Defending OJ
Commenter “Miguel cervantes” writes:
Oj was the killer i still hold dershowitz responsible for letting him get away well theres one other member of the defense team still alive barry (something or other)
But Dershowitz was only marginally related to the OJ case: he acted as appellate advisor to the defense team in case OJ was found guilty and an appeal was necessary. OJ was acquitted, so no appeal was necessary.
But looking to the larger issue of the role of defense attorneys, the best ones – and Dershowitz is one of the best – operate out of allegiance to a major tenet of our legal system: that everyone is entitled to a defense. Opposing that principle undermines the related concept that everyone is entitled to a fair trial and that all defendants should be given a presumption of innocence.
I don’t think you can have it both ways. Either you believe in those principles or you don’t. It is highly tempting to say, when faced with an outrageous case in which you are certain the defendant is guilty, that the person doesn’t deserve a good defense and that any attorney willing to defend that person is heinous. But I strongly disagree with that sentiment. The idea that every person is entitled to a defense is absolutely central.
You or I may not wish to be the one to defend that person. No one will force us to do so. But someone had better do it. Dershowitz is willing to be the one, and I salute him for it.
In the words of Raoul Duke’s “Samoan” attorney, “even a werewolf is entitled to legal counsel.”
Well said, neo.
The prosecution lost me when the LAPD screwed up blood & DNA evidence…Jeez, what a mess—not including the strong possibility of Evidence Tampering. Furman was an obvious liar, and there were other witnesses I thought questionable.
Yeah, OJ deserved a strong cast of attorneys – with the state obviously out to get him whether he was guilty or not. ‘Can’t kill a white woman in California, BOY!!!
If not the greatest, Dershowitz is certainly in the Top Three…
I’m an attorney and I find the attitude of “but I could never defend THOSE people!” very frustrating. You see it in all aspects of litigation – the plaintiff’s personal injury and med mal lawyers think they’re better than the insurance defense lawyers, and vice versa, the criminal defense attorneys think they’re better than the prosecutors and vice versa, the people repping the city and state agencies think they’re nobly serving the public and the people repping the individual defendants think they’re protecting the poor and downtrodden against a racist classist system, and so on. It’s annoying. Every side needs to be represented, and judges need to apply the law fairly. Activist judges and attorneys are not just annoying, they are dangerous.
Mr. Dershowitz is a better person than I am. I also believe that no matter your actual guilt, you deserve a fair trail, with a good defence, but I don’t think that I personally could be the defender.
There is a difference between not guilty and innocent. Did OJ ever find the real killer?
As Bill Ayers said “guilty as hell, free as a bird” or something to that effect.
Tell me about the “laws of man and capital …. (bullsh*t)” again. Trolling much?
It is looking more and more like the future will be a place where no Republican can get counsel. The law schools seem to be recruiting people who will be vindictive to lawyers that represent such evil people as J6ers and Trump. Many of the Bar associations seem to have allowed their upper ranks to be filled with essentially cancel culture people.
I do have to question the unanimity here. For one thing, it’s not self evident that “a fair trial” must mean simply “a trial in which all the formalities are observed.” And that goes through all the right steps in the right order. Yes, that’s important. But it’s also obviously an instrumental good, not a fundamental one. The whole thing seems to miss its proper object, which should be justice.
I don’t even question the idea that that ought to be our focus; merely that it is the whole story.
The State has power which ranges from unlimited to effectively infinite.
It must be forced to check all the boxes, whatever the status of the defendant.
I don’t have to read about this sort of thing. Due to two unrelated and completely different issues with two separate family members, I would not trust a prosecutor as far as I could throw the court house.
And that’s not counting corrupt or incompetent labs.
the “bite mark” expertise. The fibs’ lead-matching absolute certainty.
If seated–I’m too old now–I would vote to acquit no matter the evidence presented. Can’t be too sure. Better that ten guilty go free…something like that.
So, however evil the defendant, we must have competent and devoted defense attorneys. Or the State will take over.
Look at what they have done to eastman guiliani navarro powell as well as others targeted by the 65 project.
No, if you believe getting guilty people off on technicalities is “justice” and “the right thing to do”, then you are part of the problem with society. In fact, Neo, you are no better with this attitude than the lefties you constantly castigate. They too answer to a higher authority – DEI, social justice or whatever – and these things are higher than the right thing. So if a less qualified black candidate is hired over someone better qualified, that is the right outcome because of their moral code. Your code is no better if blatant murders get off.
Your attitude is why republicans constantly lose – playing to some higher moral plane where you think you are doing right, while murderers and rapists get off. You can feel morally superior while our society goes down the tubes, so you are part of the problem, no better than the lefties you claim you shake your head at and can’t understand.
Very true. Formalities are tools, not ends. I see lawyers bleating that X is necessary for “due process” — well, even due process is a tool. Whether a piece of due process promotes or hinders justice is a reasonable question.
It is looking more and more like the future will be a place where no Republican can get counsel. The law schools seem to be recruiting people who will be vindictive to lawyers that represent such evil people as J6ers and Trump.
Martin:
Good of you to point that out.
Whatever
A technicality is usually when the state passes over a constitutionally required opportunity for the defendant to defend himself. If they guy’s truly guilty, you don’t need to screw him over to get him convicted. Could be you don’t have enough evidence and so you have to withhold exculpatory evidence to break even. Maybe that’s because he didn’t do it.
For example, Nifong’s lineup sheet was crooked. Mangum could not possibly have picked out somebody not on the lacrosse team. That’s all there were on the sheet. Should have been for ringers for each suspect. So telling the jury, had it gone that far, that she picked these three guys, allowing the jury to think it had been legit, could have gotten the innocent convicted. You could call the requirement for ringers (non-involved guys) as a “technicality” in a sneering tone, but it remains a miscarriage of justice.
The prosecution knows how to follow the rules. When they don’t, it’s likely because they don’t think they can get a conviction with the evidence they have–‘–cause maybe the guy’s not guilty and thus didn’t generate enough evidence of guilt.
@Eeyore: The whole thing seems to miss its proper object, which should be justice.
Been that way for a long time… Bleak House, 1852:
There’s no human court that’s going to do justice 100% of the time. Best you can do is set up procedures that have a good chance of allowing justice to be done, and never confusing procedural compliance with justice.
The whole reason the pardoning power exists under our laws is because we all know that courts don’t always get it right.
One of the Adamses (I’ve been drinking and forget if it was Sam or John) defended the British troops in the Boston Massacre.
‘Nuf said.
Neo: “The idea that every person is entitled to a defense is absolutely central.”
And as conservatives with a large dollop of prudence as part of our makeup, this is especially so since if someone is convicted after having a strong competent defense attorney, the rest of us can look at that result with higher confidence of its validity.
@Martin: “It is looking more and more like the future will be a place where no Republican can get counsel. ” One saving grace here is that if they want to get paid or have a decent income, those lawyers may well have to defend conservatives well and properly, since defending nonconservatives whose indictment will be plea dealed away or given no or low punishments, etc., are not going to be ready to pay big bucks when the system is already so heavily balanced in their favor. And word will get out if your defense efforts were lackluster or substandard.
Not sure what we can do about the biased judges?? In those locales where judges are elected, the competing judge candidates in elections would have to really push and promote the flawed history, rulings, and results of their election opponent. Too many voters might well ignore such legal beagle approaches if the deviations from responsible legal management was modest. Also runs counter to the “image” of judges as dispassionate observers and controllers of the court environment.
Related…
Defending Schicklgruber.
“Hillary Clinton Slammed For Using D-Day To Call Trump Hitler”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/hillary-clinton-slammed-using-d-day-call-trump-hitler
(In which case, kudos to Dersh.)
File under: Number ONE on the NYT list for Best Fiction of ALL TIME: “I Lost (My Soul) to Adolf” by renouned author Hillary Dotell
Hold on: Fiction?
The Man to See: Edward Bennett Williams
“Peak Lawfare”: several things to consider (a contextual compendium)
“Why the Trump hush money trial verdict is peak ‘lawfare’ “—
https://nypost.com/2024/06/08/opinion/the-trump-hush-money-trial-verdict-is-peak-lawfare/
H/T Powerline blog.
You note in your post:
“…a major tenet of our legal system: that everyone is entitled to a defense.”
And I’ll agree with that completely. Where I differ with you is the EXTENT of that defense…if a defending attorney knows that their client is actually GUILTY of the charged offense.
If the attorney has either been told by his client that they actually committed the crime of which they are accused, or if during the defense process has been given access to information that clearly and absolutely confirms that the client is guilty, they now have a moral choice:
1) They can continue to pretend that their client is not guilty, and proceed with a defense on that basis, using every tactic legally available to them in an attempt to get a guilty client acquitted.
2) They can tell their client that they must plead guilty and to throw themselves on the mercy of the court for sentencing.
Which of these two choices is the moral one for an attorney?
In my estimation, anything other than 2) makes the attorney equally culpable in the crime as an accessory after the fact. Should their client refuse to plead guilty to a crime that they admit they’ve committed (at least admitted to their own attorney), to continue to be a moral human being the attorney must at that point inform the court that they are no longer capable of representing their client and resign from the case.
If enough attorneys followed a moral course of action we might once again approach a justice system rather than the “legal system” we currently have. It’ll never happen.
From the “Tell Us Something We Don’t Already Know” File:
“Tristan Leavitt: AG Garland’s testimony false, facts show DOJ ‘clearly had impact’ in prosecution of Trump in hush money trial”—
https://justthenews.com/podcasts/john-solomon-reports/tristan-leavitt-ag-garlands-testimony-false-facts-show-doj-clearly
Now, just add the Georgia, MAL and other NYS prosecutions/persecutions….
+ Bonus…
“Dems, media fool no one: White House is knee-deep in Trump prosecutions”—
https://nypost.com/2024/06/08/opinion/bidens-white-house-is-knee-deep-in-trump-prosecutions/
Timely, who was/is the real killer?
https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/oj-simpson-investigation-documents-released-public-fbi
not to start the argument clinic, but did he have an alibi, well the civil trial says no,
sussman and kleinsmith, are guilty as sin, but they can’t be convicted, because of the malice of their actions, don’t get me started on mueller’s malfeasance and obstruction on multiple fronts, from whitey bulgers boston
john, sam was the rabblerouser, hence he got the beer label, one might say ‘massacre’ was overdoing the matter, besides well there were more guilty people up the chain of command,
I remember in judgement at nuremberg, max schell as the defense attorney for some of the defendants, but he was a fictional character if memory served, although he was probably based on a composite of people,
in retrospect its striking how many officials avoided at least the first wave of trial, like Karl Wolf, thanks to a persil from Dulles,
Yes, everyone is entitled to a defense. The problem is that the rest of the system (judges, prosecutors) has been so corrupted that lawyers have been able to get their clients acquitted, or cases thrown out, on the flimsiest of pretexts. The case of the Central Park Five is just one of many examples. The adversarial system only works if both sides aggressively pursue their cases without regard to politics or other extralegal agendas.
@ Blackwing1– There is a gap between “innocent” and “Not Guilty”. The Not Guilty plea in court roughly translates to “prove it!”. It requires the prosecution to put on the case, show the evidence that results in a jury (of judge) coming to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty. The defense attorney may have strong feelings that his client is guilty and the evidence is there, but if the defendant does not agree, they go to trial. If the prosecution does not have convincing proof, the defendant is judged “not guilty”.
Now if a defendant who appears guilty, even to his own attorney, wishes to testify in his own defense, the attorney will request that the defendant be allowed to testify in narrative fashion rather than Q&A. This way the attorney is not part of what may become perjury by framing questions or avoiding topics. The defendant tells his story unaided.
The bottom line remains: everyone is entitled to a defense. And do not ignore the fact that you… yes, you.. might find yourself wrongly accused. If your photo (and some jurisdictions use driver license photos as well as booking photos) is in one of the photo lineup spreads and a victim points to your photo, your life just changed for the worse. The comment thread is no place for a dissertation on Murphy’s Law applied to criminal proceedings.
This comment thread is no place for …. The Spanish Inquisition,
One reason to defend the obviously guilty is if the law is unconstitutional. I believe that is part of H Biden’s defense.
Does everyone deserve a trial?
NOPE.
Did Pol Pot deserve a trial? Hell no. He should have been interrogated – using any and all means – then tied to a tree in some jungle, have honey poured all over him, and have whatever insects and animals have a go at him.
The more painful and longer his death , the better.
Ditto for guys like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, the leaders of Hamas, etc. etc. , and those that carried out the orders of these incredibly evil life forms (say, Nazi concentration camp commandants and his senior officers, or Gulag commandants, etc.)
Trials are needed to establish guilt or innocence or establish extenuating circumstances, but sometimes there simply is no doubt about who committed or ordered a crime(s).
Also, unbeknownst to a perpetrator committing a crime, he is captured on film committing a crime; say robbery or punching a random person in the face or pushing them onto subway tracks etc.
In these cases, there is no question as to his guilt or innocence. He should be punished for his crime. No need for a trial, esp. if his arrest record is 100 miles long.
OJ: Less guilty than Trump.
:^D
“One reason to defend…”
Another reason:
“I’m a Biden, dammit; and this is Delaware, you nitwits.”
Legend has it that when “Thelma and Louise” was playing in the theaters, and the final scene came when the two protagonists were about to drive over the cliff to escape the surrounding police, people in the audience would yell “Don’t do it! Dershowitz will get you off!” 😉
I would tend to doubt it, dershowitz as with roy black to use a local name, would only really defend some high end figures, the latter started as a public defender in dade county,
Thank you and amen! Like that quote from Man for All Seasons: “I’d give the Devil himself the benefit of law, if for my own safety’s sake.”
(also hey, Mary Catelli! *wave*)
“One saving grace here is that if they want to get paid or have a decent income, those lawyers may well have to defend conservatives well and properly, since defending nonconservatives whose indictment will be plea dealed away or given no or low punishments, etc., are not going to be ready to pay big bucks when the system is already so heavily balanced in their favor. And word will get out if your defense efforts were lackluster or substandard.”
-@R2L
You should look up the 65 project.
https://the65project.com/
Because they’re going to make sure it isn’t profitable to represent conservatives. Don’t have to worry about lawyers being tempted by money to go against the zeitgeist if you remove them from the bar and ban them from ever making money as lawyers.
Blackwing1’s comment reminds me of a bit in the memoirs of Adela Rogers St. John who grew up (she says) in courtrooms, tagging along with her father who was the real life inspiration for Perry Mason. He was known for defending and getting acquittals for some of the most “obviously” guilty parties around.* At least once she heard him say to the most recent client after his acquittal “Get away from me, you’re guilty as sin.” Grandad, the minister heard that, too, and hit the ceiling. It may have affected what clients Earl Rogers took from that point on, I don’t recall.
*Including the Griffith who donated the land that became Griffith Park down in the LA area, who shot his wife. She survived and testified. He was found not guilty. The book quotes jurors on their thinkin. It’s Final Verdict, check used bookstores, as far as I know it’s not in print in any form. Interesting read.