Posted on 05/04/2008 6:04:47 PM PDT by Grammar Nazi
That’s right.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
“You can not take the word of a self-confessed murderer at any value whatsoever”
Then of course his confession is of no value and you can’t consider him to be self-confessed.
He is either a murderer or a liar, in either case no good as a witness.
I’m not sure you would have made it to the jury. Guilt or innocence is decided by a preponderance of the evidence. A decision made before testimony is given is not ethical or moral. Whether or not the man is innocent or guilty, I can’t say but he may have a case for appeal. Again, I don’t know the laws for the state where he is incarcerated.
Not relevant to my comment.
no problemo
The problem with today's courts is that they have developed too many ways to suppress evidence. The jurors aren't given all the evidence. Just another game to keep the lawyers rich.
It’s so easy even a child could see it. They’re scum, it’s their business to keep the public at each others throats, and they protect their own above all else.
I don’t disagree with you on the fallacy of the court system of today. I have seen more than enough trial by error in our courts. Even the appeal system is abused regularly. The courts are also legislating from the bench, dictating the judges view, rather than constitutional laws.
I digress.
You have to admit, it’d make for an ineresting cross-examination...
All a lawyer with a guilty client should do is his best concerning the sentencing of same.
A lawyer with a guilty client should simply see that the truth concerning his client be discovered at his trial. Truth should be the only thing that counts in our justice system. Unfortunately, it’s the only thing that doesn’t matter in our courts. This judges actions should get him disbarred and imprisioned for false imprisonment.
Easily said. So what about those law school debts (most lawyers aren’t rich and have to pay off their debts over many years), spouse to support, kids, years spent learning your livelihood, etc? Screw them too, eh? More easily said from behind a keyboard than done.
Such a simpistic attitude is unworthy of Free Republic, but sadly far too common lately. Kudos to the attorney for biting the bullet, esp. since the client has passed and cannot be harmed in any meaningful way, but this is a very complex issue with ramifications for the entire due process and right to counsel issues.
However, here’s a way too keep yourself personally from being a complete hypocrit on this topic: If you ever need a lawyer, sign a complete waiver or at least post mortem waiver of all attorney client-priviledge before retaining him/her. What, you don’t like the idea? Might harm your rights or your estate’s (kids, if you have any)? Well, that is what you are advocating for others without their consent...
“The police are not in the business of “protecting” the public.”
in the fifties in the small city where I lived at the time, the police took great pride in referring to themselves as “peace officers.”
They were poorly trained, but had a heart for policing and did a great job!
Well, you get it. These knee jerk “lawyers are evil scum” types, though, clearly don’t. Of course, THEY would want THEIR lawyer to abide by that little nicety of attorney client priviledge, even post mortem for the sake of their families. But it is so much easier to hate the evil lawyers (who should quit their vile profession) and ignore the ramifications. Feel like I am reading KOs or DU - emotion based uninformed cr@p with no real understanding of what is at stake.
Should the lawyer in this case be sanctioned? I don’t know, but it is a tough issue. Did he do the right thing? For the innocent man, yes. For other innocent people who find themselves in front of a court on criminal charges? Maybe not.
Everyone hates a lawyer until they need one. :)
“I’m not sure you would have made it to the jury. Guilt or innocence is decided by a preponderance of the evidence.”
No. Civil liabilty is by “preponderance of the evidence.” Guilt (criminal) is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” BIG DIFFERENCE.
“All a lawyer with a guilty client should do is his best concerning the sentencing of same.”
So screw “innocent until proven guilty,” eh? YOUR lawyer will decide if you are guilty, not a jury of your peers? Yeah, great idea there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.