View Full Version : Trump ally paid sexual assault victim critical of Clinton
The hits just keep on a-comin'!
http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/devil/winking-devil-smiley-emoticon.gif
WASHINGTON — A sexual-assault victim who is critical of Hillary Clinton and who appeared alongside Donald Trump before Sunday night's debate was paid $2,500 by a political action committee founded by Trump ally Roger Stone.
The Arkansas woman, Kathy Shelton, was sexually assaulted at age 12 and was the victim in a 1975 case in which Clinton was appointed to represent her then-41-year-old attacker, Thomas Alfred Taylor. Shelton has accused Clinton of crossing ethical bounds in the case, and over the past few months, Shelton has given TV and video interviews slamming Clinton.
Stone has arranged to pay other women critical of the Clintons.
Earlier this year, Stone sought to raise money to pay off the mortgage of Kathleen Willey, who accused Bill Clinton of making unwanted sexual advances toward her during her time as a volunteer in his White House in the 1990s. Stone claimed in an online video interview that Trump had personally contributed to the fund.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-ally-paid-sexual-assault-victim-critical-of-clinton/ar-BBxdln6?li=BBnb7Kz
Oh, and about that stupid RW meme that Hillary laughed at the 12 year old rape victim?
NOPE
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/10/donald-trump/trump-says-clinton-laughed-about-rape-case/
stjames1_53
10-10-2016, 02:21 PM
The hits just keep on a-comin'!
http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/devil/winking-devil-smiley-emoticon.gif
WASHINGTON — A sexual-assault victim who is critical of Hillary Clinton and who appeared alongside Donald Trump before Sunday night's debate was paid $2,500 by a political action committee founded by Trump ally Roger Stone.
The Arkansas woman, Kathy Shelton, was sexually assaulted at age 12 and was the victim in a 1975 case in which Clinton was appointed to represent her then-41-year-old attacker, Thomas Alfred Taylor. Shelton has accused Clinton of crossing ethical bounds in the case, and over the past few months, Shelton has given TV and video interviews slamming Clinton.
Stone has arranged to pay other women critical of the Clintons.
Earlier this year, Stone sought to raise money to pay off the mortgage of Kathleen Willey, who accused Bill Clinton of making unwanted sexual advances toward her during her time as a volunteer in his White House in the 1990s. Stone claimed in an online video interview that Trump had personally contributed to the fund.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-ally-paid-sexual-assault-victim-critical-of-clinton/ar-BBxdln6?li=BBnb7Kz
Oh, and about that stupid RW meme that Hillary laughed at the 12 year old rape victim?
NOPE
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/10/donald-trump/trump-says-clinton-laughed-about-rape-case/
well, if Billy-boy could have kept his f*cking hands to himself, this would never happen..........Seems Bill keeps setting himself up
well, if Billy-boy could have kept his f*cking hands to himself, this would never happen..........Seems Bill keeps setting himself up
Hey, if you wanna pay off what's left of my mortgage ..
I'll call Roger Stone and tell him Billy-boy butt raped me when i was 5! :D
Cigar
10-10-2016, 02:52 PM
$ Money $, the root of all Evil and Pleasure :grin:
Peter1469
10-10-2016, 02:53 PM
Feminists give the dems a pass for attacking rape victims. But they also ignore Muslim immigration- people who will cut their genitals and keep them in their place.
Oh well.
stjames1_53
10-10-2016, 03:01 PM
Hey, if you wanna pay off what's left of my mortgage ..
I'll call Roger Stone and tell him Billy-boy butt raped me when i was 5! :D
go for it, doughboy....lets see how it plays out
your mortgage is your problem. Mine's paid for
go for it, doughboy....lets see how it plays out
your mortgage is your problem. Mine's paid for
You must be very old ;-)
Mine's about 3/4 done with -
stjames1_53
10-10-2016, 03:26 PM
You must be very old ;-)
Mine's about 3/4 done with -
nope............just watched my money. Something Liberals aren't very good at..watching money
example? Let's talk Hillary and 6 billion dollars
Ethereal
10-10-2016, 03:28 PM
The hits just keep on a-comin'!
http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/devil/winking-devil-smiley-emoticon.gif
WASHINGTON — A sexual-assault victim who is critical of Hillary Clinton and who appeared alongside Donald Trump before Sunday night's debate was paid $2,500 by a political action committee founded by Trump ally Roger Stone.
The Arkansas woman, Kathy Shelton, was sexually assaulted at age 12 and was the victim in a 1975 case in which Clinton was appointed to represent her then-41-year-old attacker, Thomas Alfred Taylor. Shelton has accused Clinton of crossing ethical bounds in the case, and over the past few months, Shelton has given TV and video interviews slamming Clinton.
Stone has arranged to pay other women critical of the Clintons.
Earlier this year, Stone sought to raise money to pay off the mortgage of Kathleen Willey, who accused Bill Clinton of making unwanted sexual advances toward her during her time as a volunteer in his White House in the 1990s. Stone claimed in an online video interview that Trump had personally contributed to the fund.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-ally-paid-sexual-assault-victim-critical-of-clinton/ar-BBxdln6?li=BBnb7Kz
Oh, and about that stupid RW meme that Hillary laughed at the 12 year old rape victim?
NOPE
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/10/donald-trump/trump-says-clinton-laughed-about-rape-case/
What do you mean nope? It's on tape. She basically admits the guy is guilty and chuckles about getting him off.
Ethereal
10-10-2016, 03:29 PM
Hey, if you wanna pay off what's left of my mortgage ..
I'll call Roger Stone and tell him Billy-boy butt raped me when i was 5! :D
Except they've been saying these things long before Stone allegedly helped to paid off her mortgage.
exploited
10-10-2016, 03:29 PM
Yes. She did her job well. Thank God some people still believe in every persons right to effective legal representation.
Except they've been saying these things long before Stone allegedly helped to paid off her mortgage.
Sorry, but they're all a bunch of washed up lounge singers, book hawkers and opportunists who'd say anything for a buck.
Bill couldn't keep his Willy in the pants - that's about all we'll ever know for sure.
What do you mean nope? It's on tape. She basically admits the guy is guilty and chuckles about getting him off.
I heard the tape - she was laughing at aspects OF the case after the fact - not at the victim.
More out of context crap.
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/
decedent
10-10-2016, 04:16 PM
I have a feeling these women all received more than $2,500 from Trump's deplorables.
Ethereal
10-10-2016, 04:24 PM
Sorry, but they're all a bunch of washed up lounge singers, book hawkers and opportunists who'd say anything for a buck.
Bill couldn't keep his Willy in the pants - that's about all we'll ever know for sure.
If that's true, then why hasn't Bill Clinton sued them for defamation? I know I would if someone was going around falsely accusing me of being a rapist.
Probably because the accusations are true. But that possibility never seems to occur to some people for whatever reason.
Ethereal
10-10-2016, 04:25 PM
I heard the tape - she was laughing at aspects OF the case after the fact - not at the victim.
More out of context crap.
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/
Yes, the case where she knew he was a rapist and got him off anyway. Apparently, there is something amusing about that. I fail to see the humor in it.
If that's true, then why hasn't Bill Clinton sued them for defamation? I know I would if someone was going around falsely accusing me of being a rapist.
Probably because the accusations are true. But that possibility never seems to occur to some people for whatever reason.
Too much time went by -
It would be impossible to prove Broaddrick's rape allegation one way or the other.
Funny how she was working for the Clinton campaign a month after she claims to have been raped though.
Ethereal
10-10-2016, 04:34 PM
Too much time went by -
It would be impossible to prove Broaddrick's rape allegation one way or the other.
In other words, it's possible she is telling the truth. Yet you have completely discounted that possibility for some reason.
Funny how she was working for the Clinton campaign a month after she claims to have been raped though.
Why is it funny? Victims of rape often times remain silent and attempt to hide what happened to them, no? And according to Broaddrick, Hillary Clinton menacingly intimated that she should keep the assault hidden. In other words, keep your mouth shut or else.
exotix
10-10-2016, 04:36 PM
Self-proclaimed rape-victims getting paid to be shit-shamed by a sexual-deviant/degenerate in front of the whole world ...
... you simply can't make this shit up ... http://i66.tinypic.com/bhnhxc.gif
Yes, the case where she knew he was a rapist and got him off anyway. Apparently, there is something amusing about that. I fail to see the humor in it.
So humor is not allowed when discussing aspects OF the case AFTER the fact?
C'mon Eth - that's just silly.
I've seen Mark Geragos laughing about aspects of the Simpson trial after it was over.
Don't think that means he feels the murder of Nicole and Ron was funny.
Tahuyaman
10-10-2016, 04:40 PM
The hits just keep on a-comin'!
http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/devil/winking-devil-smiley-emoticon.gif
WASHINGTON — A sexual-assault victim who is critical of Hillary Clinton and who appeared alongside Donald Trump before Sunday night's debate was paid $2,500 by a political action committee founded by Trump ally Roger Stone.
The Arkansas woman, Kathy Shelton, was sexually assaulted at age 12 and was the victim in a 1975 case in which Clinton was appointed to represent her then-41-year-old attacker, Thomas Alfred Taylor. Shelton has accused Clinton of crossing ethical bounds in the case, and over the past few months, Shelton has given TV and video interviews slamming Clinton.
Stone has arranged to pay other women critical of the Clintons.
Earlier this year, Stone sought to raise money to pay off the mortgage of Kathleen Willey, who accused Bill Clinton of making unwanted sexual advances toward her during her time as a volunteer in his White House in the 1990s. Stone claimed in an online video interview that Trump had personally contributed to the fund.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-ally-paid-sexual-assault-victim-critical-of-clinton/ar-BBxdln6?li=BBnb7Kz
Oh, and about that stupid RW meme that Hillary laughed at the 12 year old rape victim?
NOPE
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/10/donald-trump/trump-says-clinton-laughed-about-rape-case/
And........ ?
Ethereal
10-10-2016, 04:42 PM
So humor is not allowed when discussing aspects OF the case AFTER the fact?
C'mon Eth - that's just silly.
I've seen Mark Geragos laughing about aspects of the Simpson trial after it was over.
Don't think that means he feels the murder of Nicole and Ron was funny.
She basically admits that she knew he was guilty of raping a child and she got him off anyway. There is nothing comical about that.
Professor Peabody
10-10-2016, 04:42 PM
well, if Billy-boy could have kept his f*cking hands to himself, this would never happen..........Seems Bill keeps setting himself up
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/19/article-2584309-1C6A95D200000578-301_634x784.jpg
You go Boy!
Professor Peabody
10-10-2016, 04:44 PM
http://www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Hillary-Bill-Clinton-war-on-women.jpg
Does Hillary go first?
Peter1469
10-10-2016, 04:46 PM
The hard left lies when it makes claims that it supports women. It does not. It supports power. If it must trash rape victims to maintain power, then that is what is done.
Safety
10-10-2016, 04:48 PM
Yes. She did her job well. Thank God some people still believe in every persons right to effective legal representation.
While the same people have no qualms over Zimmerman hiring the best lawyer he could to get off, nor the GoFundMe donations from conservatives for him to accomplish such....
exotix
10-10-2016, 04:49 PM
http://i66.tinypic.com/bhnhxc.gif
The ‘war on caterpillars’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/the-war-on-caterpillars-and-what-reince-priebus-meant/2012/04/05/gIQABU9ixS_blog.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjB4zCVW9UY
In other words, it's possible she is telling the truth. Yet you have completely discounted that possibility for some reason.
Why is it funny? Victims of rape often times remain silent and attempt to hide what happened to them, no? And according to Broaddrick, Hillary Clinton menacingly intimated that she should keep the assault hidden. In other words, keep your mouth shut or else.
Juanitas problem is that she has become increasingly cozy with the Republican Party and she has accepted bribes from same.
The fact that she waited decades to come out doesn't mean she's not telling the truth.
All of the above merely diminishes her credibility ---> BIGLY
She basically admits that she knew he was guilty of raping a child and she got him off anyway. There is nothing comical about that.
No, you are basically READING IN.
Go back and listen to the entire interview.
hanger4
10-10-2016, 04:56 PM
While the same people have no qualms over Zimmerman hiring the best lawyer he could to get off, nor the GoFundMe donations from conservatives for him to accomplish such....
Seriously Safety ??
Zimmerman was found not guilty of second degree murder and manslaughter by a jury of his peers.
Peter1469
10-10-2016, 04:57 PM
Zimm Zimm isn't news. Never was.
Safety
10-10-2016, 05:07 PM
Seriously Safety ??
Zimmerman was found not guilty of second degree murder and manslaughter by a jury of his peers.
Was it not in English or something?
Safety
10-10-2016, 05:08 PM
Zimm Zimm isn't news. Never was.
Oh?
stjames1_53
10-10-2016, 05:08 PM
I have a feeling these women all received more than $2,500 from Trump's deplorables.
............go back to sleep.........
Ethereal
10-10-2016, 05:08 PM
Juanitas problem is that she has become increasingly cozy with the Republican Party and she has accepted bribes from same.
The fact that she waited decades to come out doesn't mean she's not telling the truth.
All of the above merely diminishes her credibility ---> BIGLY
They are sympathetic to her message and are willing to help her get the word out. Why wouldn't she cozy up to them?
As for your claim that they've "bribed" her, there is nothing to that accusation. She's been saying the same thing since at least 1999. She just wants to be heard and taken seriously.
stjames1_53
10-10-2016, 05:09 PM
In other words, it's possible she is telling the truth. Yet you have completely discounted that possibility for some reason.
Why is it funny? Victims of rape often times remain silent and attempt to hide what happened to them, no? And according to Broaddrick, Hillary Clinton menacingly intimated that she should keep the assault hidden. In other words, keep your mouth shut or else.
We'll give ya a Foster........
Ethereal
10-10-2016, 05:10 PM
No, you are basically READING IN.
Go back and listen to the entire interview.
I have listened to it.
She basically admits he was guilty and chuckles about it.
I fail to see the comedy in a child rapist walking free.
stjames1_53
10-10-2016, 05:16 PM
I have listened to it.
She basically admits he was guilty and chuckles about it.
I fail to see the comedy in a child rapist walking free.
ya gotta remember. ......Hillary was and still is a progressive liberal...all of this is faux rage. She's messing around with Huma
hanger4
10-10-2016, 05:18 PM
Was it not in English or something?
No comparison Safety. One lawyer got a rapist off knowing he was guilty.
And another lawyer/s presented evidence to a jury that resulted in acquittal on second degree murder charges and manslaughter.
Like I said, no comparison.
Tahuyaman
10-10-2016, 05:21 PM
The hard left lies when it makes claims that it supports women. It does not. It supports power. If it must trash rape victims to maintain power, then that is what is done.
The naive fall for it though.
Tahuyaman
10-10-2016, 05:23 PM
While the same people have no qualms over Zimmerman hiring the best lawyer he could to get off, nor the GoFundMe donations from conservatives for him to accomplish such....
Just curious, how do you link the Zimmerman defense to this particular situation?
Safety
10-10-2016, 05:24 PM
No comparison Safety. One lawyer got a rapist off knowing he was guilty.
And another lawyer/s presented evidence to a jury that resulted in acquittal on second degree murder charges and manslaughter.
Like I said, no comparison.
You're not too well versed as to the job of a defense attorney, are you? Even if they know the client is guilty, they are bound to defend the client with zeal, and the judge does not have to release the lawyer from representing the client, even if asked.
Docthehun
10-10-2016, 05:24 PM
http://i66.tinypic.com/bhnhxc.gif
The ‘war on caterpillars’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/the-war-on-caterpillars-and-what-reince-priebus-meant/2012/04/05/gIQABU9ixS_blog.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjB4zCVW9UY
Did you check out the John Oliver clips? Worth the time I think.
Safety
10-10-2016, 05:24 PM
Just curious, how do you link the Zimmerman defense to this particular situation?
The question was about how Hillary defended a child rapist as a defense attorney. Read the thread.
Tahuyaman
10-10-2016, 05:27 PM
The question was about how Hillary defended a child rapist as a defense attorney. Read the thread.
And this has something to don with the Zimmerman defense?
Safety
10-10-2016, 05:29 PM
And this has something to don with the Zimmerman defense?
Is the thread too fast for you? Stop trying to play coy, it makes you look silly.
Tahuyaman
10-10-2016, 05:30 PM
Is the thread too fast for you? Stop trying to play coy, it makes you look silly.
So, when you have no valid response you just go trolling.... Got it.
They are sympathetic to her message and are willing to help her get the word out. Why wouldn't she cozy up to them?
As for your claim that they've "bribed" her, there is nothing to that accusation. She's been saying the same thing since at least 1999. She just wants to be heard and taken seriously.
Broaddrick has no right to be heard and taken seriously at this point.
Neither does Willey or Shelton.
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-10-10/sexual-assault-victim-critical-of-clinton-paid-by-trump-ally
Ethereal
10-10-2016, 05:31 PM
You're not too well versed as to the job of a defense attorney, are you? Even if they know the client is guilty, they are bound to defend the client with zeal, and the judge does not have to release the lawyer from representing the client, even if asked.
How about John Adams? Is he well-versed in the job of a defense attorney?
...every Lawyer must hold himself responsible not only to his Country, but to the highest and most infallible of all Trybunals for the Part he should Act. He must therefore expect from me no Art or Address, No Sophistry or Prevarication in such a Cause; nor any thing more than Fact, Evidence and Law would justify.
Ethereal
10-10-2016, 05:32 PM
Broaddrick has no right to be heard and taken seriously at this point.
Neither does Willey or Shelton.
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-10-10/sexual-assault-victim-critical-of-clinton-paid-by-trump-ally
On the contrary, she has every right to be taken seriously. The only people who seem to think otherwise are Clinton supporters.
Tahuyaman
10-10-2016, 05:32 PM
Broaddrick has no right to be heard and taken seriously at this point.
Neither does Willey or Shelton.
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-10-10/sexual-assault-victim-critical-of-clinton-paid-by-trump-ally
They don't deserve to be believed?
ya gotta remember. ......Hillary was and still is a progressive liberal...all of this is faux rage. She's messing around with Huma
Did you hear that Hillary has been having threesomes with Weiner and Huma for years?
Eww huh? ;-)
Tahuyaman
10-10-2016, 05:33 PM
On the contrary, she has every right to be taken seriously. The only people who seem to think otherwise are Clinton supporters.
That does appear to be the case here.
They don't deserve to be believed?
Don't go there with me Tahuhu..
Trumpkins don't wish to believe ANY of the dozens of women who've had their pussies grabbed or been otherwise abused by Trump.
How about John Adams? Is he well-versed in the job of a defense attorney?
he was speaking about every defendant's right to the best legal help available so i think he'd agree that child rapists deserve the same.
adams' client was acquitted, as was clinton's
there is no evidence as to whether he later laughed or not.
Tahuyaman
10-10-2016, 06:56 PM
That does appear to be the case here.
Don't go there with me Tahuhu..
Trumpkins don't wish to believe ANY of the dozens of women who've had their pussies grabbed or been otherwise abused by Trump.
Do they deserve to be believed or not?
Safety
10-10-2016, 07:03 PM
How about John Adams? Is he well-versed in the job of a defense attorney?
In a society that depends for the proper functioning of its criminal justice system on giving prosecutors absolute discretion in whom to charge and for what, it is essential to have a zealous criminal defense bar, for the criminal defense bar is the only check on the potential of government overreaching to erode individual civil liberties. A court may declare some of the government's action to have been foul play, but it takes a defense attorney to bring such conduct before a judge.
Ethereal
10-10-2016, 07:06 PM
he was speaking about every defendant's right to the best legal help available so i think he'd agree that child rapists deserve the same.
adams' client was acquitted, as was clinton's
there is no evidence as to whether he later laughed or not.
I never said they don't deserve a legal defense. But as Adams said, a legal defense ought to be consistent with "fact, evidence, and the law" and that "Art or Address, ...Sophistry or Prevarication" were unethical tactics.
In other words, if you know your client is guilty, then you should provide them a vigorous defense consistent with that fact as opposed to employing unethical and unscrupulous techniques to get them off on some kind of technicality or emotional ploy.
Ethereal
10-10-2016, 07:09 PM
In a society that depends for the proper functioning of its criminal justice system on giving prosecutors absolute discretion in whom to charge and for what, it is essential to have a zealous criminal defense bar, for the criminal defense bar is the only check on the potential of government overreaching to erode individual civil liberties. A court may declare some of the government's action to have been foul play, but it takes a defense attorney to bring such conduct before a judge.
I never said they shouldn't have a criminal defense. Only that the defense should be underpinned by honesty and integrity. If someone is guilty of raping a child, then they need to pay for that. Your job as a defense attorney isn't to get them off by employing "sophistry or prevarication", but to ensure they receive a just sentence.
Safety
10-10-2016, 07:15 PM
I never said they shouldn't have a criminal defense. Only that the defense should be underpinned by honesty and integrity. If someone is guilty of raping a child, then they need to pay for that. Your job as a defense attorney isn't to get them off by employing "sophistry or prevarication", but to ensure they receive a just sentence.
Yea, but who gets to decide where that line is drawn? There's a reason why defense attorneys are some of the hated people on the face of the earth, second to divorce attorneys.
Ethereal
10-10-2016, 07:17 PM
Yea, but who gets to decide where that line is drawn? There's a reason why defense attorneys are some of the hated people on the face of the earth, second to divorce attorneys.
As Adams makes clear, it is on the individual to reconcile their behavior with God (or some other transcendent moral principle).
I never said they don't deserve a legal defense. But as Adams said, a legal defense ought to be consistent with "fact, evidence, and the law" and that "Art or Address, ...Sophistry or Prevarication" were unethical tactics.
In other words, if you know your client is guilty, then you should provide them a vigorous defense consistent with that fact as opposed to employing unethical and unscrupulous techniques to get them off on some kind of technicality or emotional ploy.
in your other words, not adams'
carry on
Safety
10-10-2016, 07:22 PM
As Adams makes clear, it is on the individual to reconcile their behavior with God (or some other transcendent moral principle).
Ok, so the defense lawyer tithes and goes to church on sunday. Problem solved.
exploited
10-10-2016, 07:47 PM
Why is it that every single time I enter into a thread these days, I see a person who claims to support either rights or the Constitution arguing something that implies a total lack of support for or understanding of those things?
A defense attorney has one job, and one job only: to create a reasonable doubt. If that means throwing a victim under the bus by calling into question the accuracy of their statements, so be it. This is what an adversarial legal system is built upon.
Ethereal
10-10-2016, 10:08 PM
in your other words, not adams'
carry on
As usual, a waste of time.
Ethereal
10-10-2016, 10:09 PM
Ok, so the defense lawyer tithes and goes to church on sunday. Problem solved.
Huh?
As usual, a waste of time.
in the context in which adams spoke, it's obvious that he was talking about the necessity of all defendants having competent, aggressive counsel.
your desire to impute some kind of moralistic horseshit to them, is just that, your desire, not adams' words.
Peter1469
10-10-2016, 10:21 PM
Don't go there with me Tahuhu..
Trumpkins don't wish to believe ANY of the dozens of women who've had their pussies grabbed or been otherwise abused by Trump.
Put some ice on that.
Cletus
10-10-2016, 10:49 PM
Yes. She did her job well. Thank God some people still believe in every persons right to effective legal representation.
The legal profession has been perverted. No defense attorney should try to get a client off if they know that client is guilty. Once they are certain of the guilt of their client, they should make sure he gets due process and his rights are protected. Nothing more. Any lawyer who tries to get a rapist off that he or she knows is a rapist, should be charged with aiding and abetting.
I used to do a fair amount of work for defense attorneys. I quit when I had a sexual assault case that resulted in a woman being partially paralyzed as a result of her injuries. During the course of the investigation, it became apparent that the client was in fact, guilty. When I talked to the defense attorney and told her that she had better hope the DA's investigators were incompetent or her boy was going to jail for a long time, she looked at the evidence and said "Okay, let's see what we can dig up to discredit the witnesses".
I walked out and never worked another defense case.
The whole "My lawyer can beat up your lawyer" adversarial concept that has become accepted in American legal practice is wrong. So is the concept of accepting a plea on a lesser offense in order to save the state time and money in a prosecution.
Cletus
10-10-2016, 10:50 PM
Why is it that every single time I enter into a thread these days, I see a person who claims to support either rights or the Constitution arguing something that implies a total lack of support for or understanding of those things?
A defense attorney has one job, and one job only: to create a reasonable doubt. If that means throwing a victim under the bus by calling into question the accuracy of their statements, so be it. This is what an adversarial legal system is built upon.
People like you are why our legal system is as screwed up as it is.
exploited
10-10-2016, 10:55 PM
The legal profession has been perverted. No defense attorney should try to get a client off if they know that client is guilty. Once they are certain of the guilt of their client, they should make sure he gets due process and his rights are protected. Nothing more. Any lawyer who tries to get a rapist off that he or she knows is a rapist, should be charged with aiding and abetting.
I used to do a fair amount of work for defense attorneys. I quit when I had a sexual assault case that resulted in a woman being partially paralyzed as a result of her injuries. During the course of the investigation, it became apparent that the client was in fact, guilty. When I talked to the defense attorney and told her that she had better hope the DA's investigators were incompetent or her boy was going to jail for a long time, she looked at the evidence and said "Okay, let's see what we can dig up to discredit the witnesses".
I walked out and never worked another defense case.
The whole "My lawyer can beat up your lawyer" adversarial concept that has become accepted in American legal practice is wrong. So is the concept of accepting a plea on a lesser offense in order to save the state time and money in a prosecution.
The adversarial process has been a bedrock component of the justice system for centuries. It isn't something new, and it is, so far, the single most effective way to limit state power.
People like you are why our legal system is as screwed up as it is.
Nope. People like me are why people like you still have some freedoms.
Cletus
10-10-2016, 10:58 PM
The adversarial process has been a bedrock component of the justice system for centuries. It isn't something new, and it is, so far, the single most effective way to limit state power.
No, it isn't.
Nope. People like me are why people like you still have some freedoms.
Are you really stupid enough to believe that?
exploited
10-10-2016, 11:06 PM
No, it isn't.
Are you really stupid enough to believe that?
Look, you're simply denying history at this point. The adversarial legal system is the fundamental basis of the US system of justice, as well as the common law system of justice. The other system is the inquisitorial system, where a judge or group of judges investigates the case - such as in China (under the Confucian system), ancient Rome, or the Napoleonic Code. The adversarial system, in contrast, is where two advocates represent their parties position before an impartial group of people, either judge or jury.
Peter Murphy in his Practical Guide to Evidence recounts an instructive example. A frustrated judge in an English (adversarial) court finally asked a barrister after witnesses had produced conflicting accounts, 'Am I never to hear the truth?' 'No, my lord, merely the evidence', replied counsel.
I'll ignore your second sentence, mostly because I feel kind of bad for you.
Cletus
10-10-2016, 11:09 PM
Look, you're simply denying history at this point. The adversarial legal system is the fundamental basis of the US system of justice, as well as the common law system of justice. The other system is the inquisitorial system, where a judge or group of judges investigates the case - such as in China (under the Confucian system), ancient Rome, or the Napoleonic Code. The adversarial system, in contrast, is where two advocates represent their parties position before an impartial group of people, either judge or jury.
Skip the history lesson. The adversarial system has nothing to do with justice. It has to do with winning. That is all.
I'll ignore your second sentence, mostly because I feel kind of bad for you.
You really should not ignore anything I say. Paying attention will only make you better.
exploited
10-10-2016, 11:18 PM
Skip the history lesson. The adversarial system has nothing to do with justice. It has to do with winning. That is all.
You really should not ignore anything I say. Paying attention will only make you better.
It has everything to do with justice, which is a tricky, subjective and really hard-to-pin-down concept. The reason why we adopted the adversarial system is to protect people from the state. It used to be that the state, if it thought you did something, would do whatever they wanted to you. Sometimes this resulted in "justice," but all too often, it resulted in innocent people being horribly mistreated and abused. The Founding Fathers, in their brilliance, decided that the only way to protect against this was to give every single person the right to a trial by ones peers, who would determine if you were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (or not).
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
They did this because they understood, very clearly, that in order for justice to be served, it has to follow a fair and rational process, where each side could present the best possible case for their position, with legal counsel, to an impartial jury. Otherwise known as the adversarial process.
Cletus
10-10-2016, 11:33 PM
This has nothing to do with a right to a trial by a jury or the right to face your accusers or anything else you rambled on about. It has nothing to do with the presentation of fact.
The bottom line is that lawyers are interested in only one thing... winning. They don't care a rat's ass about whether justice is served. I have argued this ad nauseum with lawyers who insist their job is to "get their client off". It isn't.
Their job is to make sure their client receives due process, that his rights are protected, that he receives a fair and impartial trial. Their job is not to throw up smokescreens, distort the truth, intimidate witnesses, or outsmart the other side.
Any lawyer who knowingly get a client off who did in fact, commit the crime with which he was charged should be arrested and charged as an accessory after the fact.
Peter1469
10-10-2016, 11:35 PM
This has nothing to do with a right to a trial by a jury or the right to face your accusers or anything else you rambled on about. It has nothing to do with the presentation of fact.
The bottom line is that lawyers are interested in only one thing... winning. They don't care a rat's ass about whether justice is served. I have argued this ad nauseum with lawyers who insist their job is to "get their client off". It isn't.
Their job is to make sure their client receives due process, that his rights are protected, that he receives a fair and impartial trial. Their job is not to throw up smokescreens, distort the truth, intimidate witnesses, or outsmart the other side.
Any lawyer who knowingly get a client off who did in fact, commit the crime with which he was charged should be arrested and charged as an accessory after the fact.
I have only been a prosecutor. Never a defense counsel. But I disagree. Defense council is important, if only to force the State to follow its rules.
Ethereal
10-10-2016, 11:37 PM
in the context in which adams spoke, it's obvious that he was talking about the necessity of all defendants having competent, aggressive counsel.
your desire to impute some kind of moralistic horse$#@! to them, is just that, your desire, not adams' words.
These are his words.
...every Lawyer must hold himself responsible not only to his Country, but to the highest and most infallible of all Trybunals for the Part he should Act. He must therefore expect from me no Art or Address, No Sophistry or Prevarication in such a Cause; nor any thing more than Fact, Evidence and Law would justify.
No imputation is necessary as it speaks for itself.
exploited
10-10-2016, 11:38 PM
This has nothing to do with a right to a trial by a jury or the right to face your accusers or anything else you rambled on about. It has nothing to do with the presentation of fact.
The bottom line is that lawyers are interested in only one thing... winning. They don't care a rat's ass about whether justice is served. I have argued this ad nauseum with lawyers who insist their job is to "get their client off". It isn't.
Their job is to make sure their client receives due process, that his rights are protected, that he receives a fair and impartial trial. Their job is not to throw up smokescreens, distort the truth, intimidate witnesses, or outsmart the other side.
Any lawyer who knowingly get a client off who did in fact, commit the crime with which he was charged should be arrested and charged as an accessory after the fact.
You can only receive a fair and impartial trial if you have somebody trying to defend you from the charge. Period. It is part and parcel of the adversarial system.
How would you prove that a lawyer knowingly got a guilty client freed in the absence of a judgment of guilt?
Cletus
10-10-2016, 11:43 PM
I have only been a prosecutor. Never a defense counsel. But I disagree. Defense council is important, if only to force the State to follow its rules.
That is absolutely true. They are vitally important for that.
But it is not the issue here.
Cletus
10-10-2016, 11:50 PM
You can only receive a fair and impartial trial if you have somebody trying to defend you from the charge. Period. It is part and parcel of the adversarial system.
Wrong. You can only receive a fair and impartial trial if the emphasis is on trying to present fact to the jury, not on winning at any cost.
How would you prove that a lawyer knowingly got a guilty client freed in the absence of a judgment of guilt?
Most lawyers are not particularly bright... Not all, I have known some very sharp ones, but most. When a lawyer has to resort to attacking the character of witnesses instead of trying to refute the evidence presented, it is a fair bet he knows his client is guilty. Sometimes, a client will indeed lie to his lawyer about his guilt or innocence, but most often, the lawyer knows.
exploited
10-10-2016, 11:54 PM
Wrong. You can only receive a fair and impartial trial if the emphasis is on trying to present fact to the jury, not on winning at any cost.
Most lawyers are not particularly bright... Not all, I have known some very sharp ones, but most. When a lawyer has to resort to attacking the character of witnesses instead of trying to refute the evidence presented, it is a fair bet he knows his client is guilty. Sometimes, a client will indeed lie to his lawyer about his guilt or innocence, but most often, the lawyer knows.
So if a lawyer attacks the credibility of a witness, they know their client is guilty? Is that your contention?
Cletus
10-11-2016, 12:02 AM
So if a lawyer attacks the credibility of a witness, they know their client is guilty? Is that your contention?
If the evidence is weak enough to refute it, refute it. If you can't refute the evidence, attack the witness. The lawyer may or may not know whether his client is guilty is he adopts that tactic, but he obviously knows the evidence is compelling. Maybe he should be asking his client a few questions at that point.
exploited
10-11-2016, 12:14 AM
If the evidence is weak enough to refute it, refute it. If you can't refute the evidence, attack the witness. The lawyer may or may not know whether his client is guilty is he adopts that tactic, but he obviously knows the evidence is compelling. Maybe he should be asking his client a few questions at that point.
So your contention is that a lawyer should become a snitch for the State, if they believe that their client is guilty?
Cletus
10-11-2016, 12:18 AM
So your contention is that a lawyer should become a snitch for the State, if they believe that their client is guilty?
I never said any such thing, but it does bring up an interesting question...
Are you more interested in seeing justice done or winning your case?
exploited
10-11-2016, 12:23 AM
I never said any such thing, but it does bring up an interesting question...
Are you more interested in seeing justice done or winning your case?
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't win cases. But to answer your question, the only thing I am interested in is making sure that every single person charged with a crime has a representative who will rigorously and unreservedly defend their innocence, regardless of their personal beliefs in re: the clients innocence. Why? Because that is what I think justice is: the testing of a particular case against the standard of reasonable doubt, in accordance with the decision of an impartial jury of one's peers.
Cletus
10-11-2016, 12:57 AM
Okay, we know the truth is irrelevant to you. You have made that abundantly clear.
I happen to believe a little differently. I believe justice is the pursuit and determination of truth and then acting on it accordingly. Contrary to you, I do not believe justice has been served if a man who commits a crime is found not guilty because his lawyer is smarter or has more resources than the lawyer for the opposition. That is a miscarriage of justice.
stjames1_53
10-11-2016, 05:57 AM
Lawyers have ruined our justice system. They lie, cheat, steal.....I don't care who they're representing. I just gotta wonder how Hillary sleeps after calling a victim a wh*re in open court.............
Lawyers have locked down our justice system. They write the laws, then use them against us for their own personal gain, either prosecuting or defending.........they've always got work.
Nothing finer than creating work for themselves.
Safety
10-11-2016, 06:10 AM
So if a lawyer attacks the credibility of a witness, they know their client is guilty? Is that your contention?
Yea, I can't believe I just read that myself.
FindersKeepers
10-11-2016, 06:35 AM
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't win cases. But to answer your question, the only thing I am interested in is making sure that every single person charged with a crime has a representative who will rigorously and unreservedly defend their innocence, regardless of their personal beliefs in re: the clients innocence. Why? Because that is what I think justice is: the testing of a particular case against the standard of reasonable doubt, in accordance with the decision of an impartial jury of one's peers.
That answer is a cop out.
There's an old saying taught to young attorneys -- When the law is on your side--pound the law. When the facts are on your side--pound the facts. When neither the law nor the facts are on your side--pound the table.
Attacking the character of the witness is little more than table-pounding.
FindersKeepers
10-11-2016, 06:35 AM
Yea, I can't believe I just read that myself.
Then you either misread Cletus' post or you are pretending to misunderstand it.
Safety
10-11-2016, 06:51 AM
Then you either misread Cletus' post or you are pretending to misunderstand it.
....When a lawyer has to resort to attacking the character of witnesses instead of trying to refute the evidence presented, it is a fair bet he knows his client is guilty. Sometimes, a client will indeed lie to his lawyer about his guilt or innocence, but most often, the lawyer knows
Yea....no, I pretty much read it correctly the first time, maybe you shouldn't try backing your horse on this one.
exploited
10-11-2016, 07:30 AM
That answer is a cop out.
There's an old saying taught to young attorneys -- When the law is on your side--pound the law. When the facts are on your side--pound the facts. When neither the law nor the facts are on your side--pound the table.
Attacking the character of the witness is little more than table-pounding.
And by "table pounding," you mean a rigorous defense of their client by calling into question the veracity of the witnesses account. For instance, let us say that a person is accused of rape. His attorney notices that, seven years ago, the victim filed a rape complaint, but during the course of investigating the complaint, the police found numerous inconsistencies with the victims account. Consequently, no charges were filed. Should the attorney bring this up, pointing out that he or she has a record of making such claims?
Let us look at another example: let's say that Bill Clinton is called to testify on his wives account. He claims that she never brought up the private server to him other than to say that she set it up for the sake of convenience. He further claims that she was concerned for its security, and so hired experts to make it more secure, thus establishing her lack of intent to reveal state secrets. Should the prosecutor not bring up his past perjury? Should they not point out their relationship and how this might give him reason to lie?
It is frankly shocking to me how poor of a grasp people here seem to have of basic legal principles. A defense attorney had an ethical obligation to make the best case possible for his client, and establishing what really happened requires them to examine the character of the witnesses. Was the witness a notorious drug addict? Did they have a reason to dislike the defendant? Have they contradicted themselves, even unintentionally?
FindersKeepers
10-11-2016, 09:07 AM
And by "table pounding," you mean a rigorous defense of their client by calling into question the veracity of the witnesses account. For instance, let us say that a person is accused of rape. His attorney notices that, seven years ago, the victim filed a rape complaint, but during the course of investigating the complaint, the police found numerous inconsistencies with the victims account. Consequently, no charges were filed. Should the attorney bring this up, pointing out that he or she has a record of making such claims?
Bad example. It's most likely inadmissible because it has no bearing on the current case. Just because a woman falsely claimed rape in the past -- or whether she's a hooker with multiple partners on a daily basis -- does not alter the fact that she might have been raped this time. In fact, the VAWA contains a rape shield law that prevents that type of character assassination.
Let us look at another example: let's say that Bill Clinton is called to testify on his wives account. He claims that she never brought up the private server to him other than to say that she set it up for the sake of convenience. He further claims that she was concerned for its security, and so hired experts to make it more secure, thus establishing her lack of intent to reveal state secrets. Should the prosecutor not bring up his past perjury? Should they not point out their relationship and how this might give him reason to lie?
You're suggesting that Bill Clinton, who was never convicted of perjury, have that held against him? Absent a conviction, how can you defend that?
It is frankly shocking to me how poor of a grasp people here seem to have of basic legal principles. A defense attorney had an ethical obligation to make the best case possible for his client, and establishing what really happened requires them to examine the character of the witnesses. Was the witness a notorious drug addict? Did they have a reason to dislike the defendant? Have they contradicted themselves, even unintentionally?
There is a reason attorneys are not allowed free reign in the courtroom. There is a reason the attorney on the opposite side is allow to object to a specific line of questioning.
Now, you've gone way off on a tangent -- far away from the point Cletus was making, which is that an attorney probably does not have sufficient evidence to present if he starts attacking the character of a witness.
It's a simple concept. It's just amazing how a few here don't seem able to comprehend it.
exploited
10-11-2016, 09:21 AM
Bad example. It's most likely inadmissible because it has no bearing on the current case. Just because a woman falsely claimed rape in the past -- or whether she's a hooker with multiple partners on a daily basis -- does not alter the fact that she might have been raped this time. In fact, the VAWA contains a rape shield law that prevents that type of character assassination.
You're suggesting that Bill Clinton, who was never convicted of perjury, have that held against him? Absent a conviction, how can you defend that?
There is a reason attorneys are not allowed free reign in the courtroom. There is a reason the attorney on the opposite side is allow to object to a specific line of questioning.
Now, you've gone way off on a tangent -- far away from the point Cletus was making, which is that an attorney probably does not have sufficient evidence to present if he starts attacking the character of a witness.
It's a simple concept. It's just amazing how a few here don't seem able to comprehend it.
You are simply assuming that the attorney doesn't have sufficient evidence. It could be that the attorney is doing his job by maximizing doubt that his client is guilty. You know, through the adversarial system of justice, which has been a bedrock principle of Western justice for centuries?
As for "free reign in the courtroom," yes, each side is able to object. What is your point? If the prosecutor wants to object, if he finds the line of questioning to be irrelevant, he should. But this in no way, shape or form detracts from the necessity of taking into account the character of those who are testifying. Do you realize how many people have been falsely imprisoned because police lined up witnesses who, had their character been reviewed in even a cursory fashion, would never had been believed?
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7425&context=jclc
This Article urges a fundamental change in the administration of criminal justice. The Article focuses on what I call “police-generated witness testimony,” by which I mean confessions, police informants, and eyewitness identifications. These types of testimony are leading causes of wrongful convictions. The Article shows that heavy-handed tactics by the police have a tendency to produce false evidence of these types, especially when the individuals being questioned by police are particularly vulnerable, such as juveniles or those who are intellectually disabled or mentally ill. It also demonstrates that there are procedural best practices that the police can follow to reduce the dangers of false evidence.
Adelaide
10-11-2016, 09:55 AM
I'm slightly confused by some of the arguments regarding the Shelton case. I am a sexual assault survivor, so please don't put words in my mouth on this... but everyone is entitled to legal representation, and the best that can be provided (either with their own money or via the state). Lawyers are ethically bound to do provide legal services even if their client may be guilty. I do not judge Clinton for doing her job. The accused has legal rights set out in the constitution, so it seems counterintuitive for members who consider themselves constitutionalists.
If she laughed about it, it's ridiculous and extremely distasteful and insulting. But I don't know the context and as with most "scandalous" things in this election, context doesn't seem to matter when it should.
Cletus
10-11-2016, 12:21 PM
Yea, I can't believe I just read that myself.
You didn't read that.
I cited a case I worked in which the evidence I uncovered in an investigation that took close to 3 months and involved travel to several states pointed quite conclusively to a very high probability of guilt for the client of the attorney using my services. When presented with that evidence, her response was to ask me to dig for dirt on the witnesses so she could discredit them in court. She knew she could not refute the evidence, so she decided to attack the witnesses.
That is the sort of conduct I was talking about.
Now, if you still don't "get it", just let me know and I will try to dumb it down as much as possible.
Cletus
10-11-2016, 12:26 PM
Yea....no, I pretty much read it correctly the first time, maybe you shouldn't try backing your horse on this one.
Alright... let me try to simplify this for you.
You witness a robbery. You get a clear look at the robber and you identify him in court. The defense attorney can't cast doubt on your identification because you stand firm on it. You identified him in a photo lineup, a live lineup and finally in court. You are rock solid on that.
So, since the lawyer can't knock down your identification of the defendant, he tries a different tack. He starts suggesting that maybe you were in the neighborhood where the robbery took place because you were there to buy drugs or rent a hooker or troll for children. He takes the approach of trying to destroy your reputation in order to cast you in a bad light before the jury.
Do you think that is ethical? Exploited thinks it is.
Do you think that is how our justice system is supposed to work? Exploited does.
These are his words.
No imputation is necessary as it speaks for itself.
Del is correct on this one E.
I went in for jury duty this morning for 3rd time. Was seated the other two, but was fortunate to get a high seating number this time.
Anyway, it's always fascinating to listen to the judge's instructions and questions the defense and prosecuting attorney have for prospective jurors.
This defense attorney was really REALLY good. He asked a number of probing questions not having to do with this case necessarily - but thought provoking nonetheless.
Some of the responses were really telling and pointed to cold facts about human nature.
Sorry, but a defense attorney must do their damnedest to get even a client they believe to be guilty off by raising JUST enough reasonable doubt in one or more of the jurors.
Is the thread too fast for you? Stop trying to play coy, it makes you look silly.
This is his M.O.
Playing dumb .. but "playing" is only a possibility.
;-)
The legal profession has been perverted. No defense attorney should try to get a client off if they know that client is guilty. Once they are certain of the guilt of their client, they should make sure he gets due process and his rights are protected. Nothing more. Any lawyer who tries to get a rapist off that he or she knows is a rapist, should be charged with aiding and abetting.
I used to do a fair amount of work for defense attorneys. I quit when I had a sexual assault case that resulted in a woman being partially paralyzed as a result of her injuries. During the course of the investigation, it became apparent that the client was in fact, guilty. When I talked to the defense attorney and told her that she had better hope the DA's investigators were incompetent or her boy was going to jail for a long time, she looked at the evidence and said "Okay, let's see what we can dig up to discredit the witnesses".
I walked out and never worked another defense case.
The whole "My lawyer can beat up your lawyer" adversarial concept that has become accepted in American legal practice is wrong. So is the concept of accepting a plea on a lesser offense in order to save the state time and money in a prosecution.
Sorry, but it is not the defense attorney's job to come to a decision about guilt or lack thereof. That's up to the jury.
I have a friend who quit the legal profession because he found it impossible to live with himself after getting folks off that HE knew to be guilty.
Yes, there are ethical defense guidelines - but putting on a lame defense violates those guidelines.
And........ ?
AND unethical Quid pro quo - borderline legal to raise money to pay off someone's mortgage or provide a cash payment in return for compliance with a political candidate.
Distinctly prosecutable if ANY connection can be made between the superPAC and the candidate.
Roger Stone is a scumbag .. but he claims that Trump made a donation to Willey's mortgage payoff fund.
If he did we should find out and prosecute Trump .. the second illegal act would have been if he made that payment with a Trump Foundation check.
LOCK HIM UP!! :)
Tahuyaman
10-11-2016, 02:21 PM
AND unethical Quid pro quo - borderline legal to raise money to pay off someone's mortgage or provide a cash payment in return for compliance with a political candidate.
Distinctly prosecutable if ANY connection can be made between the superPAC and the candidate.
Roger Stone is a scumbag .. but he claims that Trump made a donation to Willey's mortgage payoff fund.
If he did we should find out and prosecute Trump .. the second illegal act would have been if he made that payment with a Trump Foundation check.
LOCK HIM UP!! :)
Your outrage age over an "unethical quid pro quo" scheme seems to be quite one sided. You would be more convincing if your outrage wasn't tainted by partisanship.
Alright... let me try to simplify this for you.
You witness a robbery. You get a clear look at the robber and you identify him in court. The defense attorney can't cast doubt on your identification because you stand firm on it. You identified him in a photo lineup, a live lineup and finally in court. You are rock solid on that.
So, since the lawyer can't knock down your identification of the defendant, he tries a different tack. He starts suggesting that maybe you were in the neighborhood where the robbery took place because you were there to buy drugs or rent a hooker or troll for children. He takes the approach of trying to destroy your reputation in order to cast you in a bad light before the jury.
Do you think that is ethical? Exploited thinks it is.
Do you think that is how our justice system is supposed to work? Exploited does.
Your example of a defense attorney purposefully and without evidence smearing a witness is completely unethical.
And you are obviously unfamiliar with the variance of eyewitness accounts and identification of a suspect.
They are HIGHLY inconstant.
Have you never been in a college class where the professor pulled an experiment in which a perpetrator of some sort enters the classroom and then asks students to write down responses identifying that person, what they were wearing, how they acted and what was said?
You'll end up with SOME agreement - but nothing that makes it definitive.
If she laughed about it, it's ridiculous and extremely distasteful and insulting. But I don't know the context and as with most "scandalous" things in this election, context doesn't seem to matter when it should.
And this is the problem - if you listen to the full tape in context ..
Clinton is NOT laughing at or about the perp. She's laughing about completely different aspects of the case.
Cletus
10-11-2016, 02:24 PM
Sorry, but a defense attorney must do their damnedest to get even a client they believe to be guilty off by raising JUST enough reasonable doubt in one or more of the jurors.
How is Justice served by that?
You are saying it is okay to deprive a victim of justice if the defendant's lawyer is smarter than the People's lawyer.
Cletus
10-11-2016, 02:29 PM
Your example of a defense attorney purposefully and without evidence smearing a witness is completely unethical.
Yet, it is common practice with the "must get the defendant off at all costs" crowd.
And you are obviously unfamiliar with the variance of eyewitness accounts and identification of a suspect.
I am intimately familiar with it, thank you. However, if a witness picks a suspect out of a photo lineup, then picks him out of a live lineup, then picks him out in the courtroom, it is going to be difficult to refute his testimony.
Have you never been in a college class where the professor pulled an experiment in which a perpetrator of some sort enters the classroom and then asks students to write down responses identifying that person, what they were wearing, how they acted and what was said?
Invariably, one or two will get the details exactly right. Most will not. That is not really relevant to this discussion.
How is Justice served by that?
You are saying it is okay to deprive a victim of justice if the defendant's lawyer is smarter than the People's lawyer.
There are inept prosecutors out there .. some of whom fail to fully prepare or present their case for a conviction.
In some cases (prosecution of cops in particular) they may withhold evidence to purposely deceive.
AND public defenders are often the bottom of the barrel and go through the motions as opposed to a defense with zeal. They too are at fault.
Our legal system is imperfect, but it's the best system we have.
Both prosecuting and defense attorneys are obligated to fully/ ethically prepare and pursue.
Dangermouse
10-11-2016, 02:42 PM
How is Justice served by that?
You are saying it is okay to deprive a victim of justice if the defendant's lawyer is smarter than the People's lawyer.
Justice is served by requiring the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defence need only show doubt exists. It's a safeguard to prevent innocent people being railroaded into jail, or political opponents just locking people up on a whim, simply because they hate them.
Peter1469
10-11-2016, 02:44 PM
Del is correct on this one E.
I went in for jury duty this morning for 3rd time. Was seated the other two, but was fortunate to get a high seating number this time.
Anyway, it's always fascinating to listen to the judge's instructions and questions the defense and prosecuting attorney have for prospective jurors.
This defense attorney was really REALLY good. He asked a number of probing questions not having to do with this case necessarily - but thought provoking nonetheless.
Some of the responses were really telling and pointed to cold facts about human nature.
Sorry, but a defense attorney must do their damnedest to get even a client they believe to be guilty off by raising JUST enough reasonable doubt in one or more of the jurors.
I signed up for jury duty here in Arlington and waived my lawyer status to get out of it. I still don't think they will pick me. I hope they do.
I signed up for jury duty here in Arlington and waived my lawyer status to get out of it. I still don't think they will pick me. I hope they do.
This morning we had a cop as a prospect - he was immediately let go. Bet the same happens to you.
Have to say that the experience of the two juries i sat on was absolutely fascinating and educational - you should do your best to experience it once.
Peter1469
10-11-2016, 02:48 PM
This morning we had a cop as a prospect - he was immediately let go. Bet the same happens to you.
Have to say that the experience of the two juries i sat on was absolutely fascinating and educational - you should do your best to experience it once.
They will probably not pick me....
Cletus
10-11-2016, 02:49 PM
Sorry, but it is not the defense attorney's job to come to a decision about guilt or lack thereof. That's up to the jury.
Are you suggesting defense attorneys are too stupid to reach their own conclusions?
I have a friend who quit the legal profession because he found it impossible to live with himself after getting folks off that HE knew to be guilty.
He did the right thing... a little late, but better late than never. The next time you see him, ask him how he sleeps at night knowing he deprived people of their right to justice for a few bucks.
Yes, there are ethical defense guidelines - but putting on a lame defense violates those guidelines.
Nobody said anything about a lame defense.
Cletus
10-11-2016, 02:51 PM
Justice is served by requiring the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defence need only show doubt exists. It's a safeguard to prevent innocent people being railroaded into jail, or political opponents just locking people up on a whim, simply because they hate them.
Justice is served by arriving at the truth and acting accordingly.
Justice is served by requiring the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defence need only show doubt exists. It's a safeguard to prevent innocent people being railroaded into jail, or political opponents just locking people up on a whim, simply because they hate them.
Correct Answer ^^^
I'm just not understanding of some to comprehend this.
They shouldn't be seated on a jury because if i was a good defense attorney, i would ascertain that they might be prone to go in with a presumption of guilt.
Justice is served by arriving at the truth and acting accordingly.
It is NOT the job of either a prosecuting or defense attorney to decide guilt or innocence.
You clearly don't get it.
They will probably not pick me....
Curious Pete, you mention that you "signed up" for jury duty .. is it a voluntary thing there?
Here, if you are a registered voter you get summoned every three years.
Even though i was released today .. i have to call in every evening rest of the week.
Cletus
10-11-2016, 02:58 PM
Correct Answer ^^^
Wrong answer.
I'm just not understanding of some to comprehend this.
That is just one of a multitude of things you do not understand, but should.
They shouldn't be seated on a jury because if i was a good defense attorney, i would ascertain that they might be prone to go in with a presumption of guilt.
You are suggesting that a desire for truth is the same as a presumption of guilt?
Maybe you should drop out of this discussion and come back when you are better prepared to participate.
Cletus
10-11-2016, 02:59 PM
It is NOT the job of either a prosecuting or defense attorney to decide guilt or innocence.
You clearly don't get it.
You clearly don't understand the concept of "ethics" and "doing the right thing".
You are suggesting that a desire for truth is the same as a presumption of guilt?
Maybe you should drop out of this discussion and come back when you are better prepared to participate.
I'm not an attorney, but understand far more about the legal system than you do.
Be sure to speak up next time you get called for jury duty.
Tell them what you are spouting off about in this thread - you'll be one of the first to be scrubbed as a potential juror.
Peter1469
10-11-2016, 03:05 PM
Curious Pete, you mention that you "signed up" for jury duty .. is it a voluntary thing there?
Here, if you are a registered voter you get summoned every three years.
Even though i was released today .. i have to call in every evening rest of the week.
I filled out an online form for jury duty. Because I am a lawyer I could opt out. I waived that.
Yet, it is common practice with the "must get the defendant off at all costs" crowd.
Again, there are unethical, sleazy defense AND prosecuting attorneys. Hopefully they are rooted out eventually.
I am intimately familiar with it, thank you. However, if a witness picks a suspect out of a photo lineup, then picks him out of a live lineup, then picks him out in the courtroom, it is going to be difficult to refute his testimony.
Agreed
Invariably, one or two will get the details exactly right. Most will not. That is not really relevant to this discussion.
Sorry, but it's TOTALLY relevant to this discussion. You are failing to comprehend the underpinnings of our legal system.
Who is to decide WHICH witnesses got the details exactly right?
If you believe it to be one of the attorneys - then you're off by a thousand miles.
I filled out an online form for jury duty. Because I am a lawyer I could opt out. I waived that.
Oh check - so you got a summons in the mail and filled out an online questionnaire.
Ditto.
Peter1469
10-11-2016, 03:13 PM
Oh check - so you got a summons in the mail and filled out an online questionnaire.
Ditto.It is all electronic now.
exploited
10-11-2016, 03:15 PM
Again, there are unethical, sleazy defense AND prosecuting attorneys. Hopefully they are rooted out eventually.
Agreed
Sorry, but it's TOTALLY relevant to this discussion. You are failing to comprehend the underpinnings of our legal system.
Who is to decide WHICH witnesses got the details exactly right?
If you believe it to be one of the attorneys - then you're off by a thousand miles.
You have to understand that, in Cletus' world, ethics consists of throwing a case and getting a person imprisoned if you think they are guilty, whereas doing your job and defending them to the utmost of your ability is unethical.
It is all electronic now.
Okay - You probably have a good chance of being seated AS LONG as you don't have ongoing relationship with the DA, any of the cops involved, or any of the attorneys or judge.
If you know one or more of them .. fess up.
Last time i was seated, i had to reveal that the judge's assistant was my tenant (i didn't use the word tenant - just pointed out that i knew him).
He thanked me, pointed out that he had no fish to fry and on i went.
Your outrage age over an "unethical quid pro quo" scheme seems to be quite one sided. You would be more convincing if your outrage wasn't tainted by partisanship.
Go away kid .. ya botha me
https://avatarone.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/bla-bla.gif
You have to understand that, in Cletus' world, ethics consists of throwing a case and getting a person imprisoned if you think they are guilty, whereas doing your job and defending them to the utmost of your ability is unethical.
Exactly - there have been defense attorneys who couldn't live with themselves because they put on a lame defense considering their client guilty ..
and later the client was determined to have received an unfair trial, poor defense or bad legal advice.
NOT their job to make those kind of judgements.
It's super simple, and hopefully Cletus is never seated on a jury.
Cletus
10-11-2016, 03:39 PM
Again, there are unethical, sleazy defense AND prosecuting attorneys. Hopefully they are rooted out eventually.
Agreed
Sorry, but it's TOTALLY relevant to this discussion. You are failing to comprehend the underpinnings of our legal system.
Who is to decide WHICH witnesses got the details exactly right?
If you believe it to be one of the attorneys - then you're off by a thousand miles.
Before the testimony is even presented to the jury, the lawyers fro both sides have made their own determinations. Do you really think they operate in a vacuum?
You are missing the entire point here. If you as an attorney have determined through the examination of evidence that your client is guilty of the crime(s) with which he has been charged, and you still try to get him off, you are as complicit in the crime as he is. You are helping a person you believe to have committed a crime to evade justice. You are helping deny the victim of that crime his or her right to see justice served.
You are no better than the criminal you are defending.
exploited
10-11-2016, 03:41 PM
Exactly - there have been defense attorneys who couldn't live with themselves because they put on a lame defense considering their client guilty ..
and later the client was determined to have received an unfair trial, poor defense or bad legal advice.
NOT their job to make those kind of judgements.
It's super simple, and hopefully Cletus is never seated on a jury.
I agree. He really doesn't know what he is talking about. A defense attorney who behaved like he suggests could very well lose their license if it was found out, and rightfully so - it is an egregious breach of ethics, and those who do it have no place in that profession.
Cletus
10-11-2016, 03:45 PM
You have to understand that, in Cletus' world, ethics consists of throwing a case and getting a person imprisoned if you think they are guilty, whereas doing your job and defending them to the utmost of your ability is unethical.
Provide a quote in which I have said anything about throwing a case. You can engage in all the weasel talk you wish, but it doesn't change what was said and it doesn't change what is right and what is wrong.
You obviously think it is okay to help a criminal evade justice. Admit it. You just don't care about whether justice is actually served. You don't care about whether a criminal is allowed to walk free on the street. You don't care whether the victim of a crime ever receives justice.
I hope it never happens that someday, someone you care about is victimized and the perp walks because his lawyer was a little slicker than the People's lawyer. However, if it does, I hope I am there to ask you if you still feel the way you do now.
Bo, I hope the same is true of you.
Provide a quote in which I have said anything about throwing a case. You can engage in all the weasel talk you wish, but it doesn't change what was said and it doesn't change what is right and what is wrong.
You obviously think it is okay to help a criminal evade justice. Admit it. You just don't care about whether justice is actually served. You don't care about whether a criminal is allowed to walk free on the street. You don't care whether the victim of a crime ever receives justice.
I hope it never happens that someday, someone you care about is victimized and the perp walks because his lawyer was a little slicker than the People's lawyer. However, if it does, I hope I am there to ask you if you still feel the way you do now.
Bo, I hope the same is true of you.
For the umpteenth time, NOT the job of a defense attorney to determine guilt or innocence as to his defendant.
Or defend he or she by anything other than vigorous, ethical means DISALLOWING his hunches as to guilt or innocence from influencing such.
Of COURSE i want a victim to receive justice.. are you daft? (don't answer that)
Refuse to engage you on this topic any further until you up your game.
exploited
10-11-2016, 04:10 PM
Provide a quote in which I have said anything about throwing a case. You can engage in all the weasel talk you wish, but it doesn't change what was said and it doesn't change what is right and what is wrong.
You obviously think it is okay to help a criminal evade justice. Admit it. You just don't care about whether justice is actually served. You don't care about whether a criminal is allowed to walk free on the street. You don't care whether the victim of a crime ever receives justice.
I hope it never happens that someday, someone you care about is victimized and the perp walks because his lawyer was a little slicker than the People's lawyer. However, if it does, I hope I am there to ask you if you still feel the way you do now.
Bo, I hope the same is true of you.
Justice can only be served by giving a defendant a rigorous, professional and ethical defense attorney, who will protect the best interests of their clients, regardless of their personal convictions of guilt or innocence. They are not a jury, no matter how hard you try to convey them as such.
If the state cannot prove their case, that is on the state, and not the defense attorney.
Tahuyaman
10-11-2016, 04:11 PM
Go away kid .. ya botha me
https://avatarone.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/bla-bla.gif
I know. Hypocrites are like roaches. They don't like being exposed to the Sunlight.
Cletus
10-11-2016, 04:32 PM
For the umpteenth time, NOT the job of a defense attorney to determine guilt or innocence as to his defendant.
Or defend he or she by anything other than vigorous, ethical means DISALLOWING his hunches as to guilt or innocence from influencing such.
Of COURSE i want a victim to receive justice.. are you daft? (don't answer that)
Refuse to engage you on this topic any further until you up your game.
I can cite a case right now in which a very prominent attorney in this state was preparing a defense for his client in a felony case. The day before trial, he realized his client had lied to him and was did commit the crimes for which he was accused. He worked with the DA to get the most lenient sentence he could and told his client to plead guilty. Immediately after the plea was entered, he withdrew from the case.
A few months later, the guy decided he didn't like being in prison, so he got another attorney to try to get his sentence voided on the grounds that his first attorney failed to provide him a vigorous defense. The second attorney, as part of his trial prep hired his own investigator. When presented with the evidence collected by his own investigator, he advised his client to drop his appeal and serve out his sentence. He then withdrew from the case.
Some lawyers do have ethics, even though you and exploited don't believe they should.
exploited
10-11-2016, 04:41 PM
I can cite a case right now in which a very prominent attorney in this state was preparing a defense for his client in a felony case. The day before trial, he realized his client had lied to him and was did commit the crimes for which he was accused. He worked with the DA to get the most lenient sentence he could and told his client to plead guilty. Immediately after the plea was entered, he withdrew from the case.
A few months later, the guy decided he didn't like being in prison, so he got another attorney to try to get his sentence voided on the grounds that his first attorney failed to provide him a vigorous defense. The second attorney, as part of his trial prep hired his own investigator. When presented with the evidence collected by his own investigator, he advised his client to drop his appeal and serve out his sentence. He then withdrew from the case.
Some lawyers do have ethics, even though you and exploited don't believe they should.
Please go ahead and cite the case, I'd be interested in reading more about it.
Before the testimony is even presented to the jury, the lawyers fro both sides have made their own determinations. Do you really think they operate in a vacuum?
You are missing the entire point here. If you as an attorney have determined through the examination of evidence that your client is guilty of the crime(s) with which he has been charged, and you still try to get him off, you are as complicit in the crime as he is. You are helping a person you believe to have committed a crime to evade justice. You are helping deny the victim of that crime his or her right to see justice served.
You are no better than the criminal you are defending.
Once again you are INCORRECT.
A private attorney is entitled to accept or refuse a case based on a defendants ability to pay and their assessment as to whether an acquittal is possible.
The Public Defender MUST "defend the public". In the vast majority of defenses .. public defenders do the heavy lifting.
It is the JURY's job to determine guilt or innocence. This FACT has literally NOTHING to do with denying a victim his or her right to see justice served.
AGAIN - we're done here until you up your game.
exploited
10-11-2016, 05:59 PM
I can cite a case right now in which a very prominent attorney in this state was preparing a defense for his client in a felony case. The day before trial, he realized his client had lied to him and was did commit the crimes for which he was accused. He worked with the DA to get the most lenient sentence he could and told his client to plead guilty. Immediately after the plea was entered, he withdrew from the case.
A few months later, the guy decided he didn't like being in prison, so he got another attorney to try to get his sentence voided on the grounds that his first attorney failed to provide him a vigorous defense. The second attorney, as part of his trial prep hired his own investigator. When presented with the evidence collected by his own investigator, he advised his client to drop his appeal and serve out his sentence. He then withdrew from the case.
Some lawyers do have ethics, even though you and exploited don't believe they should.
I'm still waiting on your citation. Please provide when convenient, thank you.
ISome lawyers do have ethics, even though you and exploited don't believe they should.
HuH?, All attorneys should have ethics and abide by their closely abided-to and observed rules.
Most are good, a few are horrid.
Your point?
I'm still waiting on your citation. Please provide when convenient, thank you.
Holding breath for a coherent response not advised ;-)
Dangermouse
10-11-2016, 06:10 PM
Coincidentally, I saw a show today about a murder case in Shreveport where a minor drug dealer was shot and his GF killed. Two locals had been going around the neighborhood beating up and robbing small-time dealers, and they were arrested and charged when the wounded dealer picked them out of a photo lineup. Turned out the eyewitness was wrong!
The detective on the case was uneasy as was the GF's mother, and they continued investigating loose ends to discover that three other men had done the deed. The two were released and the real shooter got life.
You clearly don't understand the concept of "ethics" and "doing the right thing".
Have you ever been on a jury?
If not, STFU
Safety
10-11-2016, 07:06 PM
You didn't read that.
I cited a case I worked in which the evidence I uncovered in an investigation that took close to 3 months and involved travel to several states pointed quite conclusively to a very high probability of guilt for the client of the attorney using my services. When presented with that evidence, her response was to ask me to dig for dirt on the witnesses so she could discredit them in court. She knew she could not refute the evidence, so she decided to attack the witnesses.
That is the sort of conduct I was talking about.
Now, if you still don't "get it", just let me know and I will try to dumb it down as much as possible.
Cool story, but just because your anecdotal experience was a downer, doesn't mean all defense lawyers do the same.
Safety
10-11-2016, 07:09 PM
Alright... let me try to simplify this for you.
You witness a robbery. You get a clear look at the robber and you identify him in court. The defense attorney can't cast doubt on your identification because you stand firm on it. You identified him in a photo lineup, a live lineup and finally in court. You are rock solid on that.
So, since the lawyer can't knock down your identification of the defendant, he tries a different tack. He starts suggesting that maybe you were in the neighborhood where the robbery took place because you were there to buy drugs or rent a hooker or troll for children. He takes the approach of trying to destroy your reputation in order to cast you in a bad light before the jury.
Do you think that is ethical? Exploited thinks it is.
Do you think that is how our justice system is supposed to work? Exploited does.
That's why reasonable doubt is the key objective in criminal cases. Just because you don't like the method, doesn't mean it is unethical...which is pretty f'kn subjective.
decedent
10-11-2016, 07:13 PM
Of course they were paid. The first thing they all said was that they were voting for Trump. It was a sad, staged show that made liberals and conservatives palmface.
stjames1_53
10-11-2016, 07:17 PM
Of course they were paid. The first thing they all said was that they were voting for Trump. It was a sad, staged show that made liberals and conservatives palmface.
flashback..Hilly had to pay people to attend one of her famous behind the lines public townhall meetings
decedent
10-11-2016, 07:24 PM
flashback..Hilly had to pay people to attend one of her famous behind the lines public townhall meetings
Cool.
Cletus
10-11-2016, 10:26 PM
I'm still waiting on your citation. Please provide when convenient, thank you.
I already cited the case. You are incredibly slow on the uptake.
Cletus
10-11-2016, 10:28 PM
That's why reasonable doubt is the key objective in criminal cases. Just because you don't like the method, doesn't mean it is unethical...which is pretty f'kn subjective.
The "key objective" is the finding of fact and the administration of justice.
Why do none of you people understand that?
Cletus
10-11-2016, 10:29 PM
Cool story, but just because your anecdotal experience was a downer, doesn't mean all defense lawyers do the same.
I didn't say they all did. I said it was a common practice to try to "win at all costs". For most, winning is more important than justice... far more important.
Safety
10-11-2016, 10:31 PM
The "key objective" is the finding of fact and the administration of justice.
Why do none of you people understand that?
Because the administration of justice was never a level playing field, and fact finding was not high on the priority list. Now, those sound bites may seem gallant and noble, but in the real world, it doesn't work that way.
Safety
10-11-2016, 10:32 PM
I didn't say they all did. I said it was a common practice to try to "win at all costs". For most, winning is more important than justice... far more important.
For some, winning and revenge is more important than justice.
Cletus
10-11-2016, 10:36 PM
Have you ever been on a jury?
If not, STFU
I am not the one who is saying it is fine to deny a victim justice as long as you get your client off.
You are.
exploited
10-11-2016, 11:00 PM
I am not the one who is saying it is fine to deny a victim justice as long as you get your client off.
You are.
There is no justice if every person accused of a crime doesn't receive effective and vigorous legal representation, and there certainly is no justice if defense attorneys start pretending they are juries and deciding a persons guilt or innocence on their own prerogative.
Might I also add that you are a person who has advocated for the murder of detained suspects by police, and so the idea of you ever issuing an opinion about what justice looks like is absurd*.
*I apologize in advance if I've confused you for Tahuyamen, Mister V, or any one of the other, uh, special cases around here.
Cletus
10-11-2016, 11:07 PM
There is no justice if every person accused of a crime doesn't receive effective and vigorous legal representation, and there certainly is no justice if defense attorneys start pretending they are juries and deciding a persons guilt or innocence on their own prerogative.
Might I also add that you are a person who has advocated for the murder of detained suspects by police, and so the idea of you ever issuing an opinion about what justice looks like is absurd*.
*I apologize in advance if I've confused you for Tahuyamen, Mister V, or any one of the other, uh, special cases around here.
It is always interesting to try to get rational discussion from people who have never been anywhere or done anything but are convinced they actually know things.
You are one of those people. The more you talk, the more obvious it becomes how much you do not know.
exploited
10-11-2016, 11:12 PM
It is always interesting to try to get rational discussion from people who have never been anywhere or done anything but are convinced they actually know things.
You are one of those people. The more you talk, the more obvious it becomes how much you do not know.
Good one little buddy.
Cletus
10-11-2016, 11:16 PM
Good one little buddy.
I am neither little nor your buddy.
Make a note of that.
exploited
10-11-2016, 11:18 PM
I am neither little nor your buddy.
Make a note of that.
Will do little buddy.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.