[demkicker]

"O'Reilly is a blithering moronic loudmouth."

Granted, O'Reilly can be obnoxious, but your defense of the indefensable is equally moronic.

"No, he's not. What O'Reilly is doing is attempting to undermine the most basic principles of our system of justice."

Oh, PUHLEEEEEZE! Take you cryin' towel elsewhere. Most folks are sick and tired of sleezy defense lawyers hiding behind a false interpretation of our constitution. I doubt you're capable of understanding the meaning of the most basic principles of our system of justice.

Deliberately lying to a jury in the name of "giving the client a vigorous defense under our constitution" is beyond the pale. Ever notice that the typical liberal defenders of trial lawyers are the ones who can't wait to take more freedoms away from law abiders? When cracking down on their own, trial lawyers are down right sickening... Hiding behind their concocted versions of a constitution which exists only in their own warped minds is no longer tolerable.

Pssst, spqrzilla9, the public has had it with your ilk. Get a clue!

[spqrzilla9]

I obviously have an advantage in this debate. I've read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. As well as the California Rules of Professional Conduct.

Try it some day.

Westerfield was entitled to present a defense by our Constitution and to employ legal counsel to do so. He and his counsel were entitled to present any evidence that might show his innocence, to question the reliability of prosecution evidence and to present alternative theories, explanations, etc. of the evidence. They did so. I've seen no real evidence that defense counsel violated any ethical rules.

Slandering defense counsel as you and others are doing hardly demonstrates your moral high ground.