Friday, July 21, 2006


Of all the asinine, underhanded ways to get a new trial, this has to be the WORST instance of a defense attorney abusing the system. Is it a wonder why people don't like lawyers???

[Most people don't differentiate between criminal defense lawyers and all the OTHER types of lawyers, but that's another issue entirely.]

*grumble grumble*


At 1:09 PM, July 21, 2006, Blogger Pete said...

So let me see if I understand this correctly, the judge violates judicial ethics rules (by not avioding the appearance of impropriety) and puts himself in a situation where he could have unfairly influenced the decision of the jurors, but a) the defendant should not get a new trial and b) the defense attorney should not have pursued this angle of defense.

Why? It seems that your gripe is based on the assumption that the judge did nothing wrong. That he didn't make comments to the jurors which were inappropriate or biased, but we certainly don't know that to be the case and if he did, in fact, influence the jurors, don't you think the defendant deserves another chance with an unbiased jury?

He's probably getting enough bias for simply being ACCUSED of child molestation without having the judge exacerbate the problem.

Further, if the judge knew the trial had been "technicality upon technicality" (which, coincidentally, is what people call "the law" when it doesn't suit them) why on earth did he open himself up to the possibly of having the case tossed by doing things that he knew (or should've know) were "technically" inappropriate.

It sounds to me like the system is working exactly as it was designed. Kudos to his attorney for competent and zealous representation... although if he did, in fact, molest a little girl, I hope he rots in prison, no matter how many trials it takes to put him there.


Post a Comment

<< Home