[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.

[blackbart1]

The name "Cockran" also flies to mind!

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

I'm amazed by the comments of some folks here that want to throw the Constitution out simply because the defendant and his attornies are reprehensible slime buckets.

What ever happened to the presumption of innocence? He must be proven guilty before a jury.

He was tried and convicted and sentenced justly. But before that, he was innocent regardless of what his defense attornies knew or didn't know.

Yes, it sucks. But we all would want the same protection if we were on trial.

Flame me if you like. I'm used to it. I just calls 'em the way I sees 'em.

[ThePythonicCow]

I'd have to agree with gcruse, not with rintense.

I presume that Westerfield's guilty as hell, and should rot there til it freezes over. But pretty much any American (except a prisoner of war) deserves a trial with vigorous defense.

I cannot imagine that Rule 5200 means that a defense lawyer can't raise alternative conjectures and theories that explain the evidence without incriminating their client. I take 5200 to mean they can't claim as facts that which isn't, which is quite different.

The prosecution reasonably does have the burden of showing that the evidence presented can lead to only one conclusion - guilt. And the defense reasonably has the right, even obligation, to point out when this isn't so, that the evidence is quite consistent with other possible scenarios, that don't indict the defendent.

Constraining a defense lawyer from raising alternative theories would be an excessive constraint, in my view.

[Saundra Duffy]

These lawyers stink to High Heaven!

[lawgirl]

I read about this yesterday and thought "why is their bar not taking action?" They should be disbarred. It is one thing if you don't ASK your client if he is guilty and can then defend him, but if they knew then they should have recused themselves. Or something.

[ladyinred]

Right on Rintense. That slime defense attorney should be brought up on charges. The ethics that are supposed to be employed in trials have gone out the window. No wonder there are so many predators loose on the street. This is just despicable behavior on the part of his attorney.

[Freedom2specul8]

fyi!

[wardaddy]

BTTT

[hosepipe]

We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. -George Orwell

"The more laws, the less justice." -Marcus Tullius Cicero

There's always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat, plausible, and wrong.
Henry Louis Mencken

[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.