Replies

Hey, Poo, just a quick one:

"I'm assuming he's guilty because of his lawyer. Gittin is the Mark Geragos of the military lawyer community--hiring him is about the same as confessing, it's just a lot more expensive."

Soooo. . .retain a talented hired gun/snake for your defense and you are guilty, and conversely, hire a no-name and quickly find yourself guilty. Not a fair choice, now is it?

Is that what I am hearing?

I tell ya, if I am ever accused of a crime you can bet your last bit of bandwidth that I will hire the best snake I can find. Guilty or not, and in your world I am guilty if I hire a talented/good/sneaky lawyer.

Supposition of guilt because of who your lawyer is, well, that is unfair. IMHO, ALL defense lawyers have questionable character, so according to you, we should convict those that hire the best defense talent. I see you base the question of guilt or innocence on your feelings (nice lib word) about the defense lawyer---not on facts related to guilt or innocence. Difficult situation for anyone standing trial if you are on the jury; "Well, according to Poo, I will not hire this guy, as he is too good and uses too many supposed sneaky underhanded tricks, that means because Poo is on the jury, he will convict me because of my lawyer, not on issues of guilt or innocence."

Soooo. . .retain a talented hired gun/snake for your defense and you are guilty, and conversely, hire a no-name and quickly find yourself guilty.

Charles Gittin, like Mark Geragos, does not meet the criterion that I bolded.

I tell ya, if I am ever accused of a crime you can bet your last bit of bandwidth that I will hire the best snake I can find.

Then I would heartily recommend hiring someone other than Gittin. His statements to the press helped get LTC West convicted.