Posted on 09/18/2002 11:51:07 AM PDT by rintense
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:34:44 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Excellent. We need some freeper legal eagles on this one.
It seems as if leaks gave the media to know of the literally very last minute plea bargain and the guilt it strongly (yet not completely) suggested. And the media barraged the Jury pool -- beyond the point of an "impartial jury" required in the Constitution, further the DA's opening with the pornographic videos -- not yet brought into evidence under cross -- that was egregiously prejudicial, and not to any finding of fact -- just to keeping and inflaming the passions, not the intellect.
Still -- by that process of plea bargaining, and how it locked in the current defenders -- for to remove them at that point would have telegraphed a certain guilt.
The defense gave their client his best shot -- this is not a lie, not a false hood -- for even confessions have been false.
Yet what would O'Reilly and you propose -- if a case is brought, guilt is presumed? That is the only thing that can be had from your complaint. It is at complete odds to and poison to Liberty.
The benefit of doubt -- that concept -- is a wonderful thing, and no Liberty can be had --ever -- without its full application. The State has no automatic presumptions on the Truth of things -- for tyrants ever exploit any such preseumption on the part of the people. In a trial it is to the Jury to make for the facts, at the least. Can they presume that party A always tells the truth? They can make no such presumption, but rather weigh all that is presented to them and that is within their own experience.
You and O'Reilly in your current stance align with petty tyrants everywhere -- fascists, royalists, bureaucrats, elitists -- all are fast to say that government knows better, or is more truer, yet that is the opposite of the Founder's view -- that liberty requires the State be challenged. You can not challenge the State if we are hobbled, shackled by present threat of prosecution for a vigorous defense that somehow may be interpreted as presenting a lie. If so in some later trial, one you or a loved one are before, your defender will say "Your case troubles me -- it seems that you are guilty, and whether you are or not, I can not risk defending you, but must withdraw and state my reason as that I believe you guilty.".
That is no Liberty!
Afraid that statement in the ethical rules is interpreted narrowly -- because its in tension with the duty to provide a vigorous defense.
A lawyer doesn't "testify", he speaks through his witnesses. So -- he can't put on a witness who he knows will lie. And he can't misrepresent "facts", i.e., characterizing evidence or summarizing legal precedent -- falsely. But he can try to place doubt by attacking the govt's witnesses, and asking , i.e., whether the govt explored other theories of the crime. In that vein he may suggest, rhetorically, what those alternatives might be. He is not, when he's doing this, "testifying" to the jury. And if he were to go over the line and offer his "opinion" as such the pros will object and the objection will be sustained.
Thank you. You have said it very well. When I tried to posit the opinion the day of Westerfield's verdict that this verdict could well diminish the rights and liberties of innocent people down the road, I got some pretty awful hate-filled responses. Everything about this trial bothers me. I'm glad that they got Westerfield. However, I'm also disturbed that the prosecution, who absolutely knew that they had their man, did not present a stronger case. Had I been on the jury, I would not have convicted him. I believe that the lowered standards of conviction here will spell disaster for innocent people in the future.
The man was positively foaming at the mouth and beating his fist on the desk. His lack of self-control, was pure and simple melo-dramatics...tsk, tsk.
Now, we just have to go back just a tiny bit, to find out the MOTIVE for his over reaction, don't we?
Could it be that he flamed Ms. Brenda for being such a horrible Mother that evening, that Brenda said "she would NEVER appear on his talks-show"? Hummmm? So Bill O'Reilly decides to do an about face because he can't stand the thought of losing those ratings with BVD maybe going on Phil Donahue?
Let's see if his lates "spin"to bring Brenda on his show, worked, LOL!
Buh Bye...ya'll.
sw
Hey ... no need to smear the royalists ... particularly those who hearken to an age predating the Protestant "Divine Right" of kings.
We tire of our bread and circuses.
I'm sorry....my question about "seeing it" was concerning the trial. Did you see the trial? Do you base your opinion strictly on what O'Reilly and the news says or did you see the trial, observe the witnesses and hear the testimony?
Do you know about the entomologist that the PROSECUTION hired but ended up as a defense witness because he did not get the results the State wanted to hear?
Are you familiar of the history of Ott and Keyser?
Are you familiar with the other events surrounding the van Dam home at the time Danielle went missing?
Does the name Barbara Easton or Diane Halfman ring a bell with you?
These are just a few questions that come to mind.
You're mixing it all up. When Bill testified under oath he was a witness, not counsel. Only witnesses give testimony and therefore subject to perjury -- lawyers don't testify.
Bill lost his license because he committed a crime (perjury) and one that is particularly offensive when the perjurer is an officer of the court (admitted to the bar).
The ethical rules of conduct reach beyond courtroom practice into your personal life in that manner, especially when it reflects on your fitness to practice. So perjury is an EXTREMELY serious offence to that end.
My attorney once represented a known murderer. When I asked him how he could do that, he said that it was his responsibility to see that he got a fair trial. He did that. He wasn't the least bit upset that the guy was found guilty because it was done in a fair trial. That's what an officer of the court is supposed to do, IMHO.
You really need to read more. If you look closely, I stated that I do NOT agree with Bill that the justice system needs to be overhauled. This isn't about liberty. This is about lawyers who willing violate a code of ethics they agree upon just to clear a defendant they know is guilty. These lawyers knew ahead of time that their client was guilty. This is the basis of Bill's argument, and why I agree with him on it.
Now, on a personal level, plea barganing a child's body for a reduced sentence makes me sick. But I can accept that it happens as part of the process.
I'm not sure O'Reilly or the Tribune report "proves" that. I have not read the Tribune report itself, however. From what I know, defense lawyers almost never ask their clients if they are guilty, for exactly the reason set forth in this controversy. The possibility exists that Westerfield offered them that information, but that is not revealed here. Any "deal" that is "brokered" by attorneys would have to be brought back to the client for his approval. It would be then that the lawyers would broach the issue of Mr. Westerfield's guilt or innocence with him.
I guess what I am asserting is that it is possible that Mr. Westerfield's lawyers never knew of his guilt, because they did not have the opportunity to bring the plea deal to their client.
Good question. Perhaps, it had to with a statute regarding pre-trial negotiations?
What if they didn't know he was guilty? Could they THEN fabricate the lie? These arguments against the defense don't seem to coincide with the desired spririt of justice, with its attendant vigorous defense.
I mentioned the areas in which the attorneys could've fulfilled their duty, but lying is not part of a vigorous defense.
If they didn't know, then it isn't lying then is it?
The problem is that attorneys probably do know their client is guilty and they lie for them all of the time, but in this situation we know they knew Westerfield killed the girl and they should be disbarred!
To my knowledge the source is "unidentified sources". And again......this story floated 7 months ago and it didn't have O'Reilly's attention then.
I am simply reminding people that the principles of journalism should not change merely because people want to act out their frustration over a terrible crime, regardless of the perpetrator or trial outcome.
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.