At least you don't mod POG

CP LAWYERING folks left and right.

You are not the judge/jury, its as simple as that. And even if you somehow 100% knew a client was guilty, getting a client off on a "technicality" is nothing to be ashamed of. Letting that stuff slide is how you get to a "if you have nothing to hide then it shouldn't bother you" state with respect to prosecutors and police violating people's rights.

Well played.

This is basically what I'm saying.

I suspect (hope?) I would find it very difficult to practice criminal defense law knowing I'd helped violent offenders avoid justice. I could try to convince myself I was just following orders just providing a defense as is required. I could try to say that since I got him acquitted there's a chance he really was innocent (even though I'd know he wasn't). I could probably lie to myself for a while but at some point I'd like to think I'd surrender to the reality that'd I'd made the world a worse place as a result of those cases.

I suppose I'll be glad there are others who don't think that way if I ever commit a felony.

The system is not set up to ensure that the factually guilty go to prison. The system is set up to hold the state to a standard of proof and proper procedure, as it should be.

Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

Or are accused of one. May have been just providing practical advice, but would really suck if Brian Banks' attorney "knew" he was guilty and let his life be ruined.

I'll tell you exactly what I think about one case.

Dude did "it." I expected to lose and focused my energy on 2 things: (1) evidentiary problems; (2) reducing punishment because he had been horrifically abused as a child (this was true, and part of what happened to him I'll never get over knowing).

The evidentiary problems were easily surmountable but the prosecutor was an imbecile and I was able to keep out two relevant things.

Then the prosecutor "lost" a witness who just didn't show up. That witness was the victim. He was a pretty bad dude himself but I blame the prosecutor for not locking in witnesses. Not my problem or even my doing.

With the evidentiary chain totally broken and no key witness, it wasn't even possible to convict my guy.

At one point before trial we rejected a really bad plea deal. I guess that was a good move even though we should've lost the case every time.

So weee, we win.

+++++

How I feel about that:

At first I felt confused. I didn't like my client. I didn't really want him "out." I regarded him as probably dangerous and as very damaged, both mentally and emotionally.

I was mad at the witness for not showing up, partly because I had prepped to cross him and partly because jesus dude, if you're the victim give it an hour and you're gonna win. Victim couldn't be bothered and was probably drunk at the park (seriously).

I was livid with the prosecutor for failing to do anything to prosecute; for not handling the case; for offering terrible plea deals even though the case was, in his/her view (maintaining vagueness), shaky; and for enabling my client to walk.

I was proud that I still worked hard and did the best I could.

I was amused that the Judge seemed to know what had happened; we had good rapport.

I hope my client either got treatment - not likely in D.C. and probably way too late - or got locked up again. He seemed to fare better in jail anyway.

I don't feel like I did anything wrong, and I therefore don't feel any guilt. I'd do it again and the system would produce whatever result it produced.

I feel like the system is broken. Bad cases are brought against poor people all day every day, and public defenders lose them because they have like 30 minutes per week per case. Great cases are lost for stupid reasons. The evidentiary process is unreliable everywhere. I don't think prosecutors care about whether defendants are guilty or not. I think jails are profitable and the jail industry lobbies to maintain this arrangement. I think prosecutors are politically-motivated strivers who want to leap out of prosecution and into representative office. I think they care about conviction rates but not their actual work. The system leaves me feeling dirty, but I didn't feel that way because of what I did for any of my clients.

EDIT: I'll try to stop now. This is a special issue to me.

No one is talking about defending people who's guilt is in question. That's awesome.

You could've just said the last paragraph and saved everyone the last 20 posts

Point is what an attorney thinks he "knows" may not actually be the truth. In the very rare cases where they know with absolute 100% certainty, the judge and jury should as well. The exception being where the attorney gets the 100% confirming evidence thrown out, which is also morally acceptable if it was not obtained lawfully.

Def need an amc drama of hoya's career as the lawyer with lots of feels.

Oh, I got it! 'Law and Hoya: POG'

This might be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on the internet

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/94...hernandez-saga

And I've read a lot of politard threads and parts of the TimeCube page.

lol "cut the toubled TE"

The ESPN comments things is really a pain to read and navigate but it's pretty much 100% making fun of her and the article.

Twitter is also laughing.

Deadspin's already gotten in on the fun: "Ashley Fox has written the single worst Aaron Hernandez column--so far: http://deadspin.com/dear-columnists-...lshi-637957310

meh. When you're required to write columns for a living, you have to write something. And to distinguish yourself from the crowd, you often have to add a bit of controversy. And, as controversy goes, this one is actually pretty tame.

Leave it to Jason Whitlock to come hard with something arguably even stupider

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/w...society-070113

funny considering whitlock had omar little as his twitter avatar for awhile .

Still think Fox's is worse, but I can LOL Whitlock.

What is it about people in general that keeps them from being able to say "Sometimes, people just do crazy/horrible/bizarre ****". There doesn't always have to be a grand reason or conspiracy to explain things, sometimes people just go off.

Being paid to come up with original opinions and content.

That would work if it was just sports writers but we've even had someone ITT ask if the Pats are somehow liable. People just want everything to make sense. Sometimes crazy **** just happens.

I stopped when he compared Beyonce to Marilyn Monroe

The Omar Little thing makes it all pretty laughable and gives the guy 0 cred as if Whitlock ever had any

The sad thing is go read twitter, majority of the people on there think he nailed this article. That tells you the kind of state this world is in. Our youth will never ever take responsibilities for their actions and will now always look to find something or someone else to blame for any short comings.

And Ashley Fox must give some super duper head to keep her job with ESPN. I've never seen her write one thing worth a damn.

uh, no. If that were true the world would be in total chaos. Every thing has a cause. We simply do not possess the ability to determine what that cause is for numerous events. That is why there are so many differing theories, or absence of "reasonable" explanations, in instances such as Hernandez'.

So you are saying there is no randomness?