Lying Lawyers or Best Defense?

[A Desert Rose]

Monday, September 30, 2002
By Bill O'Reilly


"Talking Points" remains steadfast. No American lawyer is allowed to knowingly lie in a court of law, period. The tortured logic of people defending Feldman and Boyce would be amusing if it weren't so sad.

Simply put, some defense attorneys want carte blanche to destroy the truth in a court of law, and we're not going to sit for it.

--------------------------------

O'Reilly believes that because those two lawyers "knew" that Westerfield was guilty, they are guilty of lying to the court and the jurors, in particular.

Usually I agree with O'Reilly. This is one time that I think he is kind of loopy. Everyone is entitled to counsel and the best defense possible. If an attorney fails to provide the best defense he is capable of, he is negligent in is responsiblity to his client.

What do you think? or do you?

 

[A Desert Rose]

Monday, September 30, 2002
By Bill O'Reilly

Back here, the defense lawyers of southern California have launched a ferocious counterattack after hundreds of Factor viewers and listeners filed complaints with the California bar against Steven Feldman and Robert Boyce, the lawyers who defended convicted child killer David Westerfield.

"Talking Points" remains steadfast. No American lawyer is allowed to knowingly lie in a court of law, period. The tortured logic of people defending Feldman and Boyce would be amusing if it weren't so sad.

Simply put, some defense attorneys want carte blanche to destroy the truth in a court of law, and we're not going to sit for it.

--------------------------------

O'Reilly believes that because those two lawyers "knew" that Westerfield was guilty, they are guilty of lying to the court and the jurors, in particular.

Usually I agree with O'Reilly. This is one time that I think he is kind of loopy. Everyone is entitled to counsel and the best defense possible. If an attorney fails to provide the best defense he is capable of, he is negligent in is responsiblity to his client.

What do you think? or do you?

~laughing~ I goofed up this thread really bad. Thats what happens when you hit submit with out reading it first.... sorry.

 

[RastaPope]

see next. bah.

 

[RastaPope]

Not if he's lying, the lawyer, that is.

 

[cg_allstar]

Okay, here's where I go, "Lying lawyers? Isn't that a given?"

 

[Siren]

 

[lavender]

 

[brokenbrainwave]

a defense lawyer has a duty to defend his client, regardless of what he or she may know.

bump...

 

[Azwed]

a defense lawyer has a duty to defend his client, regardless of what he or she may know.

bump...

*Nods*

 

[Siren]

 

[JazzManJim]

I'm not as sharp on this ar normal (in the particulars, though I'm solid on the principle argument) so here goes.

O'Reilly isn't contending that they lied in general, but in specific ways which are prohibited explicitly by the California Bar Ass'n's Code of Ethics.

The violation that O'Reilly alleges to the Ass'n is that they lawyers intentionally attempted to mislead the jury with a fabrication. That attempt is explicitly in violation of the Ass'n's Code and could be grounds for the lawyers to be disbarred. The lawyers said that the girl's swinging parents may well have let someone into the house who then killed their daughter. They knew that to be false since they already knew before the trial that their client did it and knew where she was buried. Since they knew he was guilty, their weaving of the other (IMO, slanderous) scenario was a fabrication intended to mislead the jury and violates the Code.

That the lawyers knew he was guilty isn't part of the Priviledge, since they were willing to try to strike a deal with the DAs Office wherein Westerfield would take them to where he buried the body in exchange for leniency. That let the cat out of the Priviledge bag as far as O'Reilly's allegation goes.

It looks to me that the lawyers violated the Code of Ethics which governs their courtroom behavior.

 

[A Desert Rose]

what the attorneys did or didnt know concerning Westerfields guilt is protected by Attorney Client Confidentiality.

The rest is just speculation.

*edited rest of rant, cuz lets face it........you all just want to bash lawyers ..........see postings above.

NO I do not want to bash lawyers. I think, as I stated already, that O'Reilly is wrong on this topic.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Thank you

JazzMan for your input on this thread and for bringing it back to the front page.

 

[Siren]

 

[A Desert Rose]

Thank you Siren

You will never see me bashing lawyers. If I had it to do again with my life, I would be one myself.

Thank you for your enlightening post. It brings things into a prespective that I could never do.

 

[Siren]