Posted on 07/03/2008 4:30:22 PM PDT by John Semmens
Massachusetts State Representative James Fagan (D-Taunton) argues that “Jessica’s Law,” which prescribes a mandatory 20-year sentence for rape of a child under 12, would force him to verbally and psychologically destroy the victims in order to free his clients.
“As a defense attorney it is my obligation to use any legal means to help my client avoid a conviction,” Fagan explained. “The harsher the punishment for conviction, the more vicious I must be to try to ensure it doesn’t happen. If a 6-year-old is going to testify against my client, I’m going to rip her apart. I’m going to make sure that the rest of her life is ruined—that when she’s 8 years old she throws up. When she’s 12 years old, she won’t sleep. When she’s 19 years old she’ll have nightmares and never have a relationship with anybody.”
Fagan rejected any personal responsibility for these detestable tactics. “It’s the prosecutors’ fault,” Fagan alleged. “I’ve warned them. They know what I’m prepared to do. It’s within their power to save these children’s lives. All they have to do is ‘play ball’ with me. If they go easy on my clients, I won’t have to go for the jugulars of these victims. It’s as simple as that.”
(Excerpt) Read more at azconservative.org ...
Lawyers! Getta’ love’em. What a man! What an a$$hole!
Ok, let’s look at the big picture. The “ALLEGED” rapist is what we are talking about. No one is arguing that a “convicted” rapist, especially of a child, should not be in prison for a very long time, but the crime is “alleged” until a conviction. What is a DEFENSE attorney supposed to do? Let his client be convicted if he believes he’s innocent because a child has made an accusation? Believe me, there are PLENTY of lying children out there. It is a tough call. The guilty should be punished, but a defense attorney can be appealed under “ineffective counsel” if he does not do everything in his power to defend his client.
I know a guy who got 60 years based on the “recovered” memory of an 8 year old after 6 months of intense therapy. His wife testified that this single incident could not have occurred since he was at home with her. The “recovered” memory was the sole evidence against him.
Maybe he did it. I don’t know. But thing about the fact that a psychologist can take a kid and “therapy” him into “remembering” anything with enough time.
Happened many times in the 80’s with several daycare witchhunt trials. Dozens of innocent people went to prison and lost their children. Some are still there.
If a 6-year-old is going to testify against my client, I’m going to rip her apart. I’m going to make sure that the rest of her life is ruined—that when she’s 8 years old she throws up. When she’s 12 years old, she won’t sleep. When she’s 19 years old she’ll have nightmares and never have a relationship with anybody.”
is ok?
I maintain that Jessica’s Law had no effect whatever on this particular lawyer’s style of defense. That’s just what he does naturally. Jessica’s Law is a convenient crutch for him.
This attorney doesn't think it is OK, that is why he made the statement. He is looking for an alternative.
Tossing Gerald Amirault in jail for 18 years for crimes he never committed was not OK, either.
Recovered memory stuff is generally bullsh1t. They make the kid believe it happened. They keep hammering on the kid and they wind up convincing the kid it actually happened when it never did.
No reasonable prosecutor or judge will permit these unnecessary courtroom antics nor will anyone likely win a lengthy, costly, appeal for them being banned. This shill for defense attorneys knows that Jessica's Law will make the job of defense attorney more difficult and less profitable. Kids will be both safer and happier when the scum this idiot tries to keep on the street are locked away for good.
This lawyer is full of it. He is terrified to put a child on the stand because if the kid is credible, the jury will hand out the maximum sentence.
This is not the 80’s. Recovered memory is no longer a good offense. If a vicious cross examination of a child is the only arrow this creep has in his quiver, he’s either a bad lawyer or his client is guilty as hell or both.
Amirault was convicted on coached testimony, not recovered memories.
If a vicious cross examination of a child is the only arrow this creep has in his quiver, he’s either a bad lawyer or his client is guilty as hell or both.
So on your planet, children never lie, and are never coached to lie. Must be a nice place.
I would not want his job, and he may be a creep, he this attorney is just pointing out the obvious.
I would not be surprised if Gerald Amirault believes that his attorneys should have done a better job of defending him, and a worse job of protecting the delicate sensibilities of his false accusers.
Should be “but this attorney” not “he this attorney.”
His talk of trying to destroy a child is a bit much. Wow! He can attack a six year old. He must be a genius.
Let me expand a little on my reply. The flaws in 'recovered memory are well known today and a good lawyer will point them out. Forensics are much better today and a good lawyer will use them. Today, a good lawyer has many tools. He/she does not always have to use a hammer.
children never lie, and are never coached to lie
Children can be unduly influenced by powerful adults. What if, while under the brutal attack of a defense attorney, the child recants the accusation just to get the lawyer to stop and subsequently, the rapist goes free? Is that outcome acceptable to you?
If a lawyer did this:
“If a 6-year-old is going to testify against my client, I’m going to rip her apart. I’m going to make sure that the rest of her life is ruined—that when she’s 8 years old she throws up. When she’s 12 years old, she won’t sleep. When she’s 19 years old she’ll have nightmares and never have a relationship with anybody.”
to my 6 yr. old,do you think a jury would convict me of murder?
I think there is a difference between a thorough cross examination and the bullying this lawyer boasts he will do.
If he had said something like...
“Sending a person to prison for a crime he didn’t commit would be a terrible miscarriage of justice. As his defense attorney I would use every reasonable and legal means try to get the truth—including vigorous questioning of his accuser.”
...he would have made a defensible statement. However, his vow to destroy the life of the witness seems to cast aside any interest in the truth. He seems to be saying that getting his client off is the ONLY concern he has and that intimidation is an acceptable tool.
So, I’d say his focus on destroying the child witness is a despicable diversion from the legitimate role of the defense attorney in ensuring a fair trial for his client.
That "brutal attack" will only be verbal. The kid will know it is coming. and will know that it will be over soon. I don't like the outcome you describe, but I am not willing to trade away a defendant's right to a vigorous defense that involves confronting his accuser, even if it means that some guilty defendants go free.
That "brutal attack" will only be verbal.
So you believe a brutal attack that is only verbal will do no harm? You don't have kids, do you? Verbal abuse by authority figures can have long lasting, devastating effects, as this pig attorney knows.
The kid will know it is coming. and will know that it will be over soon.
You assume way too much.
I don't like the outcome you describe, but I am not willing to trade away a defendant's right to a vigorous(read: "vicious") defense that involves confronting his accuser, even if it means that some guilty defendants go free (and some innocent children rape victims are destroyed).
A defense can (and should be) vigorous without being vicious. This particular bottom feeding lawyer (redundancy noted) shows way too much enthusiasm for his point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.