[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.

[demkicker]

"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."

Only a condescending prick would have such a pathetic response.... ugh.

"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."

This is where you lose. Lawyers who knowingly put forth false theories and explanations to defend their clients make a mockery of our constitution. I don't expect you to comprehend the rationale.

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

But the air is so much fresher up here.

[Political Junkie Too]

He and his counsel were entitled to present any evidence that might show his innocence...

If Feldman knew Westerfield was guilty, then what evidence exists that Feldman could present that shows Westefield's innocence?

...to question the reliability of prosecution evidence and to present alternative theories, explanations, etc. of the evidence.

Questioning the reliability of evidence is one thing. Concocting alternative theories is nothing more than playing "what-if" scenarios with the jury. He would really be asking, "What if my client didn't kill the girl? Would it then be possible if...?" If he knew the client to be guilty, then there is no evidence that proves otherwise, because he knew otherwise. He would be falsifying evidence to present false assumptions as possibilities, and he would be doing it with the intent to deceive.

-PJ