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.

[danmar]

If the prosecution can't do it, then the defendant is not guilty,

Well your statement sez' it all... Just because the prosecution was not strong enough for some smartalec shyster with some misc. tricks up his sleeve, than it is just a OK for him to get his client scottfree just because the prosecution was incompetent or not strong enough.Is this what you are implying?If it is, you ought to be ashamed of yourself!

Another words no morals, no pride, no shame, no pride just "SHOW ME THE MONEY"...is this we have sunk to? Samanthas life did not amount to a hill of beans,if the prosecution case is not strong enough...NOT GUILTY!

[Dog Gone]

Okay, let's just let you decide in advance of a trial whether a person is guilty. If so, that person gets no attorney. Heck, we can save money and even skip the trial. We'll have to rip up the Constitution, but that's okay because I don't want to be ashamed of myself.

[parsifal]

"And you did suggest that the loser paying was more common that a blue moon. "

If I did,then I apologize.The way it works is like this: In general, when a lawyer signs the complaint, he assures the court that the suit is well based on fact and law. The defendant has the option of answering the complaint or immediately moving to have complaint dismissed, usually for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The sillier or more offbeat the claim, the more likely this route will be taken.

The defendant also has the option throughout of moving for sanctions against the other side for frivouous claims.. (Actually either side has this option) This is usually reserved for pretty serious breaches of legal competence. It could be used more often but most lawyers shy away from this unless really called for.

Anyway, back to the scenario. Assuming the defendant answers the complaint, discovery commences.Each side sends questions to each other along with requests for documents. Witnesses and parties may be deposed. After this, both sides have a pretty good idea of where their strengths and weaknesses are. Probably the defendant will move for summary judgment at this point. The defendant says,in essence, "Mr. Judge, there are no material issues of fact to be left to be determined and you,sir, can decide this case now on the basis of law. Please throw out all or part of the Plaintiff's claims." Or. "Mr.Judge, we have done discovery and the Plaintiffs are nuts. There is no legal basis for this claim. Please throw this mess out." This happens a lot and "surviving summary judgment" is an important threshold to a case.

Assuming the Plaintiffs have held in there, they still have to convince a majority of those on a jury that they are entitled to judgment. The nuttier the case, the less likely they can do that. Remember, the jury is composed of 12 ordinary everyday type people.

The wierd cases you hear about like McDonalds hot coffee, are presented to the public in a sensational way and most of the relevant facts are left out.

parsy.

[mel]

Speaking of class-action lawsuits, somehow I got on a list for a class action lawsuit, i think it was a credit card, my check was for 0.90 cents. no doubt lawyers got millions

[Bernard]

So the lawyer should step away if the client wants him to take action that the lawyer considers repugnant? Who will be the repugnancy police? Will this be like a local definition of pornography?

How much repugnancy would be involved on a community standards level of the repugnancy scale for Bill Clinton to step away from a client?

[RWG]

Public defenders plead away cases to the benefit of the prosecutors so that some day after they have made enough friends they can get the right offer. If my IQ is so low why are you bothing to argue with me? And why are you getting so hysterical about it? The head ditto likes it when you liberals get hysterical in the middle of a discussion and start with the personal attacks. I spent a number of years working with the developmentally disabled and your use of certain terms is disgusting. Now go do the right thing.

[blackbart1]

And Cochran KNEW he was guilty.

You speak the truth. The thing that got me when not guilty was pronounced was the fake relief on both Cochran and OJ's faces. It was just unbelievable .

[Thommas]

Your answer at post# 30 implies the absolute fact of the matter - our Justice system HAS FAILED!

[DennisR]

True, but an imbecile, given enough time and asking enough questions, can usually figure out whether a person is guilty or not. For example, did you think OJ was guilty? And you probably did not have to ask him any questions to ascertain that. It was obvious. And an attorney should be able to do the same thing unless he is in full denial ala Cochrane, Scheck, Shapiro, Bailey, et al.

[FixitGuy]

Any man hated by lawyers can't be all bad!

[Thommas]

...and what do you say, when after all the evidence points to a guilty Avila, the honorable defense attorney is able to still get this murdering pederast free of a conviction? Or, at worst a reduced charge, reduced time, and back on the streets within 10 years?

Don't tell me this is unreasonable, the chances are better than 50/50 he will get off; change of venue, select a jury of functional morons, exclude most of the evidence, summary judgement or motion to dismiss - Viola! back on the streets...

[Dog Gone]

Of course OJ was guilty. But that doesn't mean he wasn't entitled to have lawyers attack the prosecution's evidence.

Besides, Johnny Cochran hardly did a masterful job in defending him. The defense was extremely weak.

The blame in that case rests entirely on the jury. They would have found OJ innocent even if the prosecution had a video of him committing the murders.

[McGavin999]

It is one thing to defend a man to the best of your abilities when you "think" he's innocent. It is quite another thing to lie, twist the truth, harange a witness you KNOW is telling the truth in order to get a win. This man had two witnesses against him and he FAILED a lie detector test. If the attorney didn't figure out the guy was guilty he's too stupid to practice law.

At that point, he had a responsibility to face his client with the facts and try to get him the best deal possible. That is what council is.

What we have now is a win at any cost system, not a justice system. I also think it's the responsibility of the lawyer to ASK the client if he's guilty. He can still represent him in court, but there should be no perversion of the law and truth just to get someone off. If the lawyer legitimately thinks the client is innocent, and then he turns out to be guilty, that's quite another matter. Lawyers have access to all the evidence, what they need is a moral compass that will stop them from abetting a criminal in order to get a fee or advance their career.

[lawgirl]

Approximately 90% of all defendants who appear in court are guilty of the crime for which they are accused. Every lawyer in America knows this.

I am a lawyer and I have never heard this. I would also like to know where you got your statistics from.

I think everyone needs to remember that a few bad apples spoil the bunch. I have also seen lawyers fight tooth and nail for the clients and forgo payment in the end because their client couldn't pay. I currently work for an attorney that has put up millions of his own dollars to fight a corporation as well as their hired thug attorneys. SOme attorneys have no scruples, but I firmly believe they are NOT the majority.

[DennisR]

"The blame in that case rests entirely on the jury. They would have found OJ innocent even if the prosecution had a video of him committing the murders."

Couldn't agree with you more...

[NotJustAnotherPrettyFace]

I'm with O'Reilly on this one. Lawyers can rationalize all they want, but it's still "blood money" any way you slice it!

[Let's Roll]

Right. The lawyer's job is to defend the client. The lawyer doesn't ask because he doesn't want to know. Knowing the client is guilty would influence the job the lawyer does for the client - unless the lawyer is a total bottom feeder in which case he doesn't care. Do I hate that these baby killers even have legal counsel? Of course! But to protect the innocent who are charged, we have to defend all who are charged.

[bvw]

Let your own day in cort come! Please G-d, let your own day in court come!

[FatherTorque]

If your brother and sister-in-law were good as attorneys they wouldn't be public defenders.

OPH, you might be interested to know that according to RWG here you are a lousy attorney. Well since you are a former PD, he might say you used to be a lousy lawyer.

RWG it's people like you, especially of late, who are making this site look bad. Between your ranting and raving against defense attorneys and all the threads cheering on cops who beat up suspected criminals this place is starting to smell.

[cinFLA]

So you still think it is ok to play the race card to get a guilty man free?