home
Who Wouldn't You Represent? | 29 comments (29 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Excellent lawyer vs the Good Lawyer (none / 0) (#4)
by Saul on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:55:05 AM EST
I am not a lawyer though I do have lawyers in my family.   My personal feelings are that there is a difference between an excellent lawyer and a good lawyer. If I were a lawyer though, I would try to be the good lawyer and not necessarily the excellent lawyer.  I understand that everyone is entitled to the best defense but money does play a role on how good of a defense you get.  In the OJ trial I have always felt that   OJ did confessed to the lawyers that represented him of his crime of passion.  He probably said "Yeah I did it but I was very angry when I killed them and just lost my head".  He also probably told his lawyers yes I was wrong and I need your help.  He also told them he was very rich and money was no object.  The excellent lawyers which were several said ok I will take the case and if we will do everything possible to get you a not guilty verdict which they did.  

My point is this. The good lawyer would have said well I will try to get you the lightest sentence possible but I am not going to take the case and pretend  the crime never took place since you have confessed to me that you did the crime or the good lawyer might have also said  now that you told me you did the crime I am not taking the case at all.

I would feel better being the good lawyer rather than the excellent lawyer.   As a lawyer you do have to have some moral conscious and there are limits of what you will do for money.  

A lawyer... (none / 0) (#27)
by white n az on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:47:32 PM EST
would typically never ask you if you committed the crime and would probably stop you from completing any sentence that might go there.

They are officers of the court and can not present testimony or theory that they know to be untrue so they are very keen to extract the plausible ideas from their clients why they might not be guilty and start from there.

As for OJ...I have to believe that he has never confessed to any one save for maybe Al Cowlings or Roosevelt Grier and for obvious reasons, they aren't going to say anything. I think in his situation, it was extremely important for his lawyers to believe that he was innocent and could not have put for the defense they did if he had admitted guilt to any of them.

People can (and do) say many things about lawyers, much of which may very well be true but a lawyer defending a client that he KNOWS to be guilty can only be effective at minimizing the conviction, negotiating a plea arrangement or be an effective agent in sentencing hearings since the guilt is by then, assumed.

Jeralyn, I don't know that I could do what you do, I wonder if I could have done what you have done but you have my undying admiration for doing it because even the guilty have the right to vigorous counsel.

[ Parent ]

In a perfect world (none / 0) (#28)
by Saul on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:44:20 AM EST
that a lawyer would not defend a client as if he never did the crime who admitted he did the crime to a lawyer is probably true but I think it happens more than one thinks that a lawyer will go for the full count of not guilty even if his clients confesses to him.  There is no way you can prove that the client confessed or not to the lawyer.  That is client privilege.   In the OJ trial I still feel he honestly confessed to them.  The initial strategy was probably to get him of light but since the blood and evidence was so botched up they went for the complete not guilty at all scenario.

[ Parent ]

Who Wouldn't You Represent? | 29 comments (29 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft