Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Deadspin)   Sandusky lawyer on how he can reconcile working with a client he knows is guilty: "You reconcile a check book too"   (deadspin.com) divider line 150
    More: Asinine, Jerry Sandusky, child sex abuse, guilty  
•       •       •

6912 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jul 2012 at 8:07 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



150 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-10 04:54:42 PM  
I'll give him credit for answering honestly. He most likely thinks Sandusky is scum as well but he got paid handsomely to show up and make sure the paperwork was right.
 
2012-07-10 04:57:54 PM  
I'm more curious how he can reconcile being the worst lawyer anyone's seen in years.
 
2012-07-10 05:04:15 PM  
If it weren't for lawyers like him, our criminal justice system would be horrendously unfair. I applaud anyone that takes cases that seem like slam dunks against their accused criminal clients.

Also, all criminal cases are more complex than "did he do it". You have to question the police and how they gathered evidence, etc. How the defendant was treated during interrogation, etc.

I know OJ was guilty of murder. Almost positive. But if the cops botched the whole case like they say they did... he diserves to walk. That's how the US works, and I'm happy for it.
 
2012-07-10 05:04:50 PM  

Quasar: I'm more curious how he can reconcile being the worst lawyer anyone's seen in years.


My point aside, this ^^^
 
2012-07-10 05:05:50 PM  

Quasar: I'm more curious how he can reconcile being the worst lawyer anyone's seen in years.


You obviously didn't RTFA... this was just the side chair to the worst lawyer anyone's seen in years.
 
2012-07-10 05:15:07 PM  

dletter: Quasar: I'm more curious how he can reconcile being the worst lawyer anyone's seen in years.

You obviously didn't RTFA... this was just the side chair to the worst lawyer anyone's seen in years.


Ah, righto. I'm still shaking my head over the Costas interview.
 
2012-07-10 05:30:00 PM  

Quasar: I'm more curious how he can reconcile being the worst lawyer anyone's seen in years.


Probably because he took it for the money and not because he gave a fark. Ringing endorsement of his talents, isn't it?
 
2012-07-10 05:53:16 PM  

Quasar: dletter: Quasar: I'm more curious how he can reconcile being the worst lawyer anyone's seen in years.

You obviously didn't RTFA... this was just the side chair to the worst lawyer anyone's seen in years.

Ah, righto. I'm still shaking my head over the Costas interview.


I don't think he had much control over his delusional client.
 
2012-07-10 05:56:50 PM  

coco ebert: I don't think he had much control over his delusional client.


He (the lawyer) was set to be interviewed by Costas. He himself offered Costas the opportunity to interview Sandusky on air instead. He basically served his own client up on a hot plate with a side salad. That is epic lawyer fail.
 
2012-07-10 05:58:51 PM  

downstairs: If it weren't for lawyers like him, our criminal justice system would be horrendously unfair. I applaud anyone that takes cases that seem like slam dunks against their accused criminal clients.

Also, all criminal cases are more complex than "did he do it". You have to question the police and how they gathered evidence, etc. How the defendant was treated during interrogation, etc.

I know OJ was guilty of murder. Almost positive. But if the cops botched the whole case like they say they did... he diserves to walk. That's how the US works, and I'm happy for it.


There is a difference in being a whore and having principals. A whore farks anyone for money. Someone with principals thinks even fatties should get sex.
 
2012-07-10 06:03:08 PM  

Quasar: coco ebert: I don't think he had much control over his delusional client.

He (the lawyer) was set to be interviewed by Costas. He himself offered Costas the opportunity to interview Sandusky on air instead. He basically served his own client up on a hot plate with a side salad. That is epic lawyer fail.


It makes you wonder if he wanted him found guilty. Forget being a halfway competent lawyer, I can't imagine anyone who is slightly intelligent who wouldn't say well lets think about the questions they are likely to ask and practice a bit. That or Sandusky was grasping at straws, completely unreasonable, and the lawyers were like you know fark it, he is guilty as hell and if he wants to go down in flames lets let him.
 
2012-07-10 06:03:54 PM  

NickelP: Quasar: coco ebert: I don't think he had much control over his delusional client.

He (the lawyer) was set to be interviewed by Costas. He himself offered Costas the opportunity to interview Sandusky on air instead. He basically served his own client up on a hot plate with a side salad. That is epic lawyer fail.

It makes you wonder if he wanted him found guilty. Forget being a halfway competent lawyer, I can't imagine anyone who is slightly intelligent who wouldn't say well lets think about the questions they are likely to ask and practice a bit. That or Sandusky was grasping at straws, completely unreasonable, and the lawyers were like you know fark it, he is guilty as hell and if he wants to go down in flames lets let him.


Or to set him up for some sort of an appeal. I'm not sure these lawyers were so smart though.
 
2012-07-10 06:04:30 PM  

Quasar: coco ebert: I don't think he had much control over his delusional client.

He (the lawyer) was set to be interviewed by Costas. He himself offered Costas the opportunity to interview Sandusky on air instead. He basically served his own client up on a hot plate with a side salad. That is epic lawyer fail.


I didn't know that. I thought Sandusky had pushed for an interview.
 
2012-07-10 06:06:08 PM  
Everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense, even the guilty ones.
 
2012-07-10 06:08:24 PM  

coco ebert: NickelP: Quasar: coco ebert: I don't think he had much control over his delusional client.

He (the lawyer) was set to be interviewed by Costas. He himself offered Costas the opportunity to interview Sandusky on air instead. He basically served his own client up on a hot plate with a side salad. That is epic lawyer fail.

It makes you wonder if he wanted him found guilty. Forget being a halfway competent lawyer, I can't imagine anyone who is slightly intelligent who wouldn't say well lets think about the questions they are likely to ask and practice a bit. That or Sandusky was grasping at straws, completely unreasonable, and the lawyers were like you know fark it, he is guilty as hell and if he wants to go down in flames lets let him.

Or to set him up for some sort of an appeal. I'm not sure these lawyers were so smart though.


Maybe, I kind of doubt it though. I can see setting up an appeal to be a valid strategy, if you have some shot in hell of getting found innocent. With all the evidence and witnesses in this one, it seems like they'd be shooting for the "lets hope to hell we can make a good deal and you don't die in prison' strategy. I find it hard to believe if they tried this 10 times he wouldn't be found guilty each time. His interview seems like it turned public opinion against him so badly that the prosecutor would of been crucified if he made a deal.
 
2012-07-10 06:10:16 PM  

coco ebert: Quasar: coco ebert: I don't think he had much control over his delusional client.

He (the lawyer) was set to be interviewed by Costas. He himself offered Costas the opportunity to interview Sandusky on air instead. He basically served his own client up on a hot plate with a side salad. That is epic lawyer fail.

I didn't know that. I thought Sandusky had pushed for an interview.


Costas called the lawyer, asked for a phone interview. Lawyer said "I'll do you one better! Let's put him in front of cameras so everyone can see him sweating questions like "Do you fark little boys?" because everyone sweats those kind of questions!"
 
2012-07-10 06:30:46 PM  
Lawyers are like prostitutes. They're only on your side as long as you're paying. And wear a condom.
 
2012-07-10 07:09:16 PM  

Quasar: coco ebert: I don't think he had much control over his delusional client.

He (the lawyer) was set to be interviewed by Costas. He himself offered Costas the opportunity to interview Sandusky on air instead. He basically served his own client up on a hot plate with a side salad. That is epic lawyer fail.


Did the Costa interview make it into evidence at trial? No, so it doesn't matter.
 
2012-07-10 07:11:03 PM  

NickelP: Quasar: coco ebert: I don't think he had much control over his delusional client.

He (the lawyer) was set to be interviewed by Costas. He himself offered Costas the opportunity to interview Sandusky on air instead. He basically served his own client up on a hot plate with a side salad. That is epic lawyer fail.

It makes you wonder if he wanted him found guilty. Forget being a halfway competent lawyer, I can't imagine anyone who is slightly intelligent who wouldn't say well lets think about the questions they are likely to ask and practice a bit. That or Sandusky was grasping at straws, completely unreasonable, and the lawyers were like you know fark it, he is guilty as hell and if he wants to go down in flames lets let him.


Maybe so. I can't believe any lega team would be so lame.
Sure Sandusky, we'll tke your check you pedo scum. Everyone knew he was guilty. Maybe they just let him talk for the lulz and figured it was hopeless so why put too much into it.
 
2012-07-10 07:37:35 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

Submitter could also ask John Adams about that sort of thing, too.
 
2012-07-10 07:42:29 PM  
Just wait until Sandusky tries to pay him in dried up boy wieners.
 
2012-07-10 07:56:38 PM  

Quasar: I'm more curious how he can reconcile being the worst lawyer anyone's seen in years.


Heh, indeed!

You know who that lawyer reminded me of?

For some odd reason, he reminded me of the stuttering defense attorney from My Cousin Vinny.
 
2012-07-10 08:10:37 PM  

Quasar: I'm more curious how he can reconcile being the worst lawyer anyone's seen in years.


I give Karl credit for his self promotion skills, but I've seen him in court many times and he's a joke.
 
2012-07-10 08:10:41 PM  

downstairs: If it weren't for lawyers like him, our criminal justice system would be horrendously unfair.


The end.
 
2012-07-10 08:11:14 PM  
If you think this pile of paper was more than a pile of paper to this paper, you have mis-papered, man.

;)
 
2012-07-10 08:12:03 PM  
Hey, even scum need scum to defend....

/amidoingitrite?
 
2012-07-10 08:12:58 PM  

downstairs: If it weren't for lawyers like him, our criminal justice system would be horrendously unfair. I applaud anyone that takes cases that seem like slam dunks against their accused criminal clients.

Also, all criminal cases are more complex than "did he do it". You have to question the police and how they gathered evidence, etc. How the defendant was treated during interrogation, etc.

I know OJ was guilty of murder. Almost positive. But if the cops botched the whole case like they say they did... he diserves to walk. That's how the US works, and I'm happy for it.


This ought to be good. Come on fark, entertain me with lots of b-b-but but he works for the BAD MAN!!
 
2012-07-10 08:14:34 PM  

paygun: This ought to be good. Come on fark, entertain me with lots of b-b-but but he works for the BAD MAN!!


images.wikia.com
 
2012-07-10 08:15:33 PM  

Indubitably: If you think this pile of paper was more than a pile of paper to this paper, you have mis-papered, man.

;)


I am glad this destroyer of youth goes down...

Down and down and down and down and down and down and down into infinity...

Child molesters hold a special place in the human hell that is the M-particle.

Little minds (m-minus) shudder when they encounter the M-particle...

*Tsk*

Ah, M?

;)
 
2012-07-10 08:16:29 PM  

coco ebert:

Or to set him up for some sort of an appeal. I'm not sure these lawyers were so smart though.


Or, this dude wasn't even on the team at the time of that interview. You are allowed to read the article, the link's right up there.
 
2012-07-10 08:17:47 PM  
AbbeySomeone:
Maybe they just let him talk for the lulz and figured it was hopeless so why put too much into it.

That would be legal malpractice.

"Everyone" knew a lot of people were guilty, who later turned out to be innocent. The fact that Sandusky is very unlikely to be one of those people is immaterial. Don't y'all make me quote "A Man for All Seasons" like some kind of interweb pedant.
 
2012-07-10 08:19:04 PM  
Last I checked, this is still the United States of America where someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Don't turn Jerry into a Richard Jewel to satisfy your blood lust.
 
2012-07-10 08:21:24 PM  
I wonder if the lawyer thought a TV interview would be enough to wreck the jury pool. Or maybe the whole team thought the victims would cave.
 
2012-07-10 08:22:19 PM  
Better a guilty man go free than an innocent man go to jail. Innocent until claimed guilty by the media.
 
2012-07-10 08:23:23 PM  
Jerry, have you ever touched a boy's penis?

On Honest Abe's Lawyering:


Leonard Swett, of Chicago, for years an intimate associate, and himself one of the most famous of American lawyers, says that "sometimes, after Lincoln entered upon a criminal case, the conviction that his client was guilty would affect him with a sort of panic. On one occasion he turned suddenly to his associate and said, 'Swett, the man is guilty; you defend him, I can't,' and so gave up his share of a large fee."

At another time, when he was engaged with Judge S. C. Parks in defending a man accused of larceny, he said, "If you can say anything for the man, do it-I can't; if I attempt it, the jury will see I think he is guilty, and convict him."

 
2012-07-10 08:25:51 PM  

Ed Finnerty: paygun: This ought to be good. Come on fark, entertain me with lots of b-b-but but he works for the BAD MAN!!

[images.wikia.com image 325x457]


WHO ARE YOU BOY WHO ARE YOU
 
2012-07-10 08:28:00 PM  
Everybody deserves a lawyer. Defense attorneys keep the system honest.
 
2012-07-10 08:29:04 PM  
This just in: the Constitution provides judicial rights for the accused. Film at 11.
 
2012-07-10 08:30:15 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Last I checked, this is still the United States of America where someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Don't turn Jerry into a Richard Jewel to satisfy your blood lust.


Last I checked, Jerry was convicted.
 
2012-07-10 08:30:32 PM  
"Yeah," my attorney was saying. "They nailed this guy for child molesting, but he swears he didn't do it. 'Why should I fark with children?' he says; 'They're too small!'" He shrugged. "Christ, what could I say? Even a goddamn werewolf is entitled to legal counsel ... I didn't dare turn the creep down. He might have picked up a letter opener and gone after my pineal gland."
 
2012-07-10 08:31:59 PM  

Quasar: I'm more curious how he can reconcile being the worst lawyer anyone's seen in years.


Probably just didn't even try. "Man, he is so freaking guilty..."
 
drp
2012-07-10 08:32:19 PM  

mitchcumstein1: Everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense, even the guilty ones.


Exactly.

Lawyers who defend the obviously guilty with every technical and procedural trick in the book are also protecting us, because they're forcing the prosecutors to prove their case. No shortcuts, no "we all know he did it wink-wink" ... actual hard evidence and proof that convinces a jury. So when the day comes that one of us is falsely accused or just looks guilty, the system has to prove it.

I'd rather see a piece of shiat like Sandusky go free, than be subject to a legal system that's willing to convict someone because everybody just knows he's guilty.
 
2012-07-10 08:32:25 PM  

mitchcumstein1: Everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense, even the guilty ones.


Wow. Just wow. I knew that Fark was full of crazy libs, but I never thought anyone would defend child rape. You're a sick farker.

Just kidding
 
2012-07-10 08:32:57 PM  

mitchcumstein1: Everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense, even the guilty ones.


Thank you. It's amazing how many Fark.com GED School of Law grads don't understand this.

And although Sandusky's lawyer made gaffes (he's human), he's not an incompetent buffoon like some here would have you believe. Aside from the Costas interview, the guy has done about as well as any lawyer could for a client as overwhelmingly guilty as Sandusky. The Costas interview only cost Sandusky in the court of public opinion. It wasn't part of the record at trial. Sandusky still would've been found guilty whether or not the interview had happened.
 
2012-07-10 08:33:21 PM  

jtown: "Yeah," my attorney was saying. "They nailed this guy for child molesting, but he swears he didn't do it. 'Why should I fark with children?' he says; 'They're too small!'" He shrugged. "Christ, what could I say? Even a goddamn werewolf is entitled to legal counsel ... I didn't dare turn the creep down. He might have picked up a letter opener and gone after my pineal gland."


Excellent.

*finger-roll*

"The old letter-sculptor, eh?"

;)
 
2012-07-10 08:35:12 PM  

NickelP: downstairs: If it weren't for lawyers like him, our criminal justice system would be horrendously unfair. I applaud anyone that takes cases that seem like slam dunks against their accused criminal clients.

Also, all criminal cases are more complex than "did he do it". You have to question the police and how they gathered evidence, etc. How the defendant was treated during interrogation, etc.

I know OJ was guilty of murder. Almost positive. But if the cops botched the whole case like they say they did... he diserves to walk. That's how the US works, and I'm happy for it.

There is a difference in being a whore and having principals. A whore farks anyone for money. Someone with principals thinks even fatties should get sex.


Bruce Cutler (Gotti's attorney) is a whore. Public defenders in general have principals.

I had a friend who was a PD investigator--she had to do the dirty work in their department of interviewing families and victims of child molesters to provide the alleged molester a defense. Her response to the justifiably angry families who demanded how she could do her job: "If he doesn't get a good defense, the judge will dismiss the case and he will walk. Is that what you want?" Most families were willing to cooperate with her when she explained it that way.
 
2012-07-10 08:36:03 PM  
Like money is evil?
 
2012-07-10 08:36:27 PM  

drp: mitchcumstein1: Everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense, even the guilty ones.

Exactly.

Lawyers who defend the obviously guilty with every technical and procedural trick in the book are also protecting us, because they're forcing the prosecutors to prove their case. No shortcuts, no "we all know he did it wink-wink" ... actual hard evidence and proof that convinces a jury. So when the day comes that one of us is falsely accused or just looks guilty, the system has to prove it.

I'd rather see a piece of shiat like Sandusky go free, than be subject to a legal system that's willing to convict someone because everybody just knows he's guilty.


Exactly-squared, and which is why humans should pool their resources and take care of each other, if only to expose our money-water as it is, no?

*woot*
 
2012-07-10 08:38:44 PM  
Sandusky's lawyer was a podunk small town small timer who was way out of his league. You know how Cochrane and Kardashian and the rest of them got OJ found not guilty by managing the media and outflanking the prosecution pretty much the whole way through the trial?

This was just about the opposite of that.
 
2012-07-10 08:41:16 PM  

Generation_D: This was just about the opposite of that.


He should release a book entitled, "If I farked little boys" and include recipes for basting Sandusky over hot coals at this point. The view would eat him up like a bowl full of hostess Ho Hos.
 
Displayed 50 of 150 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report