Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fox talk show host calls for disbarment of Westerfield lawyers('Cause He was Really Guilty)
Court TV ^ | Harriet Ryan

Posted on 09/19/2002 7:03:56 PM PDT by Jalapeno

Fox talk show host calls for disbarment of Westerfield lawyers

Photo

Defense lawyers for David Westerfield confer at trial.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: capitalcrimes; deathpenatly; westerfield
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 401-410 next last
To: HiTech RedNeck
"You are going to be mighty sheepish if (and with a fair probability, when) someone else confesses."

Your stupid remark is chasing me off to bed. Lights out...
101 posted on 09/19/2002 9:26:28 PM PDT by demkicker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: tetelestai; Ditter; ChiefRon; Starshine; UCANSEE2; Mrs.Liberty; Jaded; skipjackcity; BARLF; ...
Suspicious of admin moderators ping, in a nice way of course. (why did they move ours to chat?)
102 posted on 09/19/2002 9:28:22 PM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
That was an echo you heard.
103 posted on 09/19/2002 9:29:54 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: spqrzilla9
Possibly the man who left the unknown prints in the van Dam house, who co-raped Danielle along with Westerfield.
104 posted on 09/19/2002 9:31:36 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: John H K
The entire point is that the constitution says you have the right to a fair trial and that a defense attorneys job is to assure the trial is fair and legal - nowhere can I find in the constitution that allows for a defendent to lie to a court of law (either on the stand or through his defense atty) in order to receive a fair trial. Can you?
105 posted on 09/19/2002 9:48:59 PM PDT by Brytani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: spqrzilla9
What O'Reilly is doing is attempting to undermine the most basic principles of our system of justice.

Wrong. The principle of justice is to not convict the innocent. Justice is not a parlor game, a theatrical piece, or a process to keep lawyers off the street. It is about protecting society and punishing the guilty. Lawyers are officers of the court and they were not performing their legal responsibilities when they went around accusing others and trying to smear the parents of the dead girl. Their actions are totally inexcusable. In addition to which, lawyers are going way overboard in many cases, it is time to start telling them enough is enough.

106 posted on 09/19/2002 9:49:09 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
A defense lawyer can also go to the judge and say "I have reason to believe my client is guilty of the crime as charged and because of this knowledge I am unable to defend him" then ask to be removed from the case. That would be the ethical thing to do and what Feldman should have done.
107 posted on 09/19/2002 9:51:07 PM PDT by Brytani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: John H K
Frankly amazes me that people are so incredibly stupid

Well, count me in as one of the people you consider incredibly stupid. I've held off on posting on these threads because of the vehemenence on them, but too many people think a fair trial means the guy has a 50-50 chance of getting off. Feldman had nothing but lies to work with. He had no case, other than deliberately making false accusations and innuendo. The prosecutor, defendent, and the defense attorney all knew this guy did it, and Feldman insinuated that the parents of a child who had been kidnapped, raped, murdered, and left to be gnawed on by Feldman's beloved bugs were the ones actually responsible for the child's death. In terms of defense, when a defense lawyer has absolutely no case without resorting to these types of tactics, the criminal justice system is not served by this type of conduct. All that has happened is that millions, yes millions of potential jurors who have seen the travesty of what pretends to be a legal system how it actually operates. When people are put on a jury, many of them will immediately discount defense attorneys because, according to the wisdom of the lawyers, anything that works is acceptable.

When a defense lawyer has no credible case to put forth for a client, the obvious thing to do is urge the client to plea-bargain or plead guilty and throw himself on the mercy of the court. If the client won't do that, it sucks to be him. Get another lawyer. If all lawyers would refuse to engage in this type of conduct, the legal system might start getting some respect back. The lawyerings here are so typical. "If the lawyer suspects" his client is guilty. The lawyer KNEW his client was guilty. No amount of shading, it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is, or any other type of typical attorney misdirection can cover this up. Feldman KNEW. And he continued to do everything he could to cast suspicion on two people who were going through the worst nightmare any parent could imagine. I know people who lost children in car wrecks twenty years ago and still haven't recovered. These people probably had to have a closed casket funeral or cremation because their daughter had been left in the desert for a month. They stared at the casket, knowing what was inside, their daughter, who spent her last hours on this earth screaming and crying, begging Westerfield to stop, not understanding what was happening to her. Her body too damaged to be displayed. Organs eaten away by wild animals. Can't even give her a last goodby kiss in the casket, because David Westerfield wanted a few hours of fun torturing a child for his pleasure. But, of course, the only ethical thing for Feldman to do was trot out pictures of her body and go over in detail the damage done to her, and imply that of course, it was her parents fault. Bury your child and get accused of being responsible for her death by a guy representing the fiend who did it. Whole justice system will fall apart if Feldman is called on this one. If Feldman hadn't done everything in his power to get David Westerfield off, so he could find another seven year old girl to have "fun" with, the entire American Justice System would come crashing down in a pile.

All Feldman did was make it infinitely more difficult for lawyers who are defending truly innocent, falsely accused clients. The legal system will NOT fall apart if honesty becomes a standard part of the expected trial conduct. Boy, am I stupid. Too bad Westerfield didn't have a thing for lawyers like he did for young girls.

If a defense attorney got up in court and said "all right, I know my client is guilty...." and then refused to present a defense...

Said defense attorney would never get a client again. If you were accused of a crime (guilty or not) would YOU hire the guy?

If I were innocent, yes I would. The concept of a lawyer with integrity is intriguing.

108 posted on 09/19/2002 9:54:19 PM PDT by Richard Kimball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
You don't happen to remember the name of this lawyer do you? Curious to look into this.
109 posted on 09/19/2002 9:54:40 PM PDT by Brytani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
When this country abandons an adversarial model of justice and adopts a cooperative one (which is when Jesus Christ will have returned) then you have a point. Otherwise the "game" is the best we can do. As long as any possibility remains however tiny that the defendant is not guilty of what was charged, the attorney can give that possibility all his guns. He can innuendo the President of the United States and go scot free.

Strange enough things have happened in capital cases before, that I am unwilling to allow the defense any less.

110 posted on 09/19/2002 9:55:01 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Jalapeno
Interesting point: if the plea had not been withdrawn, we could have avoided a money pit of a trial down here and DW would be in state prison now. Death Penalty takes so darn long to enact, the con will be almost dead by then and the focus will be: "That poor old man" (Gag) by the kumbaya brigades. Better to have him in a maximum security hellhole.
111 posted on 09/19/2002 9:56:41 PM PDT by CARepubGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Richard Kimball
Feldman KNEW had reason to suspect
112 posted on 09/19/2002 9:58:20 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Brytani
A defense lawyer can also go to the judge and say "I have reason to believe my client is guilty of the crime as charged and because of this knowledge I am unable to defend him" then ask to be removed from the case. That would be the ethical thing to do and what Feldman should have done.

Complete nonsense. If Feldman had done that, the judge would have refused to remove him and probably threatened to punish him for being an ass.
113 posted on 09/19/2002 10:02:22 PM PDT by spqrzilla9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: rintense
But the jury did not buy his arguments. He did not get the creep off. The San Diego DA Pfingst is a weasel and deserves to be retired. The lawyers did their jobs properly. The DA had a better case so he won. Much more credible too.
114 posted on 09/19/2002 10:02:24 PM PDT by CARepubGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Richard Kimball
but too many people think a fair trial means the guy has a 50-50 chance of getting off.

No, a fair trial in an adversarial system means every logical possibility of the defendant's innocence is pressed to the hilt. As was pointed out, this actually served justice, under the assumption Westerfield really did it. Had Feldman concluded Westfield guilty and mounted only a wet noodle of a defense, Westerfield would probably have won a new trial and with it another chance to go scot free.

115 posted on 09/19/2002 10:04:06 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Brytani
That attorney was on O'reilly tonight. Sorry I can't remember his name.
116 posted on 09/19/2002 10:06:48 PM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Brytani
He said he removed himself for moral and ethical reasons.
117 posted on 09/19/2002 10:07:20 PM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Richard Kimball
If I were innocent, yes I would.

And when after accepting mucho money from you, the attorney disbelieved you on the basis of predominant suspicion or some such rot... then what would your opinion be?

118 posted on 09/19/2002 10:09:18 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Brytani
click me

Feldman also told Mudd that he may have been guilty of "ineffective counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution." Ineffective counsel is a frequent issue on appeal.

119 posted on 09/19/2002 10:09:26 PM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Won't he have to do a bit better than "I fumbled and let the jury see all the porn"?
120 posted on 09/19/2002 10:32:40 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 401-410 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson