or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Business, Careers & Education › Criminal Defence vs. The Conscience?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Criminal Defence vs. The Conscience? - Page 6

post #76 of 99
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post
Long boring story follows - This actually made me think of a case I had several years ago. It was an underage drinking charge for a kid at the local college. He was 20 and a half years old, went to a fraternity party, had two beers and then the place was raided. The police officers gave everybody a PBT (Portable Breath Test) as they walked out the door and charged everybody underage who came up positive. In PA, underage drinking isn't such a big deal, it's usually just a fine and maybe some community service. But there's also a driver license suspension penalty, regardless of whether the person was driving at the time (which my client was not). My client was prepared to plead guilty and take any punishment except a license suspension because he had to commute to college and to work in order to pay his tuition. At the time of the scheduled hearing, they bring in all the kids from the raid at the same time and take them one at a time. As I'm private counsel I get to go first, so I go in to talk ahead of time with the police officer. I'm practically begging the guy to let my client plead to some other offense. Disorderly conduct, anything that carries just a fine and no license suspension. NO DEALS. Please, Mr. Officer, he'll do extra community service, he'll pay a double fine, just have pity on this working class kid trying to get his way through college? NO. C'mon, anything? NO WAY IN HELL, THESE PUNK KIDS NEED TO LEARN A LESSON. I had no choice but to go through with the hearing, even though I knew my client had committed the offense. Well, the police officer did a fine job testifying as to his case but when it came time to testifying about the PBT device used to test my client's blood alcohol level he didn't cite to the Pennsylvania Bulletin which provides that the particular model used was an approved testing device. Ergo, the PBT evidence isn't admissible. Without evidence that my client had alcohol in his system there was no evidence he had consumed alcohol. Not guilty. As I left the courtroom my client immediately told his dozen frat friends about my success. They, in turn, immediately hired me on the spot (at $600 a pop) and each and every one of them after a hearing was declared not guilty. All because some obnoxious cop wanted to teach them a lesson. Did they all commit the criminal act? Yes. But I had no bad feelings about getting them off on a technicality because some pig cop wanted these punks to respect his authority. Still one of the most satisfying defense wins of my career. I lost this exact case about a year and a half ago.
This is a fine tale, but it doesn't approach the type of ethical dilemma I am thinking about. In fact, I would feel very satisfied had I been in your shoes in a situation like this. The type of guilt I am referring to doesn't start and end at the black level of the law, but where true abhorrence begins. For example, replace college frat kids charged with underage drinking with a 40 year old predator who has molested local children...I mean, that's the type of work I would expect myself to come across down the road.
post #77 of 99
This threak:
post #78 of 99
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grenadier View Post
This threak:


Fair enough. I will resign unsatisfied.
post #79 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by odoreater View Post
For example, say your client sexually assaulted a young child, but the young child did not tell about it until after a long time had passed, after the child told about it the details were extracted using somewhat suggestive questioning, the child constantly changed his story, and there was no corroborating physical evidence. That could be a difficult case for the State to prove even though the person may have actually done it.

I'd hope this would be impossible for the state to prove unless the defendent confessed or told people about the crime. Nobody should be put in jail on the basis of a child's testimony under those circumstances.
post #80 of 99
..
post #81 of 99
Mr. White doesn't seem like the most pleasant guy, but if I was accused of a crime, hes exactly the kind of guy I would want defending me, and all of you should feel the same.
post #82 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyquik View Post


I can tell by your posts that you're very concerned about 'morality,' 'dishonesty,' and the fact that 'the law is an empty shell.' I don't know about you, but I went to law school and became a lawyer. I didn't go to philosophy school or become a preacher. My job is to advocate, not decide guilt; that's reserved for judges and religious deities. I deal in the law and temporal punishment. I let the grace of almighty God deal in morals and perpetual absolute punishment.

this. I question whether op should be a lawyer at all.
post #83 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. White View Post
I'm the fucktard...but...you keep conflating "accused" with "guilty" ... and "innocent" with "quote assumed innocent unquote."

BTW, exactly what do you think some client is "not innocent" of? Picking his nose without a license? Fact: he hasn't been convicted in a court of law. Fact: only conviction in a court of law causes status to change from innocent to guility. Therefore, fact: he is innocent. People like you are why there are laws against libel.

im willing to bet we agree but cant word ourselves so as we see that

Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post
Mr. White doesn't seem like the most pleasant guy, but if I was accused of a crime, hes exactly the kind of guy I would want defending me, and all of you should feel the same.

maybe, what are his rates?
post #84 of 99
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post
this. I question whether op should be a lawyer at all.
So real lawyers are priests, not philosophers? Anyways, these are just divergent viewpoints. I like to think about my job, not just perform it. Perhaps that's because I appreciate just how powerful my role is in shaping the lives and destinies of others. I will be called to the Bar in June, by the way.
post #85 of 99
No, but if you can't get into the idea that what is "right" when you are a lawyer is whatever is in the best interests of your client (within the limits set by the law and the ethics rules, of course), then you don't have the right mentality to practice law.
post #86 of 99
I just got back from court, where I just beat a case (DWI) for a client who did actually commit the act with which he was charged, and I feel great!
post #87 of 99
..
post #88 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. White View Post
Buy that man a beer!

Baltimore Meetup, be there.
post #89 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by scientific View Post
and what makes working for the govt so noble?
is it persecuting the rich for personal political gain? (NY DA office)
spending millions to create fake terrorists, again for personal gain? (FBI and LE)
the power to dictate your whims to America? (the judiciary)
or is it just the fact that you get paid much less?

cheers

This forum has an amazing ability to create red herrings from thin air.
post #90 of 99
Welcome to the internet, dude.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Business, Careers & Education
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Business, Careers & Education › Criminal Defence vs. The Conscience?