An Absolute Disgrace in the Murder Trial of Danielle Van Dam

foxnews.com ^ | Bill O'Reilly

[rintense]

Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight.

An absolute disgrace in the murder trial of 7-year-old Danielle van Dam. That is the subject of this evening's Talking Points memo.

According to a report in The San Diego Union Tribune, convicted killer David Westerfield's attorneys, Steven Feldman and Robert Boyce, knew their client was guilty.

[FreedomCalls]

If the attorneys did not have direct knowledge of Westerfield's guilt, then advancing an alternate theory of the crime would not be inconsistent with truth.

But that's what the whole case turns on. They DID have direct knowledge of his guilt because the proffer was that Westerfield would tell the police where the body was in exchange for a plea of guilty to a lesser charge.

[truth_seeker]

This speaks awfully well to a hard prejudice and bias against the defense, and/or lines of inquiry that would have been, should have been and were made specifically but not limited to those inquiries into the reckless activities of the van Dams that are most reasonably relevant in abduction cases such as this. That is, it goes to suggesting that the Juror, Winkowski, went into the trial not as the Constitutionally mandated "impartial Juror", but one too full of pre-established conceptions about guilt and the illegitimacy of lines of argument.

Your rant is a load of big-word horse manure.

The guy went in impartial. At the end he is pissed that the defense attorney lied to the jury for 4 months. That is all it says, regardless of how hard you squirm and spin and conjur to find 50 words, where only ten words exist.

[Trailerpark Badass]

But that's what the whole case turns on. They DID have direct knowledge of his guilt because the proffer was that Westerfield would tell the police where the body was in exchange for a plea of guilty to a lesser charge.

Indulge me for a moment, and I'll explain what I'm thinking. Criminal defense attorneys almost never ask their client whether he is guilty. They don't want to know for exactly the reasons we are discussing: knowledge of their client's guilt restricts their options in presenting a defense. It is possible that Westerfield admitted his guilt, but the only people who would know that are himself and his attorneys, who apparently have not commented publicly. Neither O'Reilly nor the Tribune reporter can know directly; they are inferring the fact that the attorneys had knowledge from the fact of the plea offer.

From what I know, defense plea offers are normally broached in the most non-committal way possible, and I would envision it happening something like this: "If my client takes you to the body, can we get life w/o parole?" Obviously, Feldman had to accept at least the possibility that his client was guilty; why else would he be on trial?

If the prosecutor accepted the possible plea deal, it would have to be approved by the client. Feldman probably would have said something like, "It doesn't look real good for you, but the prosecutor has said that we can get you life if you produce the body." It would be then that the attorneys would be, in effect, asking the client if he's guilty. But we know that it never got to that point because the prosecutor found out the body was found.

If they had taken the deal to Westerfield, and he had maintained his innocence (that he couldn't tell them where the body was), all that Feldman would have done is inform the prosecutor that his client maintains his innocence, and the trial continues, no harm, no foul.

[bvw]

Went in impartial? Yeah, sure he did. Sure. His impartiality was as thick as cheap silverplate on flatware. One use and it's ruined.

[bvw]

Okie dokie .... "This was not a trial it was a gang bang."

Ten words!

[NYCVirago]

Now I know full well that KIMCHEE would have loved to have had the Demon Seed as her father and Busty Brenda as her Mommy-poo, but you really need to get a life Eva! (Braun??)

It's vile comments like these that turned off a lot of people like myself from posting on these threads during the Westerfield trial. The fact that you apparently can't make a valid argument, Doc Savage, without a Hitler reference and nasty nicknames for the victims' parents and fellow freepers is pretty pathetic.

[drlevy88]

They DID have direct knowledge of his guilt because the proffer was that Westerfield would tell the police where the body was in exchange for a plea of guilty to a lesser charge.

Someone pointed out on another thread that this isn't necessarily so. Feldman could have simply told the prosecutors "offer a deal to accept a guilty plea with no death penalty in exchange for locating the body, and I'll present it to Westerfield." What Feldman didn't say to prosecutors was "and I'll advise him to laugh it off." Under this scenario, Feldman was just trying to feel out whether the detectives already had a body. Time line mattered to Feldman's preparation of arguments.

[drlevy88]

At the end he is pissed jumps to the conclusion that the defense attorney lied to the jury for 4 months.

[drlevy88]

It would be then that the attorneys would be, in effect, asking the client if he's guilty.

Or, simply if he knows something which would strongly imply but not totally prove his guilt. One can imagine other scenarios, however improbable, where Westerfield was on the scene, or learned about the disposal of the body or advised where to dump it, but did not personally kill Danielle.

[Calico Cat]

drlevy88: If this information about an interrupted plea-deal is true, Westerfield's attorneys didn't merely 'have reason to be suspicious as hell' about their client: they KNEW he was guilty, and yet did their best to clear his name and have a man they knew to be a child-killer released back into the community.

Is it unethical? You bet. Illegal? I don't know; our criminal justice system is hardly what it should be, so it probably isn't illegal.

Even if it's not illegal, however, the public has every right to be outraged at the attorneys' actions (if this story is true, of course). This may wind up being yet another example of some of the bottom-feeding scum-suckers who have overtaken the legal profession.

[drlevy88]

Thanks. You said this better than I could. bvw too.

I am glad that Feldman was doing this thorough a job.

[drlevy88]

Cat, see 343. Feldman could have simply floated a deal on a hypothetical to the prosecution, having no prior idea whether or not Westerfield knew where the body was. If so, its significance to Westerfield's guilt is zero.

[Bonaparte]

The issue O'Reilly raises (rather one-sidedly) concerns the conflict between an advocate's obligation to zealously represent his client's interests and his obligation to refrain from deceiving the court. This is not always easy to resolve. In the Westerfield matter, in which the client essentially confessed to Feldman, that lawyer's duty, in my opinion, was to encourage his client to offer to tell the truth in exchange for a reasonable plea arrangement. (This is what Feldman initially did.)

If the client refuses and insists on maintaining his innocence and letting the matter go to trial, the lawyer should prepare a written statement that he will do nothing to intentionally deceive the court on material or legal facts and ask the client to agree to it and to sign it. If he signs, he should be offered the opportunity to find other counsel before they proceed to trial. If he refuses to sign, especially if the case has not been set for trial, I believe the lawyer is entirely justified in withdrawing and no longer representing that client. At this time, he can and should explain in general terms to the presiding judge (in chambers) that he must withdraw due to irreconcilable conflict between his duty to his client and his duty to the court. (Since the implications of this are hard to overlook, the judge should consider recusing himself from the case.)

If this procedure is followed, a lawyer should usually be able to avoid compromising himself or his client.

IMO, Feldman may have a problem. His client confessed to him and yet, during summmation, he told the jury directly that evidence had shown that his client was innocent. This was going a bit far, not only because he knew of his client's guilt, but because he wasn't even required to establish innocence, only to show that the state had not proven its case.