News Alert from the OD!

[Clipper]

The OD homepage is reporting that a second driver has been charged in the fatal accident that occurred last August at Steuben Corners. It seems that the brother in-law of the woman killed, Carl Buncombe was under the influence of pot. It seems that witnesses say that the whole bunch in that car was "stoned".

Amazing what money and influence can accomplish. The Randazzo kid from Barneveld was dragged through the mud, and demeaned when he was innocent, and the whole area's sympathy was on the side of the poor family of the deceased and injured. Now it turns out, the 49 year old driver that pulled in front of Randazzo and caused the accident was actually stoned on pot.

Money talks once again. I find it disgusting that it took a year to indict. Everyone is entitled to an adequate defense under the law, but when something like this comes to light, it simply disgusts law abiding citizens with a conscience.

I have often wondered how defense attorneys can sleep, defending obviously guilty scumbags from prosecution, at the expense of innocent victims. I guess some people sell their integrity for the almighty dollar. No offense Swimmy. I know that you are not one of those. Public defenders certainly would not be getting much of a price if they were selling their integrity would they buddy? I hope you become a successful attorney in some other field besides criminal defense. You are too honest for that branch of the law.

[concerned]

Pot should be legalized like alcohol ,Aflac I think if a defence attorney is dedicated to his/her job then they are already justified in what they do. It is the job to represent a person regardless of the crime. Some crimes are more horific then others and I guess that is up to each individual to interpret. I remember the movie Halloween. I felt sorry for that person, He was only doing what his mind was already programed to do. That is why I wonder about Charle Mansion. He was called to do what he did. How can that be defended and how in terms of justice. Justice is relative. And I am beginning to think that absolute truth is also relative. God forgive me for thinking this way but I still wonder about any system of justice placing there rules of society above that of others. Justice is also relative. And politice's is its mother.

[Clipper]

Well, defense attorneys are Justified in their calling to defend folks. All attorneys have a noble profession, but how they choose to use that education and skill is where some part company with legitimately honorable lawyers. I have no problem with them defending the innocent, but although a person is innocent until proven guilty, many are obviously guilty from the start, and the trial process is simply an excercise in procedure. What about those that admit guilt to a lawyer but still want to be defended. What about drunks that are caught red handed and an attorney manages to get the charges reduced, allowing the person to do it again, and possibly kill someone?

What if a lawyer is just so good that he is able to fool a jury and put a criminal back on the street? Even if not acquitted, some of these high powered defense attorneys can get charges reduced or postpone the adjudication until the whole thing calms down, and then have the charges dropped or reduced. Some of it is all about who has money and who knows who.

You can jump up and down for the legalization of pot, but I would sooner see alcohol made illegal for consumption anywhere but in your own home. Anyone that says they are not impaired when stoned on pot is a damn liar. I tried pot once or twice years and years ago. I would certainly not say I was in any shape to drive after a few hits. That is just what the world needs is a bunch of stoners legally driving around high. Yeah right!

[Ralph]

Concerned, Keep in mind that our idea of “right and wrong” is in reality just the opinion of the majority. Same as some people are labeled “crazy”……just the opinion of the majority of Doctors supposedly qualified to make that distinction.

But then you can’t have right without wrong, up without down, or Yin without Yang…............balance.

In the end, all is one with the Tao.

[Swimmy]

I've tried to not comment on this thread because I fear the reactions I will receive.

As an attorney, I learned early on that the client is in the driver seat and I have an ethical obligation to accommodate the client. For example, no matter how reasonable and equitable I may believe a settlement is, I have to ask the client and if the client says no, I have no choice but to take the case to trial. One thing about Legal Aid that I hated was the clients got me for free so they would take everything to trial only to settle that day. I much prefer private practice because money does talk! For example, one client didn't want to take a good deal so I said, "Ok, well if we take it to trial, you've exhausted your retainer. Also, the facts don't add up to what you think you will be awarded at trial. But if trial is what you want, then trial is what we do." Often the client will realize that nickel and dimming their opponent is more costly and not the purpose of family court. And I have had several cases where I cannot convince the client to settle where the facts end up hurting the client's case more than the client realizes.

On the criminal side, I don't deny there are plenty of attorneys as clipper mentions. I have my first criminal matter coming up. The guy is accused of harassment 2d. I have not met with him yet, but I asked one of the other attorneys in the office who was a former ADA from the Bronx how he handles the case. He said the following:

1. keep your personal views and your emotions out of it. Some of these people have done some very bad things and if you don't keep your personal issues and emotions separate you'll go crazy.

2. most of the time, the client will say whether he actually did it and just wants to see what kind of plea bargain you can get.

3. other times, the client is convinced that he's innocent or that there is no way the DA can prove its case. In these instances, the case will probably go to trial and you need to realize it's not your fault.

4. sometimes, the DA has a weak case and the facts just aren't there to satisfy the actual crime charged and the DA won't ask to change the charge. You take those to trial because even if they may be guilty of a lesser crime, they have a constitutional right to a defense and you have an ethical obligation to present the best one possible.

5. other times, the client is the wrong person charged but was charged because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

6. rarely will a person maintain their innocence to their attorney and have the evidence show the same. In those instances, you almost have an absolute obligation to take the matter to trial and fight it tooth and nail."

When I was in law school and interning at the OCDA's, I had the opportunity to speak with Rebecca Whitman about a case she was on. I asked her what got her into criminal defense work. Her answer was interesting. We all thought it was because she wanted to defend the innocent or because she was some uber hippie in college. But she said because her experiences showed her that many times a defendant's constitutional rights are trampled on simply because the defendant is accused of a crime. Her passion is to insure that those rights are respected, regardless the defendant's guilt. It's a different take on the situation.

And I think all attorneys start out that way. Some, however, get sucked into it more and lose their moral compass. Those are the ones Clipper is talking about. Unfortunately, its those attorneys who ruin the profession for the rest of us.

[dgriffin]

That's a great post, Swimmy. I'm going to save a copy.

[Clipper]

Very good post swimmy, and you state my position better than I did myself. It is those that "lose their moral compass" that I was speaking about, and could not find the correct words to express myself.

I wish you luck with your first criminal case, and I am sure you will do well in representing the person fairly and with all the knowledge you possess. You are going to be a wonderful attorney if you can maintain the moral compass that guides you today. I think you have done well so far and most likely have had a positive impact on people's lives already.