fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3471 ]

[ SECRET POST #3471 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3471 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Brooklyn Nine-Nine]

__________________________________________________

04.

[1931: Scheherazade at the Library of Pergamum]

__________________________________________________

05.

[outlander, ontd-sassenach]

__________________________________________________

06.

(Voltron: Legendary Defender)

__________________________________________________

07.

[Michael Kamen]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Captain America (MCU), Daredevil (MCU), Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, and Bleach]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 27 secrets from Secret Submission Post #496.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

It's a pretty big leap from "doing your job as a defense attorney" to "laughing because justice was not served"

an ethical defense attorney would focus not on acquitting someone who is guilty but on bargaining for the best plea deal hopefully with a focus on rehabilitation where applicable

(not that I think most defense attorneys are ethical necessarily)

(also not that I know whether Hillary actually did that, just making a point about legal defense)

an ethical defense attorney would focus not on acquitting someone who is guilty but on bargaining for the best plea deal hopefully with a focus on rehabilitation where applicable

IANAL a lawyer but I am pretty sure this is not how the legal profession views the question, at least.

And, I mean, there are some pretty obvious problems that arise here, you know. Like, for instance, defense attorneys don't actually have perfect knowledge of who is or is not guilty.

It's a pretty big leap from "doing your job as a defense attorney" to "laughing because justice was not served"

For those curious, there's video/transcripts of her discussing the case, and she laughs about him passing the polygraph test "[That] forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs". In other words, she knew the guy was a rapist, got him off on a technicality (I believe part of the little girl's underwear had been thrown away by the forensics people) and can laugh about the whole thing. That's disturbing to me.

I can understand how a defense attorney could feel it was okay to get a criminal off the hook, but to find it a laughing matter later, when the victim was a little girl? That's just unbelievably cold.

You can read a description of her interview and the recording of it here.

Link doesn't work

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/16/listen-to-hillary-clinton-laugh-while-talking-about-getting-a-suspected-child-rapist-off-the-hook/

or here

Ugh. Never say a bad word about my commitment to earnest and open debate, motherfucker, I just went to The Blaze for you.

here's a link to the actual relevant Youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2f13f2awK4

Anyway, all that says to me is that - 10 years after the fact - she was able to separate the specifics of the case from the legal maneuvering around it. I suspect that kind of thing is common among people doing that kind of job, you know? And the legal maneuvering which she - of course - had to do and was right to do given her job.

Polygraph part is after 1:30 minutes in, but the whole thing is worth listening to.

I just went to The Blaze for you.

I appreciate the lengths you'll go to for me nonny <3

Edited 2016-07-06 00:01 (UTC)

the fact you read The Blaze explains a lot about you

Yeah, like that I read an article once on the Blaze, among many other sites.

That is really such an incredibly dumb thing to say nonny. For one thing, that really doesn't say anything substantive about me, or anyone. Unless you want to admit you're the type to jump to ridiculous, elaborate conclusions based on nothing.

Edited 2016-07-06 10:59 (UTC)

A plea bargain? You mean like what she actually did?

A defense attorney can advise their client to take a deal, but they cannot enter a guilty plea on their client's behalf. If a client refuses to take a deal, their attorney is expected to continue to defend them to the best of their ability, including pointing out any improprieties in the investigation and the trial. Doing so is being ethical.

I never said they put in the plea bargain for the client?

I'm not sure how any of this contradicts what I'm saying actually. Sure point out improprieties. Sure point out bad evidence. Doesn't mean you have to act like your client is innocent if they're not and be disrespectful to the plaintiff.

Until they're convicted? Yes, you do. As far as the law and every ethics board in the country is concerned, your client is innocent until convicted. Unless you're claiming an affirmative defense (insanity, mental disease or defect, etc.), if you even insinuate that you believe your client is guilty, you can be hauled before an ethics board and either censured or disbarred.

I'm not talking about what you say to the judge, I'm talking about how you conduct yourself. There is a world of difference between saying or implying that your client is guilty, and going out of your way to insist they are innocent if you don't really believe they are; furthermore, I also said "be disrespectful to the plaintiff"; do you think they are supposed to do that?

In a rape case, if it's clear to everyone involved that the defendant is guilty - and that the plaintiff is going through a great deal of trauma - is it required or acceptable for the defense attorney to say to the plaintiff, "my client is innocent and you are lying"?

I'm not talking about what you say to the judge, I'm talking about how you conduct yourself.

So am I. If you as a defense lawyer insinuate to anybody that you believe your client is guilty, you are subject to disciplinary action, up to and including disbarrment. Take it from somebody who has family that are lawyers. The state bar and ethics boards take that very seriously.

In a rape case, if it's clear to everyone involved that the defendant is guilty - and that the plaintiff is going through a great deal of trauma - is it required or acceptable for the defense attorney to say to the plaintiff, "my client is innocent and you are lying"?

Yes, it is. That's exactly what a defense attorney does. That's your job; to discredit the prosecution's case in any way you can, by providing reasonable doubt.

an ethical defense attorney would focus not on acquitting someone who is guilty but on bargaining for the best plea deal hopefully with a focus on rehabilitation where applicable

If they want to lose their license to practice law, sure. As a defense attorney, your job is to get your client acquitted. If it looks like that absolutely won't happen, then your job is to get your client the best plea deal you can.

As your client's counsel, you are acting in their best interests, not what you think is good for your conscience.

That's...pretty similar to what I said.

If a person is guilty but there's no legally valid evidence to convict them on, then legally they are innocent. However, if the evidence stacks up against them, then they should make a plea deal, which is what I said.

And either way - it's not cool to laugh at or about the plaintiff while doing your job.

That's...pretty similar to what I said.

It's not the same, though. You said:

an ethical defense attorney would focus not on acquitting someone who is guilty

Unfortunately for you, that is exactly what an ethical defense attorney does. Acquittal is your ultimate goal, whether the client is guilty or not. That's your job.

Sometimes, the evidence is on the prosecution's side, but the jury isn't. In those cases, an ethical defense attorney would not advise their client to plead out. Why definitely get your client prison time when there's a good chance they'll be acquitted? Any attorney who did advise a plea when there's a very good chance at acquittal is looking at major consequences for not acting in the client's best interest.

(responding to both your comments here for brevity)

Obviously I don't know as much about legal proceedings as you do so I'm not going to argue the points about defense attorneys being required to try to acquit someone who is clearly guilty (though holy shit am I glad I'm not a defense attorney, and I think our system is pretty fucked up if defense attorneys are required to play the jury or seek technicalities to get someone off when the evidence is clear). Fine, so be it.

But I don't really think it's ok to require the defense attorneys actually lie to try to get their client off. If that's true, then holy fuck, it's messed up. Fuck the trauma the plaintiff is going through, fuck justice, you have to lie and cheat to win! Or else you're apparently lawyering wrong and breaking policies. ???

(And going back upthread to what I was originally replying to, do you think after a case is closed it's ok for a defense attorney to laugh at someone they won a case against? I neither know nor honestly really even care whether Hillary Clinton did that, but it seems highly unprofessional and inappropriate for it to happen at all)

Edited 2016-07-08 14:39 (UTC)

I think our system is pretty fucked up if defense attorneys are required to play the jury or seek technicalities to get someone off when the evidence is clear

Yes, that is exactly what defense attorneys are required to do. They aren't victim's advocates; defense attorneys are advocates for the defendant. That's the way our system functions, and it'designed that way because people charged with a crime are entitled to a fair trial. If their defense lawyer is more concerned for the victim than they are for the client they're representing, then the trial isn't fair.

And you can blame the vast majority of these technicalities on shitty police work. If police departments did their jobs by the book and didn't obtain evidence illegally or forget to follow procedure, there wouldn't be an open door for a defense attorney to walk their client out through.

But I don't really think it's ok to require the defense attorneys actually lie to try to get their client off.

No, it's not. You can be disbarred for that shit, too. And nowhere have I suggested that defense lawyers lie and cheat to get clients acquitted, so how you got to that conclusion is beyond me.

And going back upthread to what I was originally replying to, do you think after a case is closed it's ok for a defense attorney to laugh at someone they won a case against?

No. I think it's unprofessional as fuck to for a lawyer -- any lawyer -- to directly discuss their clients' cases in any way. Even after the case is over, attorney-client privilege is still in effect, and should be taken as seriously as if you were still at trial.

From the above subthread:

In a rape case, if it's clear to everyone involved that the defendant is guilty - and that the plaintiff is going through a great deal of trauma - is it required or acceptable for the defense attorney to say to the plaintiff, "my client is innocent and you are lying"?

Yes, it is. That's exactly what a defense attorney does. That's your job; to discredit the prosecution's case in any way you can, by providing reasonable doubt.

That would be lying.

What do you mean by "clear to everyone?" Because a story can be "clear to everyone" and still be a flagrant, bald-faced lie (the Rolling Stone piece on UVA is a prime example; it was "clear to everyone" until it turned out to be 100% fabricated -- campus rape is an epidemic, but publishing irresponsible pieces of fabricated tripe isn't helping anybody).

Until there is irrefutable evidence of your client's guilt or you are providing an affirmative defense, you are required as a defense attorney to maintain that your client is innocent. Full stop. No exceptions.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3471 ]

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.