[rintense]

This is how Bill began his show last night... and went on the completely slam the Westerfield lawyers. He was spot on in his assessment and his anger is completely justified. My highlights are in bold.

[rintense]

PING!

[bvw]

You's love Joe Stalin, wouldn't you? The State knows best!

Dah, Commisar, we hail the wisdom of the Ruling Class!

[areafiftyone]

I saw it last night. Boy was he going at it. I thought he was going have a brain hemorrhage!

[Dante3]

I totally agree this time with O'Reilly (as well as on his stand on our military protecting our borders). After these two outrages, juries will tend to dismiss anything a defense lawyer says.

The losers are not only the defense lawyers and what little credibility they had, but any innocent person who might be falsely charged. Juries just might tune out whatever arguments his lawyer makes.

[winodog]

I wonder how bill would reform our justice system? Did he just arrive in America yesterday?
I believe this is one reason (amongst many) people hate lieyers.
It isnt perfect but it is the best one going.

[Nephi]

That was quite an episode last night and I believe Bill is right. This is why, though I disagree with him on many issues, I am glad he has his forum.

[kellynla]

You had to see him to appreciate it. For the first time in my life I actually saw a talk show host on live television get out of control. I mean this guy went ballistic! He was totally out of control! They went to commercial and went they got back he had contol. But during the interview he looked like he was going to blow a gasket at any second.

[Boxsford]

I know you're not a lawyer but know you know something about lawyer ethics and law. Any thoughts here?

[Aquinasfan]

Bill also mentioned the statute that was violated. It was Bill at his best and the reason why I still tune in despite his incoherent stand on homosexuality and his ignorance of religion.

[scouse]

I still think that both of those lawyers should be charged with being accessories AFTER the fact.

[Dante3]

Good for Bill! It's about time people start showing outrage.

[Whilom]

Hey, wait a minute. It you took lying away from defense attorneys, all they'd have left is their high self-esteem.

[MJY1288]

I watched O'Reilly last night, And I've never seen him that P*ssed off before. It was justified.

[gcruse]

 He was spot on in his
assessment and his anger is completely justified

No, he isn't.  Whether a defense attorney believes
his client to be guilty or not, he has to provide him
with the best defense he is capable of providing.
O'Reilly is showing massive ignorance.

The state has to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that a defendant is guilty.  Just because
he has confided guilt to his attorney makes
no difference, if he pleads not guilty to the
charges.

[NautiNurse]

Looks like O'Reilly isn't finished with the subject yet. He has one of the jurors scheduled to be on the show tonight.

[djreece]

Amen, O'Reilly.

It's time to bring justice back to the court system.

[McLynnan]

O'Reilly almost stroked out and he had a blood vessel in his temple that was visibly throbbing. He's absolutely right. Defense attorneys are obligated to put on the best possible defense for their clients, but they are NOT permitted to fabricate stories about other parties to the case. Westerfield's attorneys knew he was guilty, yet they blatantly pointed the finger of blame at the Van Dam's and their houseguests because they couldn't find a feasible reason to explain away the mountan of forensic evidence. I don't condone the Van Dam's lifestyle, but they weren't the ones on trial for murder. Nothing they do in their private life is a justification for the murder of their child.

[Mr. Bird]

So, we all agree the lawyers are scum, but that's not unusual. Did they break the law? Seems to me that the defense is given lots of leeway to propose alternative theories. How their knowledge of the client's guilt changes this, I have no idea.

Once the sicko decided to plead not-guilty, weren't his lawyers obligated to do what they could to defend them? Defense attorneys cast aspersions on the virtue of rape victims all the time. I'm sure most can also calculate the probability of their client being guilty.

If you forbid an attorney from presenting alternate theories, however tasteless they may be, you will have willfully ignorant advocates, opening the door to reversals based on inadequate representation.

I suppose I'll disagree with the O'Reilly on the legal aspects, but it was good TV. I was waiting for his head to explode, a la "Scanners".

[WASH]

A question from a non-legal type: In a case like this, what does the Judge know, even if off the record, about any deals offered by either side?

[hopespringseternal]

This cuts both ways. I have seen cases where prosecutors knowingly exhibited Ahab-like obsession with convicting people they knew were innocent of the crime at hand.

One particularly nasty skank knew without a doubt that the guy would be acquitted by any reasonable jury and went after him anyway. She didn't just use her office to get a trial, she used it to torment the guy and drag the case out as long as possible in order to destroy his reputation and break him financially.

When he was finally acquitted and the newsies were hammering her for it, her response was something to the effect of, "Hey, he got acquitted, so the system worked for him."