Fox talk show host calls for disbarment of Westerfield lawyers('Cause He was Really Guilty)

I know for a fact that at least since mid-June when I have discussed this case with you on IRC that you have been convinced that Westerfield was guilty.

Until these latest revelations about attempts at plea deals on behalf of David Westerfield, I have strongly disagreed with you and believed David Alan Westerfield was innocent. I based my opinion solely on the evidence given by the forensic entomologists (insect experts) as well as the evidence involving tracking dogs. As you know I have personal working knowledge of training tracking/drug/explosives dogs. Another factor that bothered me and kept me sitting on the undecided fence before hoping down on the not guilty side, was the lack of evidence of Westerfield inside the Van Dam house.

It appears with these latest revelations about plea deals, if true, I was completely and totally wrong in my conclusions about David Alan Westerfield.

From a completely detached and unemotional perspective, any defendant, whether guity or not, is entitled to as vigorous a defense as is legally and ethically possible. As laymen, the general public definately doesn't like it if it appears to be a particularly heinous or gruesome crime as was in this case. Unemotional analysis for most of the general public is a skill of which they are completely devoid. As an example, firemen, paramedics and others require unemotional analysis and professional detachment in order to effectively perform their job duties.

81 posted on 09/19/2002 9:10:26 PM PDT by pyx

"You have no "DUE CAUSE" ( ROFL ) to accuse me of being Feldman or his agent. Its an invention of your mind. Now try to post something that mimics an intelligent comment."

Earth to spqrzilla: My quip in post 52, "And spqrzilla's his name, right?" was (take your pick):

1. A joke
2. An attempt at a witty remark
3. Anything but serious

Slander, schmander... You're really full of it.

82 posted on 09/19/2002 9:10:57 PM PDT by demkicker

To: Kevin Curry; Admin Moderator

83 posted on 09/19/2002 9:11:02 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck

Thank God justice was done in this case. If Westerfield had been aquitted and this guy killed another person, how could the defense laywers have lived with themselves.

I'm thinking about the Avila case, where this actually happened. He was aquitted of molesting two young girls before murdering that precious little girl in L.A. I don't know if the lawyers who defended him in the molestation case knew he was guilty but I don't think they care. I wonder how they live with themselves now?

84 posted on 09/19/2002 9:11:30 PM PDT by slimer

It's not the defense's job to throw a case which "probably" is guilty.

85 posted on 09/19/2002 9:12:45 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck

Did you hear OJ's first lawyer 'all but' admit he knew OJ did it. That's why he wouldn't represent him.

That's not true, his first lawyer wasn't a criminal defense lawyer. And he didn't withdraw.

86 posted on 09/19/2002 9:13:16 PM PDT by spqrzilla9

I think

I have to go no further to establish that this is a lie.

87 posted on 09/19/2002 9:13:43 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck

88 posted on 09/19/2002 9:15:19 PM PDT by spqrzilla9

To: HiTech RedNeck

SLANDER

Just think of me as a defense lawyer. You'll be singing my praises with the next post.

89 posted on 09/19/2002 9:16:15 PM PDT by Kevin Curry

Here's a good article on this topic which explains the adversarial system, of which O'Reilly is abominably ignorant.

DEFENDERS IN EYE OF PUBLIC STORM

Story of plea attempt raises ire of many

By Alex Roth
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

September 18, 2002

People in San Diego and around the country reacted with outrage yesterday to the notion that a defense lawyer who knows his client committed a horrible crime could tell a jury the client couldn't be guilty.

Their anger was incited by a report in The San Diego Union-Tribune, quoting unnamed sources, that David Westerfield's lawyers offered early in the case to have their client tell police where to find the body of 7-year-old Danielle van Dam if prosecutors would not seek the death penalty.

Though his actions angered many, defense attorneys defended Steven Feldman yesterday.

"David Westerfield's defense attorney knew he was guilty ... but he tried to mislead the jury anyway!" announced the Web site of "The O'Reilly Factor," the Fox News Channel national talk show. "Can anyone defend this kind of behavior?"

Actually – yes, they can.

A number of criminal defense lawyers voiced strong support yesterday for the conduct of Westerfield's defense team. It is not only ethical, these lawyers say, but obligatory to raise an aggressive defense for any client who is on trial in a criminal case.

To think otherwise, they argue, is to lack the most basic understanding of the Constitution.

"The United States of America was founded on some bedrock values," said Michael Ogul, an Alameda County public defender who has handled several capital cases. "And one of those bedrock values is that everyone, not just the innocent, has the right to a trial to see whether the government can prove its case."

The chatter about the story was furious yesterday on television, talk radio and the Internet, most of it from people who watched Westerfield's lawyers argue at trial that their client – for a variety of scientific and other reasons – couldn't have committed the crime.

But most experienced criminal defense attorneys say their job isn't to decide whether their client committed the offense. In fact, many defense lawyers have a policy of never asking the client that question.

Their role, they say, is to make sure their client isn't convicted unless the prosecution can prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. And it's impossible to make the prosecution meet its burden without aggressively challenging the evidence, even if the defender believes the client committed the crime.

The defense lawyers interviewed yesterday say the system would fail if they began asking which of their clients deserved a vigorous defense and which did not.

"If you defend your client, you can't make independent determinations of whether he's guilty or not guilty," San Diego defense lawyer Marc Carlos said. "Because one of these days we could be wrong."

This obligation is especially important in a death-penalty case, these lawyers argue.

"If they're trying to kill the guy, then they better be able to prove their case in court," Ogul said. "What's the guy supposed to do? Volunteer to be executed?"

Ethical limits
Deputy District Attorney Jeff Dusek, the lead prosecutor in the Westerfield case, refused comment on the newspaper story, saying plea negotiations in all criminal cases are confidential.
Westerfield's lead attorney, Steven Feldman, hasn't talked to the media beyond making a short statement shortly after the jury recommended the death penalty Monday. He couldn't be reached late yesterday.

Feldman is well-respected in the local legal community and has frequently won praise from prosecutors for his dedication to his clients and his skill in defending them.

The newspaper's sources said prosecutors were on the verge of accepting the offer of Westerfield's defense team – a life-without-parole sentence in exchange for information about where to find the body – when volunteers discovered Danielle's remains off Dehesa Road east of El Cajon on Feb. 27.

Prosecutors no longer had any incentive to make a deal and the potential plea bargain collapsed, the sources said. Such negotiations cannot be used as evidence in a trial.

Legal experts said Westerfield's defense team was acting ethically on behalf of their client in an attempt to spare him the death penalty a jury eventually recommended.

There are ethical limits to what a criminal defense lawyer can do on behalf of a client. California State Bar guidelines forbid lawyers from knowingly letting a client lie on the witness stand.

If the client insists on testifying anyway, the defense lawyer has an obligation to tell the judge in private that the client will be testifying over the objection of his counsel, according to San Diego defense attorney Gerald Blank.

But preventing a client from lying on the witness stand is entirely different from telling a jury the client is not guilty of the crime, Blank said.

In the opinion of Blank and other defense attorneys, asserting that the client is not guilty is different from asserting innocence.

"Innocent" means the client didn't do it. "Not guilty" means the state doesn't have the evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, Blank said. Jurors return guilty or not-guilty verdicts. In rare cases a judge will make a finding that a defendant is innocent.

"The entire framework of the United States and California constitutions is that no one goes to prison unless the government's got proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime," he said. "That's the bulwark of our freedom."

Emphasized doubts
Throughout the Westerfield trial, Feldman and co-counsel Robert Boyce avoided the word "innocent." Instead, they aggressively challenged every prosecution theory, every prosecution witness, offering any number of possible alternative explanations for the evidence along the way.
Feldman told the jury that scientific testimony from bug experts would prove it was "impossible" for his client to have dumped Danielle's body. He told the jury no trace of Westerfield was found anywhere in the van Dams' house.

"We have doubts," Feldman said in his opening statements of the trial. "We have doubts as to the cause of death. We have doubts as to the identity of Danielle van Dam's killer. We have doubts as to who left her where she resided, where she remained. And we have doubts as to who took her."

Three months later, the jury returned a verdict reflecting its belief that those doubts were not reasonable.

90 posted on 09/19/2002 9:17:05 PM PDT by Palladin

To: HiTech RedNeck

Just curious... Why code in the Admin Moderator? Overacting a bit, aren't you?

91 posted on 09/19/2002 9:18:17 PM PDT by demkicker

Yes, slander. And you deserve to be banned for that and hypocrisy too. Not even Feldman said "I think I know what happened that night and it was somebody else at the party."

92 posted on 09/19/2002 9:19:11 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck

It is a problem. All this recent public rumor, and the testimony in the "sentencing phase" (despicable practise, it is, breaks the legs of Justice by Jury) gives more credence to the "creep" theory -- but NONE of that was in evidence or testimony during the trial. Just as possible rumor and backgound innuendo fed to certain media faces and "advisors" to fire the massive media barrage against Westerfield that surely poisoned the jury in this case.

So yes -- the best can be said is "If Westerfield did it." That's a problem, a problem -- to my thinking -- in Jury Trial procedures that have come to pass, and that are still novel -- the use of plea bargaining, the suppression of any evidence or rumor from presentation to the Jury -- a Jury should be most fully informed of everything, and given direction as to the legal weighing of hearsay, improperly gained testimony and evidence etc. and this rotten invention called a "sentencing phase".

93 posted on 09/19/2002 9:19:14 PM PDT by bvw

Does OJ Simpson ring a bell?

94 posted on 09/19/2002 9:19:56 PM PDT by M. Peach

No, reacting quite appropriately. He slandered me. "I think I know your problem." I know his problem.

95 posted on 09/19/2002 9:19:58 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck

. . . despicable

Westerfield = despicable.

In memory of a murdered innocent little girl, never forget it.

96 posted on 09/19/2002 9:21:15 PM PDT by Kevin Curry

So yes -- the best can be said is "If Westerfield did it."

Amen. Amen.

97 posted on 09/19/2002 9:21:22 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck

You are going to be mighty sheepish if (and with a fair probability, when) someone else confesses.

98 posted on 09/19/2002 9:22:04 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck

To: HiTech RedNeck

You are going to be mighty sheepish if (and with a fair probability, when) someone else confesses.

Pardon me. Did you bleat?

99 posted on 09/19/2002 9:24:12 PM PDT by Kevin Curry

To: HiTech RedNeck

And who would that be, the gunman on the grassy knoll or the man who faked the moon landings?

100 posted on 09/19/2002 9:26:16 PM PDT by spqrzilla9

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794