[Mamzelle]

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

Even at this early stage the defendant incurs expenses. And you did suggest that the loser paying was more common that a blue moon. Does the winner get reimbursement at summary judgement?

[cinFLA]

You and O'Reilly are giving me an idea for a sci-fi movie. It's about how in the future, we'll know who the guilty are without trials or anything. Maybe we can predict crimes and who's going to commit them before they happen. Or has that already been done?

Perhaps you missed the OJ trial! They had a stacked jury and played the race card. Are you saying that is ethical inorder to get a guilty man off? The trial was a media circus and justice was NOT done. When Lawyers have to step over the line in the defense of their client, they KNOW in their hearts he is guilty since he cannot play just the facts.

[FatherTorque]

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.

So according to you, every public defender in this country is a bad attorney. You know I was wrong, you're not an idiot. You need about 30 more IQ points before you could make an idiot.

[RogerFGay]

Perhaps you missed the OJ trial! They had a stacked jury and played the race card. Are you saying that is ethical inorder to get a guilty man off? The trial was a media circus and justice was NOT done. When Lawyers have to step over the line in the defense of their client, they KNOW in their hearts he is guilty since he cannot play just the facts.

So I'm still working on my sci-fi movie plot. In the early 21st century, we decide that humans are not wise enough to manage their own affairs and make important life decisions, so we construct huge towering intelligent computer systems and robots that take the place of politicians, judges, and bureacrats. Wait, I'm kind of thinking this might be reminiscent of something that's already been done.

[danmar]

but I believe that protecting the rights of the innocent take precedence over punishing the guilty.

...and this is exactly the point.Protecting the criminals while the victims get the shaft. This is one fine justice system we have in place.