60 Minutes

[Stick]

In the first grade I walked into Mrs. Hastings classroom and before any teaching and learning began everyone in the classroom stood up, put their right hand on our left chest, looked to the front of the room where an American flag hung and said something in unison. What we said ended with "and justice for all."
Last night there was a story on 60 Minutes about a guy who had been released from prison after serving 30 years for a murder that he didn't commit and there were two lawyers that knew that he didn't commit that crime. The lawyers were representing another guy who had admitted to them that he had killed the person that the other guy was convicted of killing and the two lawyers didn't come to the innocent mans defense in any way or tell anyone that they had evidence of the convicted mans innocence. The lawyers claimed "Attorney / Client Priviledge" which obligated them to their client even though they were representing that client in a totally different case. Don't lawyers have some obligation to a working judicial system?
Do lawyers ever pledge JUSTICE FOR ALL or is that just a first grade myth?

[revwardoc]

Justice and The Law are 2 separate and distinct entities.

[reconeil]

Saw very same legalized shafting (about 26 years) of an innocent on 60 Minutes, Stick.
Fortunately for those victimized so, more and more of such are coming to light lately.

Regardless, this latest poor soul was very, very, very lucky that The Death Penalty
wasn't in play. After all and after being executed,...NONE SUCH CAN EVER be vindicated.

Doc,
Don't see things that way.
If as you say is actually so (?),...well then guess it fair saying that the fine:
"Equal Justice for All" in text & longtime bandied-about, is just one big
Law School fairytale. Nothing more, nothing less.

Neil

[Keith_Hixson]

As a member of the clergy I have "privileged communication" when counseling anyone coming to me for personal help, and guidance.
In Washington the law basically states that I can't tell on a person if the crime they committed was in the past and there is no indication that the particular crime is an on going situation. However, in the State of Washington, it also says that if not reporting the crime will do harm to another person then the crime must be reported. I would think that not reporting the crime did do harm to the person going to prison and he would have the right to sue the lawyers. It all depends on how the law reads. The laws on privileged communication are some what complicated, and just when you can and cannot tell vary from state to state.
I would think that I would have a moral obligation to encourage anyone coming to me to confess the crime and if they didn't I'd tell them I would tell. I personally couldn't let an innocent man go to prison. But . . . . . I'm not a lawyer.

Keith

[revwardoc]

Neil,

I've seen several cases where friends and colleagues were shafted by "The Law" with no regard to extenuating circumstances.

For example: a former co-worker picked up a babe at a bar. She had been there for about 2 hours before he arrived and was having a drink when he met her. Things clicked and they hit the sack, later making arrangements to meet the next day and go for a sail on his boat. When he arrived at her house, boat in tow, the police were there and arrested him for statutory rape; she was 16. "Justice" would say this guy was innocent because she was in a bar, drinking, which would imply that she was at least 21, but the judge came down hard on him and he got 5-10 years in prison. He served 3 and got out on good behavior but his life was essentially ruined by "The Law". He lost his job, his car, his boat, his house, and his reputation. He'll forever have a record of that "rape" held against him.

[Robert Ryan]

I think that is the "thier is no ignorance when it comes to the law thing".

[Boats]

Laws are written in such a way so as to be ambiguous. Miscontrued information and ones interruptation of this informatioin can often times result in innocent people being compromised. The law varies based on the understanding of the representative and ones legal counsel.

It's not perfect and yes some have taken the hit and were put away wrongly. This of course is terrible and does set a president to make sure we don't do it again. Judges should be smart enough to see the errors but sometimes they too don't totally understand the full ramifications of what is going on or the understanding of true meaning of law.

Money can buy you smarter and better legal assistance - but in most cases state legal defenders are newbies and can sometimes be lacking the skills to get manyof the client off on some crimes that resulted in their clients being put away.

Misjustice does occur and we can only hope we can rectifiy these misfortunes by correcting it and making sure it doesn't happen again. The legal system isn't perfect but its the only one we have.

If you've ever been on jury (I have) and found someone guilty (I have) - you want to make sure that you considered your conclusions as this person will be spending many years behind bars. Jury Duty sucks - but once you've sat on one and gone through the process you realize that the issues are going to either free this person or put them away for a long time. You decision has to be based on the arguements and data presented by the legal system. You can not be biased because of personal reasons. If the information presented must is clearly stated and understood.

These Lawyer's who knew this guy was innocent - were handcuffed by a system and legal issue that kept them from stating this new knowledge. Is it right? Hard to say - but if you were in jail or prison for this length of time - I'm sure your or I wouldn't be too happy and all of that lost time behind bars can really make you a different person when once put back onto the street.

Was this guy a good guy or a bad guy - who for some reason was railroaded into prison for a crime he didn't do - but had a record of similar instances? If he had no record I'm sure this judge would have been asking why or howcome a little more during the trial. You can smell a rat or we know when the truth doesn't sound right - but I bet this guy had a rap sheet of priors that made him fit the profile to some degree. He is where you find many who end up in jail - because of priors and past dealings. It isn't right but it does happen.

[revwardoc]

Boats,

If you mean that former co-worker of mine, the only record he had was a speeding ticket when he was 19, otherwise he was clean as a whistle. Personally I think his lawyer was the picture of incompetence. I was in the audience at the trial and I couldn't believe the way he mishandled things. He didn't even call in the bartender as a witness. I believe there was some backroom shenanigans going on.

[reconeil]

Given your and others (myself included) take on things, I guess it more than just
a little fair saying that: "He whom bullshits best usually wins or comes out on top" or;
"Money Talks & Bullshit Walks",...whether in questionable Law, Justice or Politics.

Neil

[Boats]

I know what you mean - if your lawyer doesn't have his ducks in a row and know what he's doing - you're going down. Back room deals - you bet - they happen every day in court. Plea bargins are always going on.