Lots of Lawyers Mad at [Bill] O'Reilly

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

[william clark]

The way that the system has become corrupted is simple. The right to a defense is to ensure that no one is convicted unjustly, which is where the lawyer's duty lies. His duty is not to win, yet that's the way it's become. The other side of the coin is the OJ-jury syndrome, where one's personal agenda becomes more important than following the law. I think a lot of jurors look for "reasonable doubt" just so they can feel smarter than the state (as represented by the prosecution).

[Stone Mountain]

The Constitution says the accused shall have the ADVICE of counsel. Counsel can advise a guilty plea.

Yes. In fact, counsel MUST advise a guilty plea if they believe it is in the best interests of their client. However, they MUST advise an innocent plea if they believe that is in the best interests of their client.

[Stone Mountain]

He said he wouldn't do it. Neither would I.

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.

[Pharmboy]

The lawyers always talk about the protection of the innocent when they are defending themselves defending a (usually) guilty suspect. Well, I have a question for all the fancy schmancy Perry Masons out there: what about the innocents who will be damaged by getting your guilty client off?

Lying and misleading and gaming the system for your all-important client leaves future innocents open to his robbing, assaulting, raping, killing, extorting, etc. Right?

And while I'm at it, how come Perry mason never had ONE, not ONE, guilty client in all his years on TV? Were we supposed to believe that everyone indicted by DAs was really innocent?? WHAT PERFECT BS THEY FED US AS KIDS.

[Stone Mountain]

The right to a defense is to ensure that no one is convicted unjustly, which is where the lawyer's duty lies.

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

I think a lot of jurors look for "reasonable doubt" just so they can feel smarter than the state (as represented by the prosecution).

I agree with this, but it is a separate issue. If the defense lawyer believes that jurors will look for reasonable doubt, it is his duty to try to provide it. Anything less would be malpractice.

[Harrison Bergeron]

The "guilty" don't deserve a defense and the innocent don't need one. I've always believed that this "Victim's Rights" freight train can lead to nowhere but Soviet style gulags.

[Stone Mountain]

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

For the same reason that Joe Friday always got his man?

[Pharmboy]

Nah...Joe was just a great detective who was only interested in the facts--not propaganda ;-)

[matrix]

"It's all about the money. I'm sure there are some fine lawyers out there, but I lost respect for many after the OJ trial"

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

Don't let the 90% of bad lawyers spoil it for the rest. ~8^)

[Stone Mountain]

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?? WHAT PERFECT BS THEY FED US AS KIDS.


: )

[Texaggie79]

"It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it".........

[knuthom]

In an adversarial system, any lawyer who doesn't use all of the tools at his disposal to defend his client is guilty of malpractice. If a lawyer sees a legal way to advocate for his client, he MUST do so.

Does that include saying things he knows are not true? Can a defense lawyer be charged with anything for lying in the courtroom?

[parsifal]

Yes. Lawyers are not permitted to lie to anyone, but particularly the Court. parsy.

[Dead Dog]

What if the lawyer doesn't know whether the client is guilty? Most lawyers won't ask, at least not directly.

O'Reilly misses his own point by getting into "known" guilt debate. But even if innocence is assumed, manipulating the system, lieing, and generally trying to override common sense and reason with emotion is the problem. Casting a shadow of doubt where none exist is reaching beyond the duties of competent legal counsel, and criminal. IMO.

[F16Fighter]

"Is it any wonder that these parasites supported Clinton and continue to support the Democrat party almost exclusively? Is it any wonder that this was the career that came most naturally to Bill and Hillary?

Lawyers are only supposed to preserve the rights and legal protections that a client (host) has coming to him/her, not create a situation that obscures or bypasses their guilt. Helping a criminal, admitted or guilty by reason of evidence, makes you an accessory to the crime in my opinion.

Great post, and worth repeating over and over and over...

And while we're at it let's also indict the ABA for helping make a mockery of common sense while legalizing extortion in leiu of launching absurdly frivilous lawsuits (anybody remember the 'McDonalds Too Hot Coffee Spill' lawsuit and settlement for $millions?)

[doug from upland]

Someone will always defend the guilty and the despicable among us. Someone will always use legal tricks and play games to confuse at least one stupid person on the jury. Those who knowingly participate in letting off the hook murderers and child molestors have the legal right to do that. They have the right to be philosophical and say that they are just part of the system. But they make that choice. If they do, we also have the right to call them disgusting scumbags whom we do not want as friends or neighbors. We have the right to consider them lowlife pieces of human debris.

[parsifal]

Well, I have a question for all the fancy schmancy Perry Masons out there: what about the innocents who will be damaged by getting your guilty client off?

The answer is, what about all the citizens who will be damaged if the gov't gets to do what it wants with people. Lawyers, in one sense, do not defend a particular client---they defend the system as a whole.

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,

[Stone Mountain]

Does that include saying things he knows are not true? Can a defense lawyer be charged with anything for lying in the courtroom?

Yes. I believe that falls under contempt of court - maybe even something more serious depending on what he was lying about. He must advocate for his client to the best of his ability, but he must still do so legally. Not only can't a defense lawyer knowingly lie about something in court, but supposedly, he can't even take part in a defense where he knows that perjured testimony will be offered.

[gunnedah]

Folks I tell you the system will screw you with or without a lawyer.They speak of the Blue Wall of Silence and there is some truth there but with lawyers its not a wall,its a mountain.
Lawyers control both ends of the system and there are some who have stronger consciences than others.
The real problem with the system though is that court never does and never will search for the truth,it is more of a contest,battle of wills,skilled speakers and they even have drawing a jury down to a science.They, lawyers can find out enough about you to where they can tell how you will vote and what to play on to you as an individual personality.Then they figure how who on the jury will be the strongest,most vocal and lead the others.This is a real game and it is played like a sporting contest.
Truth and justice has nothing to do with it!
I dont know this for a fact,but I believe most lawyers dont even want to know if you are guilty or not,or at least they dont want you to say that to them,there is something there to do with their code of ethics I believe.May be wrong about this though.