Lots of Lawyers Mad at [Bill] O'Reilly

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

[Stone Mountain]

Casting a shadow of doubt where none exist is reaching beyond the duties of competent legal counsel, and criminal. IMO.

Again, this kind of begs the question. If no shadow of doubt exists, then it is impossible to cast this shadow. If a doubt exists in the minds of those the lawyer brought it up to, then it clearly exists. It is the lawyer's job to bring up doubts in the minds of the jurors that they may previously have not thought of.

[parsifal]

[A]nybody remember the 'McDonalds Too Hot Coffee Spill' lawsuit and settlement for $millions?)

Oh yes. I posted a thingie here once about the real facts in the case, of which MOST people are unaware, and even with the REAL FACTS, most freepers were still too prejudiced against lawyers to admit they were wrong. parsy.

[HamiltonJay]

I have been surrounded by lawyers my entire life, and I can tell you this. 75+% easily deserve the reputation they as a whole have. It is sad but true... a few years ago we had the lawyer who stood up and claimed his clients 25 year sentence was "cruel and unusual"... what was his clients crime? He raped a 5 year old girl he was supposed to be babysitting and gave her HIV... she was long cold in the ground by the time he went to trial and yet his lawyer actually argued that a 25 year sentence for this monster was cruel and unusual because of his disease it amounted to a life sentence...

Don't talk to me about the nobility of the legal profession, it is full of scoundrels and immorral louses. I am glad to see O'Reilly stand up and call these people for their crimes.... for generations now "getting the client off" has been the mantra... not "get a fair trial"... but get em off no matter what. They should be called to task when the act reprehensible, and since the Bar sure as heck won't do it... its about time someone did.

[onedoug]

"I have a problem with people who criticize lawyers for taking on unpopular cases unless they break the law in doing so.

You might think me argumentive, but I think this is really about moral relativism, which I "have a problem with".

The lawyers, for example, who "defended" OJ didn't "break the law", per se. But what they facilitated in nullifying that jury to free that despicable murderer, and trying to destroy decent police officers in the process was unconscionable. And I think the worst were Gerald Muelman and Robert Shapiro, who would yet weasle behind veneers of academia or genteel respectablity to try and somehow separate themselves from the school of pirhannas they knew they swam in that same sewar with.

In #24 above, I wrote that "I think it shows that many lawyers, as individuals, are willing to be accessories to crimes."

I meant it. They no less have Nicole Brown Simpson's and Ron Goldman's blood on their hands. And like Lady Macbeth's, it will never come off.

[parsifal]

[A]nybody remember the 'McDonalds Too Hot Coffee Spill' lawsuit and settlement for $millions?)

BTW- Here's the link. READ IT IF YOU DARE! Then come back and tell us you were wrong. parsy the tease.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b77256026e6.htm

[parsifal]

"I think it shows that many lawyers, as individuals, are willing to be accessories to crimes."

Instead, think of a lawyer as a bombadier in a B-17. He is ordered to release bombs over an enemy target. He knows that kids, old folks, and puppy dogs and kittens are likely to get blasted to smithereens. What does he do? parsy the curious.

[scalia_#1]

Don't talk to me about the nobility of the legal profession, it is full of scoundrels and immorral louses.

If that's the case, when are you changing your screen name?

[Dan Cooper]

O'Reilly has got it wrong again ( and being a populist who goes whichever way the wind blows, it's not that uncommon for him ). It's the jury who decided whether Avila was guilty or not-guilty of the previous crime. O'Reilly denigrates the quality of the jury by saying that they were fooled by Avila's defense attorney into aquittal. If the quality of juries is the problem, then perhaps changes are in order there. How about no more voir dire? You get a random jury of peers, not a group of psychologically profiled and culled least common denominators. How about no excuses to get out of jury duty? Let everyone serve. How about letting the jury ask questions? Treat them like thinking human beings rather than passive receivers. Even the guilty must get the best possible defense if our system is going to work, otherwise the accused is easily convicted in the media on incomplete or incorrect facts. Of course media people, particularlly O'Reilly, don't have a problem with that.

[onedoug]

He trusts in God that he is working to restore the good from the evil that would otherwise destroy it.

[Viva Le Dissention]

As much as I love references to Shakespeare, I know you can't actually be comparing Lady Macbeth to an attorney that works to acquit his client.

Lady Macbeth, as you will no doubt recall, was an active participant in the crime by framing the drugged guards. I somehow doubt that Shapiro came over to the Juice's house and smeared blood all over Kato's cabana--just a guess, though.

Look, attorneys for both sides make arguments, the jury decides the facts of the case. Each attorney does his job to the best of his ability. Period. That's how our system works, and I sleep really well at night.

[onedoug]

And frankly, I think your analogy is disgusting.

[onedoug]

As I said: moral relativism.

[Argh]

Legal ping.

[Viva Le Dissention]

My morality isn't relative; the same applies to attorneys as anyone else. Attorneys, for the most part, don't kill people. They don't lie, and they don't steal. When they kill people, when they steal, or when they break the law, they should go to jail.

To say attorneys should be held responsible, either morally or legally, for a crime that they defended, is absurd.

Why don't you say the prosecutor is morally responsbile--after all, he lost the case; shouldn't some of the burden be on him? He should have done a better job, right? If the DA had done a better job proving the case, then this guy would have been in prison. Perhaps he sleepwalks at night, worried about his damn spot...

[loveliberty]

SpinyNorman said: 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 (to escape punishment*), admitted or guilty by reason of evidence, makes you an accessory to the crime in my opinion. *My edit.

He is right. 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).

Alleged criminals are entitled to have their day in court, with competent counsel, to present facts which may show them to be innocent of the charges against them.

Those law schools, law professors, and lawyers who use the American justice system to do injustice to their fellow citizens are perverting the system and wreaking havoc on the society (witness the Avila "acquittal" which allowed a monster to prey upon the precious Samantha).

One could never wish it, but if such monsters preyed upon the children of defense attorneys, we might see a change in some attitudes.

[SWake]

Personally, I'm completely fed up with lawyers being agents of the court and doing everything under the sun except defending the rights of their clients.

If the defendant is guilty, I believe it is the defense lawyer's job to be certain that the law is applied fairly to the defendant. Has the defendant been charged with the appropriate crime (ie not charged with murder for a burglary). Has the evidence been properly stored and handled?

If the defendant is innocent, then it is the defense lawyer's job to prove his innocence.

Of course, what lawyer is going to start off by asking whether the guy did it or not?

[Dog Gone]

manipulating the system

The police break your door down some night, storm your bedroom shooting you and your wife, killing her and paralyzing you. They find a couple of marijuana cigarettes in your sock drawer.

It turns out that they had no warrant or even a hint of probable cause because they had the wrong address.

Your attorney files a motion to throw out the evidence based on the the Fourth Amendment.

There's not the slightest doubt in your attorney's mind that you were guilty of possessing marijuana illegally.

Is he manipulating the system?

[jpl]

For what it's worth, I agree with you that it's better for a guilty man to go free than an innocent man to be convicted. I'm also a full believer in jury nullification. And yes, some people are indeed framed. That doesn't change the fact though that almost everyone who comes into court broke the law. Whether or not the law is just is a totally different matter.

[DugwayDuke]

"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."

Really? Let me pose a hypothetical civil case. Suppose your client is the CEO of a major firm accused of knowingly distributing defective products. You know the opposing side will present a witness who will testify that, while working for the company, saw a memo admiting the defects in the product. Now, you also know this witness has a history of mental disorders that may affect her memory. You also know she is telling the truth. (Yes, you really do know. Remember this is hypothetical.) Do you use this mental history to discredit her testimony? If not, are you guilty of malpractice?

[grasshopper]

Approximately 90% of all defendants who appear in court are guilty

Man, how can you be so wrong!!!!

In Illinois, since 1973, 13 innocent people have been freed from death row in the time that 12 were executed. Governor George Ryan, a supporter of the death penalty, has done two things in response: He has effectively imposed a moratorium on executions and established a blue ribbon commission to review the administration of capital punishment in Illinois.
The source.

This is only from the death row where you would expect the highest degree of certainty of the conviction.

BTW O'Reilly is not the sharpest knife in the drawer ;-)