posted on March 25, 2001 11:16:03 AM new
Helen, it's an op-ed piece in today's New York Daily News. I assume your local paper has an op-ed section as well?
The funny thing is that the writer basically is saying most of the things you are. Why are you objecting -- or is my irony detector off here?
posted on March 25, 2001 11:38:05 AM new
What you just said doesn't make any sense, Helen, but don't feel bad. Nothing LindaK says makes any sense either.
posted on March 25, 2001 11:39:01 AM new
LindaK, yes, I agree with your take on the "why" question of katyd. People probably assume that the "boy" will "get out" eventually, and must be "prepared" to be in society? Why else? After all, he is a human being and has rights to an education and counseling. (Last sentence is intended to be sarcastic).
edited to say the sarcasm is not aimed at anyone.
And lindak makes alot of sense. To me, anyway.
[ edited by Hepburn on Mar 25, 2001 11:40 AM ]
posted on March 25, 2001 11:56:33 AM new
Perhaps Johnnie Cochran and his so-called "croanies" are involved now because they sense an unjustice in this case. He is, afterall, a skilled defense attorney, one who represented and won many cases involving minorities who were victims of police abuse.
And no, I am not referring to O.J. Simpson, he was definitely guilty. But Cochran did what he was paid millions to do: win an acquital.
Cochran, if I'm not mistaken, represented Reginald Denney (spelling?), the white motorist dragged and beaten from his semi-trailer during the L.A. riots after the Rodney King brouhaha. Boy, there was a case where race have no relationship in the obvious miscarriage of justice that was so clear even a blind man could see it.
The Florida prosecutor used Lionel Tate, an African-American child accused of killing another African-American child, to make an example. He is a child, a human being, not a "thing."
Criminal justice statistics show that prosecutors rarely ever seek the harshest penalty in cases of black-on-black crime. That is true in Indiana and other states as well. There have been numerous studies to support what I'm saying.
The number of black offenders on death row for killing a black victim are far fewer than cases of black defendants/white victim. How many white defendants have received life or death sentences for their crimes against black victims?
In Florida, there was an overzealous prosecutor who wanted to make a name for himself and make an example out of this child. Tate's mother was ill-advised by her son's defense attorney not to accept the plea agreement.
The whole mess is terrible for all parties involved.
*edited to tidy up copy*
[ edited by Baduizm on Mar 25, 2001 12:01 PM ]
posted on March 25, 2001 12:24:28 PM new
Badu, again, I agree. There's no use pointing fingers of blame at Lionel's mother for directing the defense--she hired a lawyer to do that. He blew the case, probably in his own self interest.
Johnny Cochrane is one of the finest trial lawyers working in this country today. If anyone can do anything to pull that poor dumb kid's bacon out of the fire, it's probably Cochrane. I was glad to hear that he'd come into the case because the result of this trial is not justice, it's vengeance.
I won't go on to say that I think it's a show of force in public designed to remind any body to mind their place. The character of posts from the impartial and unbiased jurists
here demonstrates their intent to continue in denial of such a thing.
Johnny Cochrane did represent Reginald Denny, at least as part of the crew, and for those who don't know of that Los Angeles case, that Reggie is white.
Did someone say that Denney, or Denny, was charged with a crime? Johnny Cochrane represented him in his civil case(s), and he's now taken care of for life, at least financially.
As to any answer to your second serialized post, is there an answer? I have a question instead. In dire straights, would you refuse his help if he offered it?
posted on March 25, 2001 02:33:53 PM newTate's mother was ill-advised by her son's defense attorney not to accept the plea agreement
Where did you hear/read that the attorney advised the mother not to accept the plea agreement????
When the mother was asked about this during her TV interview, she said she told the attorney to quit asking her to take the plea agreement. Her son was not guilty and this was an accident. She was very firm with the fact that her attorney quit asking her to consider this. She told him not to bring it up to her again, she was not going to allow it.
So, I'd appreciate knowing where you heard differently, please.
and
There's no use pointing fingers of blame at Lionel's mother for directing the defense--she hired a lawyer to do that. He blew the case, probably in his own self interest
I'd agree that he blew the case, and someone else should have intervened in making the decision about accepting the lesser charges. But the attorney was following the mother's wishes/directions in her son's case. Also, FWIW, when the mother ran out of money for Lionels defense, he continued to defend Lionel for free.
posted on March 25, 2001 02:44:45 PM new
All are entitled to have opinions. I expressed mine. Any "person" who does what he did to another "person" is a "thing" to me. Those who continue to want to debate the boys fate, have at it. I will always think of the victim. The little girl. The little girl who is no longer here. And she died a horrible death. So thing he was, thing he is. To me.
edited to add that I dont care if the "thing" was black, white, brown, red, green or purple. Only a "thing" would do what he did.
[ edited by Hepburn on Mar 25, 2001 02:45 PM ]
posted on March 25, 2001 02:55:17 PM new
LindaK: Any criminal defense or prosecuting attorney, if they know a plea is the best option to quickly resolve a case at taxpayer expense, will strongly advise such course of action.
The attorney who represented Lionel Tate should have explained the implications to the boy's mother in refusing the offer from the prosecutor.
He must not have exercised his power of persuasion skills. Which, in MO, speaks volumes about his persuasive abilities as a litigator.
*typo*
[ edited by Baduizm on Mar 25, 2001 02:56 PM ]
posted on March 25, 2001 03:33:29 PM new
More likely he was a lot more concerned about his ability to have any weight in future cases than he was in the Lionel Tate fate.
As far as continuing to defend for no money, he had no choice in that matter. Lawyers don't get to say "time's up, your ride is over" once they've agreed to take a case.
posted on March 25, 2001 03:50:14 PM newBaduizm - Here is what the mother said in court:
I already spoke with the attorney and I told him that I was not accepting the plea. Why would I come and talk to you when I don't like you." she said.
After the hearing, we asked her about her recollections and whether or not she now had regrets about rejecting that plea, which would have meant a lot less time to her son in prison. "Why would I accept a plea, stating that yes, my son is guilty of second-degree murder when I thought they were playing and I still think they were playing?
