Ok, I know all about the "innocent until proven guilty" and "everyone deserves a fair trial" stuff, so spare the lecture
-
stevenackerman69 — 15 years ago(May 23, 2010 04:33 PM)
Interesting question. Here's the thing. Most defense lawyers know the person they defend is guilty. They do it because they say that the right to counsel overweighs anything else. That is what they SAY. However, it isn't true idealism in a city where you have thousands of lawyers stumbling over each other's feet trying to get cases. And in reality, they are doing it to advance their careers. Vincent Bugliosi, who is now a defense attorney, would never have defended Doob because he would've investigated the case himself and seeing as how Doob is guilty and that there are no mitigating circumstances, would've refused the case. His attitude is the fact that he can't see himself putting in 100 hours a week trying to get this scumbag off and then he goes out and does it again like in the film. He isn't able to dismiss it with, "Well, it isn't my fault if he does it again." He realizes that if he had not deceived the jury the first time, the second rape wouldn't have occurred. Most lawyers don't care about that, sadly enough. That is a moral thing. I would like to know how that lawyer felt in the film after the second rape. Maybe she wouldn't have bothered to defend him again, thinking, "I'm not going to clean up his messes anymore."
-
jenni_doll_1 — 15 years ago(May 24, 2010 12:19 AM)
" I would like to know how that lawyer felt in the film after the second rape. Maybe she wouldn't have bothered to defend him again, thinking, "I'm not going to clean up his messes anymore." "
I wouldn't count on that. Doob's attorney was most likely, a public defender who was appointed to him by the state. Just like prosecutors, they don't have the right to pick and choose their cases. Doob was obviously indigent, and I don't see him being able to afford to hire an attorney of choice. The man lived in a crap hole in a shoddy neighborhood and couldn't have been making much more than minimum wage, which he, undoubtedly, spent whatever he did make on booze, cigarettes, and drugs. To hire a private attorney, you have to have money, or at least reasonable credit, thus the miranda right of , "if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed" Of course it's true lawyers of any kind ultimately seek to advance their careers. How do you think they stay in business? That's the nature of any kind of work, particularly when you are basically self employed. You have to keep making money and building clientele if you want to keep doing what you do. Lawyers certainly have a reputation for being lying, shady businessmen (and women), but it's not necessarily "deceiving the jury" just because a defense lawyer gets a client acquitted or gets a case thrown out. Defense attorneys are only here to establish reasonable doubt and assure that all processes of the legal system that affect their clients are adhered to according to what is written in law. They are not legally allowed to make any statements that are factually false. For example, a lawyer cannot say in court "this man is innocent" if he knows that to be untrue, he can say the prosecution has not met their burden proof or has not presented sufficient evidence to prove guilt, but he cannot say " my client didn't do it" if he knows otherwise. Certainly lawyers HAVE done such things, but I don't see where that was the case with Doob's attorney. All she did was lay out the cold hard facts, and that was, that the prosecution messed up, pure and simple. It wasn't at all just, but that's the way it is, the system is flawed like that. If anybody was to blame for this atrocity, it was the prosecution, they didn't have their I's dotted and their T's crossed. Otherwise, Doob would have either gone to trial and probably been convicted, or he would have taken a plea and gone back to prison. It's the responsibility of the prosecution to accurately present the case and establish guilt, if they make a mistake or otherwise misrepresent their case, that's their fault, not the defense's fault. All the defense attorney did was her job. I'm sure, of course, she wouldn't have felt good about the subsequent crime Doob committed, but that doesn't in any way put the blame on her. It could also be argued that it was the judge's fault that Doob was set free because he ultimately had the final say in dismissing the case. He could have theoretically, denied the defense's request to suppress the evidence, and, subsequently, dismiss the case, but, like the defense, he had to do his job and uphold the law. The blame ultimately lies with the system as whole, not the judge or the lawyers, not as long as they are acting within the letter of the law. -
peep4000 — 15 years ago(May 24, 2010 11:49 AM)
Very lucid, well thought out post, Jenni. And to the OP and the one before Jenniyou're making a personal slam at a woman who was only doing her job like the law says to. Every defendant is entitled to the best representation possible. Period. No exceptions. No matter whether a defendant is Mother Teresa, or Charles Manson. And I should add, where the prosecution messed up was, they had the DNA evidence against Doob, which was damning on its own, but the defense had not been able to examine it. That's what the defense attorney mentioned, and that's what the technicality was based on. Yes, such a detail matters. It's that important. The judge must rule ANY evidence as inadmissible, unless BOTH the prosecution AND the defense examine it. That is the law. That's why the judge dismissed the case. It was not a personal decision. His hands were tied, and he had no choice, but to follow the law. Yes, we all wanted to see Doob get what was coming to him, but all that was simply the fault of a badly flawed legal system, not the judge's fault, not the defense attorney's fault, not the FBI agent's fault, not DeNillo's fault. They simply were doing their jobs, which meant putting personal feelings aside.
-
stevenackerman69 — 15 years ago(May 25, 2010 06:57 PM)
Yes, she did stick to the law, I'll admit that. She wasn't like that dead jerk Johnnie Cochran, who played a race card frauduently to get OJ Simpson off. However, I just remembered something. Didn't the replacement DA say something about her having the opportunity to examine it but refused? Maybe she refused because she knew she'd be a dead duck if she did. I think the judge could've looked at that and said to her, "Too bad, so sad, bye bye. Motion denied."
-
stevenackerman69 — 15 years ago(May 25, 2010 06:59 PM)
Good point. Maybe she was court appointed, but she could've been like that defendant's lawyer in Twelve Angry Men, where she could resent it and just decide, "Hey, this person is guilty. I don't care about trying to get him off. I won't do my job well and if he fires me, fine. If he doesn't, he'll still go to jail and that will be that."
-
jenni_doll_1 — 15 years ago(May 25, 2010 11:18 PM)
""Hey, this person is guilty. I don't care about trying to get him off. I won't do my job well and if he fires me, fine. If he doesn't, he'll still go to jail and that will be that." "
That's not what defense attorneys are here to do, it's not a part of their job, it's a violation of the oath they take, and it's a good way to not only get removed from a case, but disbarred. As I had stated earlier, what if every lawyer did that? How would there be any kind of a just legal system at all? There wouldn't be. Lawyers do not have the legal right to take it upon themselves to not defend their clients to the best of their ability based on personal bias anymore than doctors have the right to decide whose lives they will save or not. It's not about a personal choice, it's about an obligation they take on as professionals in their line of work. As far as the defense attorney's refusal to take part in the mutual examination of the evidence, she declined because the defense was already promised to receive a percentage of the evidence to conduct their own tests. That was promised to the defense in writing by the prosecution and was not delivered. It didn't matter if the defense agrees to take part in a mutual examination or not. The defense still has every legal right to have a percentage of the evidence to conduct their own tests regardless, which they didn't get. It was a mistake on the part of the prosecution and it's the reason the case was thrown out. Even if Doob's attorney had agreed to participate in the mutual examination of evidence, that wouldn't negate the agreement made by the prosecution to release a portion of the evidence. -
poyzun — 11 years ago(November 25, 2014 09:06 PM)
I've seen paid attorneys and defense attorneys in action, and I can see a lot of difference in their portrayals; paid attorney really investigate and come up with all the facts to present to the judge. DA's don't bother that much. My boyfriend, about ten years ago had done something and his DA was just about worthless! A paid lawyer is so very much more thorough, it just proves that money talks..
Poyzunus 1 -
red_rackham_77 — 15 years ago(May 25, 2010 12:02 PM)
The system isn't perfect but it is there to keep the world from going into ciaos or turning into a Salem Witch trial and the Inquisition. We know Dobb is guilty because this is a film but in real life, we have to make sure that cases are fair and truly justified.
-
peep4000 — 15 years ago(May 25, 2010 12:08 PM)
Exactly, Red. The plot did seem to contradict itself, though. The cops and courts weren't too upset about Julie's rape and murderthey certainly wouldn't be very upset about a good for nothing s**tbag like Robert Doob. I doubt Karen would have spent the rest of her life behind bars (considering), but she undoubtably would have spent time. That FBI agent was not warning her against it to be evil/condescending. Their job is simply to enforce the law. If you read between the lines, she was giving her a way to do it without getting in trouble. Yes, it's a screwy system, but we must have lines drawn somewhere. If we opened the door to allow civilians to kill to justify a murder, you think it'd stop there? Not on your life. It would continue to open doors, to allow killing for anythingsoon people would be killed just for looking at somebody cross-eyed. A civilized society would never last if we did that. Again, the system is far from perfect. But it's there to protect the rights of citizens. Every single individual. No matter who it is.
-
Avwillfan89 — 15 years ago(July 07, 2010 12:57 PM)
Al Pacino made a very good definition in the film And Justice For All.
"What is justice? What is the intention of justice? Its intention is to make sure the guilty are proven guilty and the innocent are freed. Sounds simple right? Only it's not that simple. The problem is both sides wanna win, they wanna win regardless of the truth, justice exc.. winning is everything." -
TheFatDruidofNacyl — 15 years ago(March 16, 2011 05:15 AM)
She seemed to enjoy her victory so I don't think it was simply she had to do the best job because it is her oath. I do feel she likes to win and will do it at any cost. Kind of reminds me of the Devils Advocate.
Come visit my
blackrosecastle.com
stephentheblackroseenterprises.com -
taylorje — 14 years ago(September 16, 2011 08:03 AM)
Reminds me of a movie called "Final Justice" starring Annette O'Toole. She plays a woman who kidnaps the defense attorney who got her brother's killer off. She forces him, at gunpoint, to get into a dog kennel in the back of her SUV. He says "I really don't do my best work in kennels." The movie is not a comedy, just that I think this scene is hilarious.
-
-
Catnip86 — 11 years ago(December 25, 2014 09:28 AM)
Yes, I hate it too.
A criminal chooses to attack an innocent person who fights back. Criminal is arrested, but both need to go to the hospital.
Criminal now has right to health care because he was arrested for the crime he chose to commit. Criminal does not pay one cent for heath care. Care is paid for by law-abiding people.
Victim, however, does not have the right. Victim has to pay for every cent of his own health care, or do without it.