Mother Leaves Baby in Car; Baby Dies

[JR4AU]

I don't get why the dumb wife went along.  Looks to me like she was trying to "save" their marriage.  He didn't want kids, wanted to hammer  16-year old girls he met on the Bama football website and I guess she figured if the kid wasn't around they could go to more games together and worship Saban together and have rumpus smelly sex.

No shit! You really couldn't make this shit up if you were trying to make up a bad Bammer joke!  Fucking bammer freaks!

[Kaos]

No offense to lawyers, but this is why I have a problem with the profession. 

Defense lawyer's job is (should be) to make sure the defendant gets a fair trial and that the evidence is properly introduced. 

This idea that their responsibility is to get the client "off" regardless of guilt or innocence is completely wrong IMO.  Quibbling over technicalities, trying to get evidence that goes to the general nature of the person excluded... it just bothers me. 

The guy researched heat deaths. He conspired with his wife. He consorted with teenage girls and showed them his chub. He connected with some of them. He killed his baby. 

Why go through this farce?

ADDED: That blubberwuss was having sexting conversations with SIX women?  Should I assume they were paid types?  SIX women were attracted to that schlub enough to show him tits and coot?  Holy cow.  I need to get out more.  I've got pictures of junk I need to send. 

[wesfau2]

Defense lawyer's job is (should be) to make sure the defendant gets a fair trial and that the evidence is properly introduced. 

No.

He's entitled to a competent and zealous defense.  That means fighting to exclude evidence if there is a valid (technical or not) rule/precedent supporting such exclusion. 

Everybody is ready to cut corners on outrageous cases like this, but allowing conviction on anything less than evidence showing a full satisfaction of all elements of the crime (coupled with defeating any defenses) just opens the door for the State to cut corners on much less "clear" cases.  Perhaps even yours or your loved ones'.

[Godfather]

No.

He's entitled to a competent and zealous defense.  That means fighting to exclude evidence if there is a valid (technical or not) rule/precedent supporting such exclusion. 

Everybody is ready to cut corners on outrageous cases like this, but allowing conviction on anything less than evidence showing a full satisfaction of all elements of the crime (coupled with defeating any defenses) just opens the door for the State to cut corners on much less "clear" cases.  Perhaps even yours or your loved ones'.

see OJ Simpson case.

[Kaos]

He's entitled to a competent and zealous defense.  That means fighting to exclude evidence if there is a valid (technical or not) rule/precedent supporting such exclusion. 

Everybody is ready to cut corners on outrageous cases like this, but allowing conviction on anything less than evidence showing a full satisfaction of all elements of the crime (coupled with defeating any defenses) just opens the door for the State to cut corners on much less "clear" cases.  Perhaps even yours or your loved ones'.

I get that. 

But that's not how it's done.  It seems to me that lawyers suborn perjury a lot of times when they try to manipulate evidence to portray some jackhole in a light that isn't real by getting evidence that portrays them as they really are removed from the game.

I don't agree with a lot of the reasonings, particularly the technical ones.  I don't agree with "predjucing" the jury when fight to exclude things like his online history and the weiner shots he was sending to teenagers.  Those things are clearly relevant to his state of mind. 

Don't want to get into a big discussion about this and I certainly don't want to generate a novel from Vandy Vol wrongly explaining a million different things, so I've said all I want to say. 

[AUChizad]

And exchanging through SCOUT!  Baaaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa.... 

LINK?!?

[Kaos]

LINK?!?

No link.  The investigator said he was exchanging dick pics with a teenager on "a website called Scout."

[wesfau2]

I get that. 

But that's not how it's done.  It seems to me that lawyers suborn perjury a lot of times when they try to manipulate evidence to portray some jackhole in a light that isn't real by getting evidence that portrays them as they really are removed from the game.

I don't agree with a lot of the reasonings, particularly the technical ones.  I don't agree with "predjucing" the jury when fight to exclude things like his online history and the weiner shots he was sending to teenagers.  Those things are clearly relevant to his state of mind. 

Don't want to get into a big discussion about this and I certainly don't want to generate a novel from Vandy Vol wrongly explaining a million different things, so I've said all I want to say. 

OK, if you want to end discussion there that's fine.  This is just another one of those areas that you'll claim to know as much as the experts and find the weight of the entire profession to be unconvincing in the light of your immutable opinion.

see OJ Simpson case.

Skillful defense strategy and colossal fuck up by the prosecution. 

I guess I bristle at the notion that the defense lawyer should (especially in the case of OJ...but even at the PD level) just cash a paycheck and make sure that the trial is "fair".  Whatever that means.

If a lawyer is getting paid to advocate for a client and that lawyer does any less than utilize all legal means at his disposal to do so, then the lawyer has done his profession a disservice.

[Kaos]

Skillful defense strategy and colossal fuck up by the prosecution. 

I guess I bristle at the notion that the defense lawyer should (especially in the case of OJ...but even at the PD level) just cash a paycheck and make sure that the trial is "fair".  Whatever that means.

If a lawyer is getting paid to advocate for a client and that lawyer does any less than utilize all legal means at his disposal to do so, then the lawyer has done his profession a disservice.

I don't think you should advocate for a guilty client.  Negotiate a fair sentence, yes.  Advocate?  I don't think so.

[wesfau2]

I don't think you should advocate for a guilty client.  Negotiate a fair sentence, yes.  Advocate?  I don't think so.

You certainly have the option, as a lawyer, to refrain to represent almost any client.  That said, I'd have a hard time respecting a fellow lawyer who did not believe in my statement re: zealous and competent defense.

[smooth_operator]

You certainly have the option, as a lawyer, to refrain to represent almost any client.  That said, I'd have a hard time respecting a fellow lawyer who did not believe in my statement re: zealous and competent defense.

I'm just curious, and no offense, but do you ever put any thought into the effects of your zealous and competent defense upon society as a whole?

[AUChizad]

No link.  The investigator said he was exchanging dick pics with a teenager on "a website called Scout."

I know this is true, but I NEED a link. Anyone?

[JR4AU]

I don't think you should advocate for a guilty client.  Negotiate a fair sentence, yes.  Advocate?  I don't think so.

Its fine to have the opinion that that should be the way things are but that's not the way they are. A lawyer is ethically bound to advocate for his client. And the system is set up that way.

[wesfau2]

I'm just curious, and no offense, but do you ever put any thought into the effects of your zealous and competent defense upon society as a whole?

Absolutely.  Enjoying the right to a zealous and competent defense buttresses societal confidence in the legal system, thus ensuring the machine of society continues to run. 

[smooth_operator]

Absolutely.  Enjoying the right to a zealous and competent defense buttresses societal confidence in the legal system, thus ensuring the machine of society continues to run.

Of course. Atticus Finch was one of my favorite characters when I was young.

But you personally, would you ever turn down a case because you were pretty sure you'd rather that particular fella didn't enjoy the benefits of your expert defense? Like maybe you just felt like the streets were a bad place for that guy to be?

[wesfau2]

Of course. Atticus Finch was one of my favorite characters when I was young.

But you personally, would you ever turn down a case because you were pretty sure you'd rather that particular fella didn't enjoy the benefits of your expert defense? Like maybe you just felt like the streets were a bad place for that guy to be?

With the disclaimer that I do not practice criminal law...absolutely I'd decline to represent some folks.  That said, those who take on the clients (to satisfy whatever motivation: money, justice, etc) owe them the duty of zealous and competent defense.  This is most important at the PD level, since those folks make paltry salaries.  It's the biggest fault in the system, in my opinion.

[JR4AU]

Of course. Atticus Finch was one of my favorite characters when I was young.

But you personally, would you ever turn down a case because you were pretty sure you'd rather that particular fella didn't enjoy the benefits of your expert defense? Like maybe you just felt like t.  streets were a bad place for that guy to be?

I cannot answer for Wes, but I personally would not unless there were something personal involved and then that would disqualify me anyway on a conflict of interest.  But generally speaking it's never personal and if they can pay the fee I would take it. I might try to charge a fee that would exclude them but if they paid what I asked I would represent them...if I were not a prosecutor...which I still at this point in time.

[smooth_operator]

With the disclaimer that I do not practice criminal law...absolutely I'd decline to represent some folks.  That said, those who take on the clients (to satisfy whatever motivation: money, justice, etc) owe them the duty of zealous and competent defense.  This is most important at the PD level, since those folks make paltry salaries.  It's the biggest fault in the system, in my opinion.

The disparity between the defense some poor shlub gets from the standard court appointed attorney and a great one on retainer is wide indeed.
The perception that if you're rich enough you can "buy" your way out of a conviction has always bothered me. At a certain point you can definitely put more resources into your defense than the state will be willing to field against you. I can definitely understand why a person would take some of these cases and fight valiantly for someone that is obviously quite frankly evil but I don't think I could do it.

[Snaggletiger]

Of course. Atticus Finch was one of my favorite characters when I was young.

But you personally, would you ever turn down a case because you were pretty sure you'd rather that particular fella didn't enjoy the benefits of your expert defense? Like maybe you just felt like the streets were a bad place for that guy to be?

Back when I first started in practice, we were taking on anything because hell, we weren't even in the phone book yet.  I started doing appointed criminal defense work and at that time, the way it was handled was that a group of us vulture...err, lawyers, showed up at First Appearances and hoped the Judge would appoint you a case.  I needed the work but there were several times that I heard the charges read and slinked out of the room so I wouldn't get that case.  Like the lady charged with beating the hell out of her infant son and breaking several bones.  I hated her instantly and didn't think I could do my job because of it.  Most of the other guys were grizzled veterans and saw it as just another case.  I wanted no part of it.

[Token]

Back when I first started in practice, we were taking on anything because hell, we weren't even in the phone book yet.  I started doing appointed criminal defense work and at that time, the way it was handled was that a group of us vulture...err, lawyers, showed up at First Appearances and hoped the Judge would appoint you a case.  I needed the work but there were several times that I heard the charges read and slinked out of the room so I wouldn't get that case.  Like the lady charged with beating the hell out of her infant son and breaking several bones.  I hated her instantly and didn't think I could do my job because of it.  Most of the other guys were grizzled veterans and saw it as just another case.  I wanted no part of it.

Good thing for me, I'm highly effective at obtaining confessions.  That way the court appointed attorneys can sit around, back slap each other, pretend like they give a shit about whatever thief I've ever put in jail, and leave me out of their circle-jerk of injustice when they sentence the burglar to a 780 year prison sentence, diverted to 12 days of community corrections with unsupervised probation.