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  
•       •       •

6906 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 08:41:26 PM
WTF subby? Everyone needs a lawyer when they're in court on charges. EVERYONE. This is a basic, simple, concept that is central to our way of governance. There's nothing wrong whatsoever with a lawyer representing a scumbag to the best of his abilities.

It's one of the things that sets us apart from countries like Iran.
 
2012-07-10 08:42:49 PM

edmo: Like money is evil?


No. It can be made into jewelry.
Money is the ROOT of all evil.
 
2012-07-10 08:42:50 PM
The law says everyone gets a lawyer. The law does not say you get a lawyer unless we're really really sure you did something repugnant. But if I had to stand up and defend that poor excuse for a human I'd be glad I could at least charge him a shiatliad of money.
 
2012-07-10 08:44:56 PM
When your guilt or innocence is determined by the competence of your lawyers (which implies: "your pocketbook") then something is wrong.
 
2012-07-10 08:46:52 PM
Welcome to Obama's America.
 
2012-07-10 08:47:41 PM

mongbiohazard: It's one of the things that sets us apart from countries like Iran


Of course, they have been around a lot longer, with plenty of time to contemplate beginning a nuke program. They invented the fake out, the bluff, the numeric system. The Ow, Got Me, scenario to the point of PSYCHE!
And when the chips fall, and they will, glowing like the white hot ashes of Allah's command, we will be but as silhouettes on the wall of history.
Or not. YMMV, depending upon who gets elected in either country in the next 35 years.

Come back to this post in 35 years if you are still here.
 
2012-07-10 08:48:36 PM

vodka: something is wrong.

 
2012-07-10 08:48:54 PM

Generation_D: 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.


N.S.S.S./.\
 
2012-07-10 08:49:53 PM

the_chief: Welcome to Obama's America.


You wanna know how I know you're short-sighted?
 
2012-07-10 08:52:56 PM
In law school, we learned a much easier way to reconcile this; to realize that the sole purpose of a defense lawyer is simply to ensure that the prosecution performs its tasks within the parameters of the law, while acting in accordance with the applicable rules of criminal procedure. The paycheck probably helps too, though.
 
2012-07-10 08:53:00 PM

vodka: When your guilt or innocence is determined by the competence of your lawyers (which implies: "your pocketbook") then something is wrong.


Your "innocence" is not in the hands of anyone but your god. What the court system does is try to determine provable guilt. A good defense attorney is solely concerned with injecting "reasonable doubt" into the minds of the jury--not necessarily reasonable doubt about your guilt or innocence, but doubt as to whether the prosecutors did THEIR job of proving your guilt.

Remember that the only person who has any burden at all in a criminal trial is the prosecutor: That the defendant was the one, and the ONLY one, who could have committed the crime. If the prosecution does not prove that, all even a bad defense attorney needs to do is point that out. (Cf. the OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony trials) The defense has no burden at all, unless they have an affirmative defense (i.e. what's going to happen in George Zimmerman's trial). A person's "guilt or innocence" really has nothing to do with the size of his wallet or the genius of his lawyer, and EVERYTHING to do with the competence of the prosecutor. A good prosecutor could have planted Simpson six feet under.
 
2012-07-10 08:54:02 PM

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



No, public schools have principals.
 
2012-07-10 08:54:17 PM
How does any lawyer know their client is guilty of a crime before a trial and the state proves their case?

You are not guilty of something because everyone on Fark is totally convinced you did it. You aren't guilty until the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of your peers that you committed the crime. Until then you are "accused".

When you substitute "accused", "How can a lawyer defend a client accused of a crime?" the answer becomes a lot clearer.
 
2012-07-10 08:54:39 PM
Not speaking on Sandusky's lawyer specifically.

A typical non-high profile defense lawyer has one of the worst jobs, the pay is no better than any other lawyer, they commonly end up defending people that they know to be guilty but they still have to go to bat for those people even if they would like nothing more to see that person locked away. I have a tremendous amount of respect for defense lawyers (again not high profile cases) that will often times end up going against their moral beliefs to attempt to maintain a just justice system.

I have an equal amount of disdain for those that do it for the profit. That being said I do not think I could defend a serial child molester no matter how much I was paid, same goes with a lot of crimes.

Case specific though, lets face it Sandusky was cooked everyone knew it. Those lawyers accepted the cases (probably for a lot of money) because they knew that they were going to get destroyed in the actual trial. Let's face it "Sandusky defense lawyer" is not resume building material.
 
2012-07-10 08:57:35 PM

Somacandra: [upload.wikimedia.org image 510x600]

Submitter could also ask John Adams about that sort of thing, too.



But John Adams won that case.

And then he won again.
 
2012-07-10 08:58:17 PM

the_chief: Welcome to Obama's America.


Where even in media circus trials like this one, the defendant can expect to receive adequate legal counsel?
 
2012-07-10 08:58:29 PM

Indubitably: the_chief: Welcome to Obama's America.

You wanna know how I know you're short-sighted?


Yes.
 
2012-07-10 09:00:02 PM

Gyrfalcon: A good prosecutor could have planted Simpson six feet under.


Vincent Bugliosi
Think he could have done it?
 
2012-07-10 09:01:45 PM

vudukungfu: Gyrfalcon: A good prosecutor could have planted Simpson six feet under.

Vincent Bugliosi
Think he could have done it?


He thinks he could have. You've read "Outrage: The 5 Reasons OJ Simpson Got Away With Murder", I take it.
 
2012-07-10 09:05:00 PM

velvet_fog: Aside from the Costas interview


yeah, and mrs. lincoln loved the play, aside from that whole john wilkes booth thing.
 
2012-07-10 09:06:20 PM
Dude is the best lawyer ever.

Sandusky now has a slam dunk claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, which was really the most viable possible strategy.
 
2012-07-10 09:07:27 PM

hartzdog: Dude is the best lawyer ever.

Sandusky now has a slam dunk claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, which was really the most viable possible strategy.


You failed the LSAT for the GED law school, didn't you?
 
2012-07-10 09:08:38 PM

the_chief: Welcome to Obama's America, libs.


FTFY
 
2012-07-10 09:09:36 PM
I hope the "checkbook" response was just a poor attempt at humor. But every defendant is entitled to put on a defense in the United States. Every defendant is entitled to require the government to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In a jury trial, the government's allegations are on trial, and if the prosecutor cannot muster sufficient proof, then the defendant is legally not guilty, even if he's factually guilty. The prosecutor's proof must also be credible. Just because the government puts on 20 witnesses doesn't mean the government wins, if all 20 are liars.

So a good defense lawyer is bound to test the credibility of the government's witnesses. If a witness is biased, the defense lawyer should demonstrate that, so the jury can assess whether the witness might be lying. A defense lawyer should test the witness' memory, because a faulty memory can result in unreliable testimony. If a witness has shown in the past that he is willing to lie, then the defense lawyer should show this to the jury. Even the victim of a crime might be lying or mistaken, and if that is the case, the defendant has the right to expect his lawyer to demonstrate this to the jury.

If there is any reason to doubt the defendant's guilt, a defense lawyer is bound by ethical obligation to suggest that doubt to the jury.

A defense lawyer who just sits back and throws in the towel is selling his client down the road and is depriving his client of a fair trial. If the Constitution guarantees anything to a defendant, it is a fair trial.

People may not like that, and it may result in guilty defendants going free. But in the real world, it is far more easy to convict an innocent person (I'm not suggesting anyone should really question Sandusky's guilt, I'm just making a point about the purpose of a trial) than to get an acquittal for a guilty person.

But lots of innocent defendants go to prison because police officers lie, because exculpatory evidence is withheld from the defense, because prosecutors will make sure that a defendant has to choose between a bad outcome and a disastrous one, because investigators coerce confessions, and because defense lawyers are too skeptical and jaded to believe their clients' claims of innocence.

And in the end, it is the client's decision whether to go to trial, not the lawyer's.

So that is how you reconcile representing an "obviously" guilty client.

/IAMAL
 
2012-07-10 09:13:05 PM
baldmove.com

Approves
 
2012-07-10 09:13:34 PM

Gyrfalcon: He thinks he could have. You've read "Outrage: The 5 Reasons OJ Simpson Got Away With Murder", I take it.


I read. a lot.
 
2012-07-10 09:14:09 PM
Lawyers do their jobs primarily to get money? Is this unique to the legal profession?
 
2012-07-10 09:22:07 PM
Because in the great criminal defense attorney game, any publicity is good publicity.

The legal profession is so unbelievably competitive these days that most of these folks are looking for ANY way to stand out from the pack.

From his perspective, the only thing he's focused on when he takes a case like this is the fact that his mug will end up on national news networks.
 
2012-07-10 09:22:47 PM

hartzdog: Dude is the best lawyer ever.

Sandusky now has a slam dunk claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, which was really the most viable possible strategy.


No, he isn't.

He won't survive that long, because guilt will overtake him as he realizes he really did rob those children of their lives forever, *will* face *hard* time, and will likely be brutally assaulted in multiple ways as he recalls how each boy has in turn damaged another in the cascade of violence he created, no?

*snikt*
 
2012-07-10 09:22:59 PM
Being amoral sure makes life easier.
 
2012-07-10 09:26:25 PM
A defense attorney who doesn't work hard when the defendant is guilty then the attorney has his thumb on the scales of justice.

Defending guilty people is not so hard if you respect the Constitution and fear government power.

It is SUPPOSED be hard for the government to lock a citizen in a cage. The burden of proof in a criminal prosecution is the highest of any type of court case.


Competent assistance of counsel is a basic right of every American... as is trial by an inpartial jury.
A defense attorney that doesn't not work hard for a guilty client has his thumb on the scales of justice. This behavior would also undermine the willingness of future defendants to be truthful with their attorney.

Any mediocre sociopath can be a prosecutor but the path of a criminal defense attorney requires a moral dedication to American-style "Justice For All" that transcends simplistic Old Testament puritanism.
 
2012-07-10 09:26:31 PM

vudukungfu: Gyrfalcon: A good prosecutor could have planted Simpson six feet under.

Vincent Bugliosi
Think he could have done it?


He would've had a better chance, I think, but I still wouldn't bet on it. I read Bugliosi's book on the Simpson case a while back, and one thing in particular stuck with me: in the 25 years prior to the Simpson trial, there were over 100 cases in which the LAPD either lost a wrongful death civil lawsuit or else settled the case. In that same period not a single LAPD officer was charged with murder on duty. The LAPD always had their backs, no matter what, and so did the prosecutors. It was pretty clear that the entire law apparatus of California was totally unconcerned with the rights or lives of minority citizens, and though that might be lost on most white Americans it was a fact of life for the predominately black OJ jury. They were inclined to disbelieve everything the police and prosecutors said because personal experience and the experiences of the people they knew had taught them that they were perfectly willing to lie to put a black man in jail, or for that matter to kill him and get away with it.
 
2012-07-10 09:29:00 PM

Indubitably: hartzdog: Dude is the best lawyer ever.

Sandusky now has a slam dunk claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, which was really the most viable possible strategy.

No, he isn't.

He won't survive that long, because guilt will overtake him as he realizes he really did rob those children of their lives forever, *will* face *hard* time, and will likely be brutally assaulted in multiple ways as he recalls how each boy has in turn damaged another in the cascade of violence he created, no?

*snikt*


Guilt? Not sure about that to be honest.

The truth is that if Sandusky was in any way capable of normal human remorse, he would have put the business end of a Mossberg in his mouth years ago. It's pure personality disorder at the end of the day.
 
2012-07-10 09:29:14 PM

vudukungfu: Gyrfalcon: He thinks he could have. You've read "Outrage: The 5 Reasons OJ Simpson Got Away With Murder", I take it.

I read. a lot.


If you've read "Outrage" then you know why Bugliosi would have buried Simpson. It wasn't that the defense was really good (they weren't) it was that the prosecution was amazingly incompetent. Marcia Clarke's opening statement to the jury is breathtaking in demonstrating how not to try a murderer.
 
2012-07-10 09:29:35 PM
Just because you're entitled to defense counsel under the law, it doesn't mean you're not gonna get a $3.00, do-it-behind-the-dumpster whore. Law practice is a profession where all of the ethics have been taken care of for you, and the ones they didn't address are up to you. It's like a little kid who, when told they can't do something, will do something equally reprehensible, and then say "You didn't SAY I couldn't do THAT." Those kids will be really good attorneys.
 
2012-07-10 09:37:36 PM
My wife's uncle is a defense attorney, and a good one. He works on capital cases. Does he take the jobs because he believes the client is innocent? No. He takes them because he believes that everyone deserves a fair trial with representation. No really, he's a regular Atticus Finch - his kids volunteer at shelters and are involved in poverty advocacy even after moving across the country because of the way he brought them up. He takes a lot of pro bono cases and state-funded defenses because of his beliefs. He also happens to take on a lot of stupid DUI and assault cases involving real idiots, but he has to pay the bills somehow. He is definitely not hurting for money through his vocation, but his personal belief that America needs a fair judicial system drives him more than the money. There are a surprising amount of defense lawyers like this.
 
2012-07-10 09:41:33 PM
Back in the day, when SNL was actually funny, Steve Martin did a skit where he played a sleazy defense lawyer named Mike McMack, who would say anything to get his client off the hook. After he successfully defended Garret Morris from charges of raping Gilda Radner......"You like helping the black man, don't you?"......he's approached by Bill Murray who played the prosecutor. Murray asked, "Will you ever lose a case, Mike?" Steve Martin replied, "Sure, when I get a client who really isn't guilty."
 
2012-07-10 09:41:42 PM

The_Eliminator: My wife's uncle is a defense attorney, and a good one. He works on capital cases. Does he take the jobs because he believes the client is innocent? No. He takes them because he believes that everyone deserves a fair trial with representation. No really, he's a regular Atticus Finch - his kids volunteer at shelters and are involved in poverty advocacy even after moving across the country because of the way he brought them up. He takes a lot of pro bono cases and state-funded defenses because of his beliefs. He also happens to take on a lot of stupid DUI and assault cases involving real idiots, but he has to pay the bills somehow. He is definitely not hurting for money through his vocation, but his personal belief that America needs a fair judicial system drives him more than the money. There are a surprising amount of defense lawyers like this.


*bow*
 
2012-07-10 09:45:20 PM

Somacandra: [upload.wikimedia.org image 510x600]

Submitter could also ask John Adams about that sort of thing, too.


The Brit soldiers that Adams defended weren't in the dock because they were kiddie farkers.

/as far as we know
 
2012-07-10 09:45:24 PM
Sometimes I think there's a fine line between providing an adequate defense to a client and making up a complete load of fiction to try and sway a jury.
 
2012-07-10 09:48:34 PM
Criminal defense attorneys represent innocent people too.

Innocent until proven guilty. Criminal defense is a necessary evil. Give the guy a break. He lost.
 
2012-07-10 09:49:07 PM

cepson: I hope the "checkbook" response was just a poor attempt at humor.


Hey, the man did get paid. My guess is he wasn't going to take the case pro bono, though I'm surprised Sandusky couldn't find a JoePa apologist willing to give him free legal representation.
 
2012-07-10 09:49:28 PM

contrapunctus: Indubitably: hartzdog: Dude is the best lawyer ever.

Sandusky now has a slam dunk claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, which was really the most viable possible strategy.

No, he isn't.

He won't survive that long, because guilt will overtake him as he realizes he really did rob those children of their lives forever, *will* face *hard* time, and will likely be brutally assaulted in multiple ways as he recalls how each boy has in turn damaged another in the cascade of violence he created, no?

*snikt*

Guilt? Not sure about that to be honest.

The truth is that if Sandusky was in any way capable of normal human remorse, he would have put the business end of a Mossberg in his mouth years ago. It's pure personality disorder at the end of the day.


Sad, isn't it?

I pity him, really...

Sad, sad, broken man: who was his father?
 
2012-07-10 09:49:50 PM
There's a kind of justice in being such a scum bag you have to pay someone thousands of dollars to old their nose and defend you.
 
2012-07-10 09:50:32 PM

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


Unless you are on President Peace Prize's "Kill List"
 
2012-07-10 09:50:53 PM

Indubitably: contrapunctus: Indubitably: hartzdog: Dude is the best lawyer ever.

Sandusky now has a slam dunk claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, which was really the most viable possible strategy.

No, he isn't.

He won't survive that long, because guilt will overtake him as he realizes he really did rob those children of their lives forever, *will* face *hard* time, and will likely be brutally assaulted in multiple ways as he recalls how each boy has in turn damaged another in the cascade of violence he created, no?

*snikt*

Guilt? Not sure about that to be honest.

The truth is that if Sandusky was in any way capable of normal human remorse, he would have put the business end of a Mossberg in his mouth years ago. It's pure personality disorder at the end of the day.

Sad, isn't it?

I pity him, really...

Sad, sad, broken man: who was his father?


Does/Should it matter?

Affiliation?

;)
 
2012-07-10 09:52:57 PM

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

Unless you are on President Peace Prize's "Kill List"


Cold and unnecessary, sir.

Where's *your* world?
 
2012-07-10 09:53:39 PM

whatshisname: Sometimes I think there's a fine line between providing an adequate defense to a client and making up a complete load of fiction to try and sway a jury.


They do get called on it. I remember the judge handing a smackdown to the attorney representing the Menendez brothers when she came up with the silly allegations of heinously brutal sexual abuse against their father to try to get them acquitted.
 
2012-07-10 09:57:02 PM

The_Eliminator: My wife's uncle is a defense attorney, and a good one. He works on capital cases. Does he take the jobs because he believes the client is innocent? No. He takes them because he believes that everyone deserves a fair trial with representation. No really, he's a regular Atticus Finch - his kids volunteer at shelters and are involved in poverty advocacy even after moving across the country because of the way he brought them up. He takes a lot of pro bono cases and state-funded defenses because of his beliefs. He also happens to take on a lot of stupid DUI and assault cases involving real idiots, but he has to pay the bills somehow. He is definitely not hurting for money through his vocation, but his personal belief that America needs a fair judicial system drives him more than the money. There are a surprising amount of defense lawyers like this.


I want to be just like him when I grow up. :)
 
2012-07-10 09:58:11 PM

farkityfarker: whatshisname: Sometimes I think there's a fine line between providing an adequate defense to a client and making up a complete load of fiction to try and sway a jury.

They do get called on it. I remember the judge handing a smackdown to the attorney representing the Menendez brothers when she came up with the silly allegations of heinously brutal sexual abuse against their father to try to get them acquitted.


Seriously?

Time immaterial.

M-PARTICLE!!!

Capitals!

;)
 
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 »






Report