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.
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.
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?
The parents lied to the police when asked about drug use and their open marriage. Dusek brought that up himself.
LE brought in Faulkner to help indentify time of death. Just like he had done and testified for the Prosecution over 195 times.
If his findings would have supported the Feb. 2-4 timeframe, he would have been called by Dusek and you and the jury would have ate it up with a spoon.
But since he contradicted LE, you cry like a baby and point your finger at the evil defense attyns.
I'm sure your big government daddy is very proud of you.