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!
Feldman was not unethical and what he did was called his JOB....a job so distasteful yet necessary in our society..
thousands and thousands of criminals give confessions before trial but they still go to trial....example....Yates case in Tacoma.....
Feldman did not put his client on the stand to lie,he himself never ever once mentioned that DW was innocent....check the transcript....
If anything. the prosecution is unethical.....why did they not push the plea bargain even after the body was found....and by the way...how was the body discovered?....
for the state to put the family of the victim thru that plus put the children of the perp on the stand to humilitate them is beyond ethics....
and if you will recall, it was Dusek who had the van dams on the stand...not Feldman...Dusek did it....Dusek also thought it necessary to humiliate the perp's son on the stand...Feldman if you recall did not redirect....
personally , I think the state should provide for justice without a vendetta....and that is what I think happened here in this case.....remember....the DA is up for ELECTION!!!