posted on January 20, 2004 10:12:21 PM new
I've seen Johnny Cochran on tv many times and he's usually presented as a brilliant lawyer... sometimes famed lawyer, which I understand.
If a lawyer gets a person off of a murder charge, using questionable tactics, even though he's guilty, would you consider him a good lawyer?
posted on January 21, 2004 06:27:54 AM new
Kraft, from what I gather, it is the ability to put aside your personal morals, ethics, etc. that makes for a "good" lawyer. Not withstanding knowing the boundries and interpretations of the law which in my opinion, there are quite a few practicing that never studied or learned much.
(Now ya all gotta stop posting such interesting and engaging topics here or I will never get my sh** done on here today!!)
posted on January 21, 2004 07:26:19 AM new
Here is another well known case which involves the question of defense attorney's ethics.
A LAWYER'S OBLIGATION WHEN CLIENT IS GUILTY
Boston Globe
Cathy Young
September 23, 2002
THE POPULAR SPORT OF LAWYER-BASHING GOT A HUGE BOOST LAST WEEK WHEN NEWS REPORTS REVEALED THAT ATTORNEYS FOR DAVID WESTERFIELD, THE CONVICTED KILLER OF 7-YEAR-OLD DANIELLE VAN DAM, WERE APPARENTLY FULLY AWARE OF HIS GUILT WHEN THEY URGED THE JURY TO FIND HIM NOT GUILTY.
According to the San Diego Union Tribune, in February, after Westerfield had been detained as a suspect in Danielle's disappearance, lawyers Steven Feldman and Robert Boyce were negotiating a plea bargain under which he would lead the authorities to the girl's body in exchange for a guarantee that he would not get a death sentence. The deal, it seems, was minutes away from being concluded when it fell through because volunteers found the body with no help from the killer.
Under the law, such plea negotiations cannot be mentioned to the jury. Westerfield's lawyers then went on not only to challenge the prosecution's evidence but to present their alternate theory of the case - that Danielle was murdered by someone who had gained access to the Van Dam home due to the parents' swinging lifestyle. For a while now, Bill O'Reilly, the combative host of the Fox News show "The O'Reilly Factor," has been on a warpath against defense attorneys who twist the truth when they knowingly defend guilty clients. With the Westerfield case, O'Reilly has hit the mother lode. He is filing an ethics complaint against Feldman and Boyce with the California State Bar, charging that they violated the bar code's prohibition on intentionally misleading the jury.
O'Reilly's railings against wily defense lawyers have sometimes skirted dangerously close to a presumption of guilt, particularly for alleged crimes against children. But in this instance, his indictment - whether or not it will stand up legally - certainly strikes a powerful moral chord.
Our system of justice assigns defense lawyers the task of defending some unsavory people. For the system to work, lawyers must aggressively represent the interests of their clients, challenging the prosecution's case as best they can. The public interest in ensuring that criminals are properly punished and incapacitated cannot be the defense attorney's concern. Otherwise, we risk something akin to the Stalin-era Soviet political courts, in which the "advocate" at a show trial would rise to proclaim that he is so repelled by his client's crimes that all he can do is join the prosecution in asking for the death penalty.
Yet, for the system to work, the public must also have confidence in its integrity. In the 1970s and 1980s, the onscreen popularity of vigilantes ("Death Wish" ) or rule-breaking cops ("Dirty Harry" ) reflected a common perception that the justice system had lost sight of common sense and of the need to protect the innocent. The same attitude led to widespread public support for real-life figures like "subway vigilante" Bernhard Goetz, the New Yorker who shot four alleged would-be muggers, or Ellie Nesler, the woman who shot her son's molester in a California courtroom.
Does blatant disregard for the truth undermine the integrity of the justice system? Surely, the answer must be yes. Indeed, the system recognizes this. The defense attorney's obligation to represent the client does not extend to suborning perjury. If you as the defense attorney know that your client committed the crime, you are limited in the kind of defense you can put on. You can't put your client - or an alibi witness - on the stand knowing that he or she is going to lie. And you cannot, many experts say, assert as fact an alternate theory of the crime when you know it to be false.
Of course, lawyers tread the line very carefully. Westerfield's attorneys, for instance, never actually said that someone else killed Danielle Van Dam; they said that someone else was more likely to have done it. They also never said that Westerfield didn't kill her, only that it would have been impossible for him to get into the Van Dam house or to dump the body where it was found.
But fine distinctions like these don't exactly inspire public confidence. A juror who appeared on the O'Reilly show was genuinely shocked by the information that the attorneys knew Westerfield had been prepared to lead the authorities to the body.
O'Reilly's ethics complaint may be a publicity stunt, but if it helps clarify the rules about a defense attorney's duty to the truth, it will do the justice system a world of good. Even lawyers may ultimately benefit if jurors have fewer reasons to mistrust them.
posted on January 21, 2004 08:52:38 AM new
And Helen if you killed (accidently or not) someone & confessed to your attorneys, wouldn't you still expect him to use all his talemt to have you found not guilty.
"If you believe you can tell me what to think, I believe I can tell you where to go. Not all of us are sheep....."
posted on January 21, 2004 09:14:13 AM new "And Helen if you killed (accidently or not) someone & confessed to your attorneys, wouldn't you still expect him to use all his talemt to have you found not guilty."
"Talent" is not unethical behavior, Bear.
A good lawyer can effectively defend their clients without resorting to unethical techniques.
posted on January 21, 2004 10:02:30 AM new
Why is this presented as if it is only the defense that disregards fact?
Plenty of prosecutors have been caught witholding evidence and continuing a case when they knew damn well the person was innocent. Is that somehow different that nobody sees any problem with it?
posted on January 21, 2004 10:13:46 AM new
The reason many of these problems are occuring is due to judges. Judges now see themselves as "neutral" umpires.
A judges is ALWAYS supposed to be an advocate of justice, not a neutral umpire that is blind to the perversion of justice.
When you see lawyers committing outrageous behavior in the name of zealous advocacy for their clients, blame the judge.
A judge can prevent any evidence or demonstration by lawyers he/she wishes. This includes jailing lawyers for contempt.
posted on January 21, 2004 11:53:34 AM new
I watched the Westerfield trial from start to finish. Feldman dragged the Van Damms through the mud and implied that their "unsavory lifestyle" left their home
wide-open to an intruder other than David Westerfield. He did this knowing that Westerfield was the killer.
I don't agree that guilty people need a vigorous defense to make the system work. Our system is broken now because of unscrupulous behavior on both sides of the courtroom and the necessity for each party to "win" in order to move ahead in their careers.
posted on January 21, 2004 12:07:59 PM new
The fact that the vast majority of judges, once were or remain practicing attorneys, paves the way for corruption and abuse.
There is no justice... it just is!
posted on January 21, 2004 12:44:24 PM new
plsmith - to build on what you are saying instead of an adversarial system what would you do to make it more of a fact finding court with the aim of serving justice and protecting the public instead of 'winning'?
I for one would like to see barriers removed to the jury asking questions when it becomes obvious to them they are not being told all the court knows. And if the juries questions won't be put to the witnesses or more witnesses called they deserve a reason why.
posted on January 21, 2004 12:57:47 PM new
Neroter, I'll do what I can to keep you here instead of working.
I thought if a person was guilty of murder and told their lawyer, he/she would have to defend them as a guilty person... passion, insanity, etc. I can't believe Johnny Cochran didn't know OJ was guilty. There was no evidence that pointed away from OJ. Yes, he was a good lawyer in the sense he got OJ off, and yes, you'd want him to defend you if you were guilty of murder, but how can he still be so respected in his lawyer community when everyone knows what he did? As a lawyer, do you just pass this type of stuff off as doing your job? Will Mark Geragos be able to get Scott Peterson off with some fancy footwork also?
Helen, the Van Damme case is a good point. What a sad read.
posted on January 21, 2004 01:01:41 PM newI for one would like to see barriers removed to the jury asking questions when it becomes obvious to them they are not being told all the court knows. And if the juries questions won't be put to the witnesses or more witnesses called they deserve a reason why
The quickest way to a mistrial is allowing jurors to ask questions. One out of bounds question and the trial is over.
Juries are by and large made of of people not smart enough to get out of jury duty and are by far the most naive member of society.
Too many jurors are swayed by the tactics of the lawyers.
Lawyers are not witnesses nor are they under oath to tell the truth, but jurors are led around by the nose by the best trial lawyers.
The first thing all jurors should be told is that lawyers do not provide evidence, are not under oath, and are paid to spin the facts.
Again, it is the judges that are letting these thingss go on and it is the judges who could put an end to it.
posted on January 21, 2004 01:07:06 PM new
"to build on what you are saying instead of an adversarial system what would you do to make it more of a fact finding court with the aim of serving justice and protecting the public instead of 'winning'? "
Yes, very nearly exactly that, Gravid. Impartiality is crucial to the fair application of law and the rendering of "blind" justice. No one has such a system and I wonder if it's humanly possible to create one, given man's propensity for corruption in all areas, sooner or later...
Edited to add that my reply clearly did not address your question, Gravid, because I skidded over the all-important "to" between 'do' and 'make'. So, to clarify, I would think a system based solely on fact-finding would be more viable, but I don't know that we could create one.
[ edited by plsmith on Jan 21, 2004 02:37 PM ]
posted on January 21, 2004 03:12:47 PM new
Kraft, thanks. Its fun, but I dont know if I am allowed to have that MUCH fun.
Pl, I dont think it possible either. Maybe when we get those super-duper eye scanning lie-telling, voice-telling-no-mistake treble machines rigged up in the near future we can eradicate all human error.
posted on January 21, 2004 03:40:55 PM new
Reamond: Judges dont care about Justice. How true! The lawyers, the prosecutors, the judges, the clerks, police officers, bailiffs, secretaries - all are jaded and blighted from anything remotely humane in their chosen profession. There is way too much crime and "suits" going on. That whole system just moves em in and and out like production workers on a boring product line. Ninety percent of the time the two opposing sides may be great buddies from somewhere, and will strike a deal faster than you can say, "how much?" (how much money? how much time?) because their main motivation is to free themselves with the least bit of exertion so they wither not, but neither do they practice any craft of law or justice. If you go and sit for a day in any courtroom you can see it all written their weary, bleary, faces.
posted on January 22, 2004 02:59:37 AM new
A couple comments...
When detectives leaked the plea negotiation after the end of the Westerfield trial they did irreprable damage to Steven Feldmans career. I seem to remember a poll which showed that he was no longer seen as trust worthy in the eyes of the local jury pool and that his presence would actually cast a pall of doubt over his client in a court room. People would be more likely to believe a Feldman client guilty than an unknown lawyers.
In my opinion he should have sued the detectives. As much as I despise Westerfield, the damage done to the justice system is irreparable.
(By the way - the prosecutors in that case had only praise for the Feldman and went out of their way to publicly express their respect for his abilities after the plea negotiation was leaked)
Being a defense attorney has got to be a mentally horrifing job. To know that innocent people are sent to jail because of your failures and to go to bed at night with that question in the back of your mind as to whether or not your client really committed the crime you are defending them of.
Krafty - most lawyers tell their clients specifically not to tell them if they are guilty or not. If they are told, they don't have to try to present a justification defense (although they usually do or just try for a plea) they are simply required to never subborn perjury. They cannot knowingly allow someone to lie on the stand.
As to your original question... Yes I believe that Cochran is a brilliant lawyer but I in the OJ case his success had some help. Bill Mahr once once made the statement "The LAPD is so inept they were unable to frame a guilty man." It's a very true statement. I believe with every ounce of my being that Simpson was guilty but there are three pieces of forensic evidence from that trial that would have forced me to vote not guilty had I been on that jury and all of them lend themselves to the theory of planted evidence (one was just plain stupid in it's blatancy).
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on January 22, 2004 06:33:48 AM newCochran is a brilliant lawyer
Cochran was a weekly debit insurance salesman in the black community and uses his "Mister Johnny" silver tongue to sway BLACK juries.
Cochran is impotent as a trial lawyer outside the black community jury pool. And he knows it. He has wisely limited his practice to the jury pool in the black community.
Do note that Cochran did not front the OJ team until the venue was moved. Had the trial stayed in the Brentwood area jury pool, Cochran would not have been used.
In my opinion he should have sued the detectives. As much as I despise Westerfield, the damage done to the justice system is irreparable
The lawyer should have left the case after the plea deal fell through. Remember, this was not just a deal for a guilty plea, it was a deal to tell where the body of the child was. This wasn't an implication of guilt, it was an admission with supporting evidence.
Once the lawyer participated in this deal process, he should have asked to be removed when the deal fell through and a trial was to commence.
