Posted on 09/19/2002 7:03:56 PM PDT by Jalapeno
Fox talk show host calls for disbarment of Westerfield lawyers
|
|||||||
Ah, but it does. If you were a lawyer, then you would know that ethics and morality can be easily twisted to serve your own needs, pet theory, or client's interests. In short, a lawyer can and does rationalize anything and everything to do his/her job.
This is what is so infuriating when discussing a topic with one; he/she will take one side of an issue and spend forever defending it, debating it. Right and Wrong has nothing to do with WINNING the debate, discussion, argument, or defense of a client's position. Get it?
:-)
I would think the defense lawyers, who knew the truth, would be on the short list for a killin'.
Getting him off, could have been signing their own death warrant.
Precisely why I am not a laywer. I couldn't live with myself, let alone do a job, where I am forced to compromise my own ethics and morality. I'll stick to web design... ;)
See, if you were an attorney, this would be so simple.
(1) and (2) are false. The rule applies to all lawyers, and carries penalties including disbarment. (3) is correct. A lawyer who is not a witness can make arguments as to inferences from the evidence without violating the rule. What the lawyer cannot do is lie about something in his personal knowledge (e.g., ask for a mistrial by falsely accusing the DA of not giving him a required notice) or offer false evidence (doctored documents, a witness he knows is lying, etc.)
Westerfield was also charged with (and found guilty of) possession of child pornography.
The defense tried to say it was his 18 year old son's!
The prosecution was put in the position of having to call the son to the stand to testify, whereupon he had to testify that he did view some pornography, but it was of adult women, not children.
That is what the defense did to Westerfield's own son.
He said it during the sentencing, not the trial.
Howard Weitzman was on O'Reilly just last night! What are you talking about?
I disagree. O'Reilly is dead on in this one. The legal system is unworthy of existence if it seeks to protect a child rapist and murderer. I don't really give a rats a$$ what the law says. If he admits his guilt to the defense, the case should stop right there and the bastard should be sentenced to death. Where has the morality of this country gone, anyway?
Perhaps the witnesses didn't testify falsely. But he did present witnesses to try to mislead the jury.
For example, they presented a computer expert to try to imply that Westerfield's son was the porn collector.
Also Feldman produced pictures of investigators wearing orange in order to lead the jury to believe those items were the source of incriminating orange fibers found on the victim and in Westerfield's environment.
The prosecution, in rebuttal, refuted these points. But the fact remains the defense was spinning a tale for the jury they knew to be false.
From Kim's link in #122.
Looks like he was OJ's first lawyer.
Weitzman, Howard
Simpson legal counsel. Withdrew in the opening days of Simpson case, citing his close personal friendship with O.J. Contends police barred Simpson from having attorneys present during his questioning the day after the murders.
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.