Well it's nice to see there are still some lawyers in the world with a shred of a conscience:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43854595/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/


Though I don't see why the death penalty is not being sought in this case if it's found the guy isn't just waka-waka and actually premeditated the murder. If a case like this doesn't warrant execution, what does?

Nothing warrants an execution of a killer for some people. (Whispers to self snide comment but keeps it low so you know who doesn't rush in and start a fight. )

How can any lawyer defend this monster with a clear conscience.

Tony Marino wrote:

How can any lawyer defend this monster with a clear conscience.

A conscience is not a qualification for being a lawyer, being a good liar is.

Supernova wrote:

Tony Marino wrote:

How can any lawyer defend this monster with a clear conscience.

A conscience is not a qualification for being a lawyer, being a good liar is.

Love it!

Although I'm glad we have defense attorneys, I still don't know "how" they do some of their cases. A lot of them probably have to rely on sleep aids.

Bluesmama wrote:

Supernova wrote:

A conscience is not a qualification for being a lawyer, being a good liar is.

Love it!

Although I'm glad we have defense attorneys, I still don't know "how" they do some of their cases. A lot of them probably have to rely on sleep aids.

It's all in how much they're getting paid (and of course the publicity/15 minutes of fame)--money talks.

And money also cures a conscience. You always hear about the high suicide rates of doctors and shrinks, oddly enough you don't hear about it being very high with lawyers and if they had consciences, you'd think we would hear more of it.

This guy doesn't deserve more than a third rate public defender.

Supernova wrote:

Tony Marino wrote:

How can any lawyer defend this monster with a clear conscience.

A conscience is not a qualification for being a lawyer, being a good liar is.

So what do you say about lawyers who champion cases for civil rights, fair and equal housing, keeping innocent people out of jail, women's right's and other cases defending people who are victims of discrimination and inequality? Your naive generalizations are almost not even funny anymore.

Him quitting this case because of a conscience is only half right. He just knows he can't get this guy off. Nobody can. I doubt anyone could even do anything with an insanity plea. NYC is a Jewish town. Levi Aron is never going to see the light of day. If it weren't for the Constitution, I would say you might as well skip the trial.

What this lawyer did was very unethical in that he basically publically admitted that he thought his client was guilty. He had a right to resign from the case for personal reasons but he should have kept them to himself. After this, there's no way I would hire him to defend me.

Well he gave his reason to quit because this is the case of an 8 year old who was murdered and chopped up, and his oldest of 3 boys is about 8 years old as well; and he as the lawyer is going to have to go over every piece of evidence, which I'm guessing would also include crime scene photos, autopsy reports, etc. and how could you NOT take that home with you and when you see your own son? I think I would want him for a lawyer since he's shown he's actually human, unlike some attorneys.

Supernova wrote:

Well he gave his reason to quit because this is the case of an 8 year old who was murdered and chopped up, and his oldest of 3 boys is about 8 years old as well; and he as the lawyer is going to have to go over every piece of evidence, which I'm guessing would also include crime scene photos, autopsy reports, etc. and how could you NOT take that home with you and when you see your own son? I think I would want him for a lawyer since he's shown he's actually human, unlike some attorneys.

Quote :

Marrone says the medical examiner's report was the final straw.

On Wednesday, investigators revealed that the 8-year-old had been drugged with a potent mixture of pain relievers and muscle relaxants before he was murdered.

"Knowing what he went through, just putting two and two together, you know they made more than one attempt," Marrone said.

Your point seems to be that it's OK to drop the case because he got sentimental about his own children. Mine is that it's OK for him to drop the case if he feels he could not effectively represent his client but it isn't OK to publicly announce that he's too sickened by that client's actions to stand by him. Step aside and shut up. If you want to hire him, be my guest. He'll probably do a fine job right up until he decides that what you're accused of is to heinous.

Well there are few things in this world as heinous as kidnapping a child, drugging him, torturing him for hours, murdering him, and chopping him up into pieces.

I've said all I have to say.

Supernova wrote:

Well he gave his reason to quit because this is the case of an 8 year old who was murdered and chopped up, and his oldest of 3 boys is about 8 years old as well; and he as the lawyer is going to have to go over every piece of evidence, which I'm guessing would also include crime scene photos, autopsy reports, etc. and how could you NOT take that home with you and when you see your own son? I think I would want him for a lawyer since he's shown he's actually human, unlike some attorneys.

I think the problem here is that there's a certain...protocol. If he felt he couldn't properly represent him he should have resigned without further comment. I don't have a law degree but wonder if this may be something that can be used later. Could it be considered prejudicial? I still think this is going to be an insanity case. But the attorney should have kept his mouth shut.

Maybe, but on the other hand maybe child murderers wasn't his idea of ideal clientel and wouldn't this statement clear him from getting anymore like him?

Supernova wrote:

Maybe, but on the other hand maybe child murderers wasn't his idea of ideal clientel and wouldn't this statement clear him from getting anymore like him?

Not 100% sure but I don't think so if he's a public defender.

CeCe wrote:

Supernova wrote:

Maybe, but on the other hand maybe child murderers wasn't his idea of ideal clientel and wouldn't this statement clear him from getting anymore like him?

Not 100% sure but I don't think so if he's a public defender.

I guess I was wrong about not having anything else to say. He's in private practice, not a public defender.

Alan Smithee wrote:

CeCe wrote:

Not 100% sure but I don't think so if he's a public defender.

I guess I was wrong about not having anything else to say. He's in private practice, not a public defender.

Well that's interesting. He still should have kept his yapper shut.