She was appointed by the court to defend an indigent defendant. She didn't have a choice.
-- and called into question Shelton's reliability.
That's what defense lawyers do.
I'm a lawyer. I have defended people who "did it." That's what the Constitution requires. The other criticism of Hillary is amply justified, but I don't agree about this instance.
Clinton accused a 12 year old victim of “Fantasizing about having sex with adult men” that goes BEYOND just defending your client
Was she the public defender at the time?
I can sure understand how people can and do feel indignant when someone who truly is guilty is defended by an attorney. Once upon a time, I felt that way too until after sitting in on a capitol murder trial at the federal level. That was one of the most educational experiences I’ve ever had despite the circumstances.
The judge took every precaution on behalf of the defendant...which at the time I resented and was outraged by. However, in doing so, he prevented that case from being lost on appeal. Every possible constitutional protection was strictly adhered to so when the case eventually wound up at the United States Supreme Court, even they said...nope. No appeal.
These men were indigent and in fact were prison escapees, yet they received a world class multimillion dollar defense. And I’m VERY glad they did!
It would have been horrid and traumatic to go through all of that only to loose at any stage of the appeals process. So, when someone receives that kind of red carpet treatment and they are found guilty, they are guilty indeed! No more questions on that case.
And, I agree with the rest..the other criticism is amply justified.
I’m a lawyer too. She laughed. She enjoyed that win. I agree that when one is appointed one has to aggressively represent the defendant but afterwards she gloated. That’s what I think is evil.
I don't agree. Sometime ago I was required to appear for jury duty. The case involved an individual accused of 1st degree assault, assault and something else. He was held for 24 monrhs before this trial.
We had to fill out a questionnaire. I added to it that the individual should fess up to his crime and take his punishment and then get his life straightened out.
Needless to say, I was called before the judge. I was told that we assume innocent until proven guilty. I didn't back off. Ultimately, I was excused.
Then I began to research the maxim of innocent until proven guilty. It came from an 1894 Supreme Court decision, Coffin vs U.S. Justice White wrote the majority opinion quoting liberally from the writing of an Irish lawyer who defended Irish rebels. But, only after turning them into the Crown and then getting to defend them.
The question I have is: Are any of the tactics Hillary used to defend that scum now disallowed under rape shield laws? If so, he should attack with that... if not, just lawyer stuff. Heck, maybe even try to pivot on the taxes to this... when hit again on taxes at the next debate... “I take advantage of every means allowed under the law to minimize my taxes paid so I can employ as many people as necessary and you attack me for it... say I should pay more than the law demands... yet when attacking the credibility of a child rape victim in trial was allowed prior to rape shield laws, you chose to take advantage of the what was allowed to shatter the life of a 12 yr old rape victim... to get your client off the hook... since you oppose taking deductions allowed under the law, should we take your actions in court to mean you are opposed to rape shield laws? I am calling for you to release all correspondence, emails, letters, and phone records related to your defense of that client and any accused rapist, including your husband. You have made it clear that you have a public stance and a private stance on issues... The American people deserve to know your private positions on the rights of rape victims.”
How many times did you laugh and brag about it?
There’s a difference between defending the guilty, vs demeaning the victim.
So you would look to destroy the reputation of a 12 year old girl and in essence put her on trial? That is how you defend as a public defender? In most of the country public defenders cut a deal to reduce jail time not get a scum completely off the hook.
Reminds me of what radical lawyer William Kunstler said years ago.
“*** the law! You get him off any way you can!”
It is reported that she destroyed evidence.
“That’s what the Constitution requires.”
Sorry but you lie.
“I’m a lawyer. I have defended people who “did it.”
If you knew they did it and tried to claim they didn’t you’re a perfect representation of everything that’s wrong with your profession.
What Hillary did was unethical and you know it.
L
Thank you for giving us a lawyer's perspective. Does the Constitution require lawyers to laugh about it later when telling other people about humiliating a 12 year old who was raped to save a nasty scumbag who deserved to be lynched? That seems a little insensitive to some people, but most of us are not lawyers.
If anyone is interested in the facts concerning Clinton’s defense of a man who violently raped a 12 year-old girl, here is an overview. Some of what I will tell you is not what the opponents of Clinton are saying, they are sensationalizing some of it.
She was asked to defend this man by a judge who was a donor to her husband’s campaigns. He had ever right to a fair defense and she agreed. The rape was violent, and though some say Shelton was in a comma for a few days, I have seen nothing to back that up. She was traumatized and required 5 years of intensive therapy. Her reproductive organs were damages so badly by the attack,she did lose the ability to have children.
A key element of the case concerned a portion of her underpants stained with semen that tested positive to the attacker. For some odd reason that section of the underpants was cut out. After Clinton was brought in, the semen-stained part of the underpants were conveniently lost by the crime lab? I’m betting that once Clinton was brought in, they wanted her to look good, so they made sure the key evidence was lost.
Clinton also provided an affidavit with unsubstantiated claims that the 12 year old was known to like older men and fantasized about them, that adolescent girls romanticize about sex. Adolescent, this was a 12 year-old. She gave no names of people who told her that Shelton liked older men etc.
Clinton sent the remaining portion of the underpants to NY. Of course in AR they had already tested the entire garment and only found semen in the area lost. So it was obvious the lab in NY would find nothing. When Clinton got that report back, she took it to the prosecutor and said “I have a guy in NY who is willing to testify on my clients behalf for what he sees as a “miscarriage of justice”.
In the radio interview she then laughs, she knows he’s guilty and this guy from NY thinks if the guy is tried it’s a “miscarriage of justice”. The guy in NY had no idea the semen stained portion of the underpants had been lost. Her guy in NY thinks they are trying to railroad this poor guy with no evidence. Both the radio host and Clinton think this is funny.
So they have to drop the charges to fondling, he pleads guilty and only gets 1 year, but he was in prison for two months, so he’s released for time served. She thinks that’s kind of cool and seemed proud of that, almost cocky.
The other laugh people are talking, is when in the earlier interview she says her client took a polygraph and passed it, “which forever destroyed her faith in polygraphs.” She knew he raped her, the semen they found confirmed it and she’s laughing about passing the polygraph.
The bottom line was that this women’s life was ruined and Clinton was very cavalier about the entire incident. She said nothing about the poor 12 year-old girl.
But as you can tell from the two interviews, it’s always about Clinton, what makes her look good, regardless of who she’s hurting, even a 12year-old. There’s an arrogance about it all, a look-how-well-I-played-this attitude in her comments. So proud of getting the monster off with only 2 months served.
You’re telling me that you can’t abstain from defending someone you know is guilty? And why is that ethical to know a client is guilty and attack a 12 year old child as having sought this man our for sex? I’m sick of these excuses for this because this is an evil thing to do and I don’t want to hear one has no choice.