Would you want a high profile lawyer defending you?

Supernova wrote: ... but if I ever got arrested, his lying piece-of-shit ass would be the LAST person in the whole world I would call for defense because then everybody would KNOW I was guilty. ...

Alan Smithee wrote:Well Supernova, if you ever did catch a case you could always go with a public defender instead. You think all/only defense lawyers are lying piece-of-shit asses? The prosecutor is trying to but you away. Maybe on death row. I would not be surprised if for every defense lawyer you thought was a scumbag we can find examples of prosecutorial/police misconduct. If I'm ever on trial I want someone who will advocate for me. I don't care if I wouldn't invite them over for Thanksgiving.

Alan Smithee wrote:... we can find examples of prosecutorial/police misconduct. ...

wants2laugh wrote:BTW... most trials are tried in the media, not in the courtroom.... Casey Anthony was tried by the public before she set foot in the courtroom. In that instance, I want someone who knows how to work, manipulate, and handle the media circus

wants2laugh wrote:Well think about it... when was the last time that the media sensationalized a trial and people said, "he/she didnt do it". that RARELY happens... we assume that if u r being tried then there is enough evidence to convict.... so what is the point of thinking otherwise?

the only tials i can think of where i thought the people were innocent were the WM3, and jeffrey macdonald-- and HE is still in jail 30yrs later

Shale wrote:

The Innocence Project is finding them all the time and they got away with it by withholding evidence, presenting biased evidence to juries and being too aggressive to win a conviction at all costs. (Hey, it was OK, they knew the perp was guilty)

Then comes DNA testing, which has now exonerated hundreds of these wrongly convicted ppl, many on death row. In other words the jury and lawyers and judges got it very seriously wrong.

A Chicago man who served 21 years in prison on a murder charge for which he was later exonerated filed suit Thursday against the city of Chicago and its police department.

Attorneys representing Jacques Rivera, 47, claim that Chicago police falsified evidence and manipulated a witness before their client was convicted in 1998 of fatally shooting Felix Valentin, a gang member, and sentenced to serve 80 years in a maximum security prison.

Locke Bowman, an attorney whose firm is representing Rivera, said his client "suffered a grave justice at the hands of Chicago police" and deserves to be compensated for it, the Chicago Tribune reports.

Last fall, the purported crime's only eyewitness recanted his testimony that identified Rivera as the killer. The charges were dropped and Rivera was, essentially, a free man again. The witness, Orlando Lopez, was 12 years old at the time of the alleged crime.

Bowman further described such behavior leading to wrongful convictions as "a pattern with the Chicago Police Department," NBC Chicago reports.

"The Police Department has never investigated any of these cases or disciplined an officer despite clear, egregious misconduct in many of these cases," Bowman said, according to NBC. "That's simply unacceptable."

Rivera's conviction was the subject of over a decade of work by the Northwestern University Law School’s Center on Wrongful Convictions.

When Rivera, a former Latin King, was released from prison last October, he said he planned to work with inner-city youth. But HuffPost Chicago blogger David Protess, president of the Chicago Innocence Project, reports that Rivera has struggled to get on his feet since his release.

Specifically, he's been unable to attain the $199,150 in financial restitution he is seeking under Illinois law because Cook County prosecutors have called on Rivera to further prove his innocence -- even after being exonerated.

The strange loophole is the subject of a bill proposed by state Sen. Donne Trotter (D-Chicago).

"I'm not really free yet. At 47, I live with my mother to make ends meet and I can't afford a vehicle to get to a job or the events I've been asked to speak at," Rivera told Protess last month. "Prosecutors are doing everything they can to prevent me from living my life."

Alan Smithee wrote:


"Scumbag" lawyers aren't the real problem.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/07/jacques-rivera-man-who-sp_n_1578973.html?ref=chicago&icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec3_lnk1%26pLid%3D168078

CeCe wrote:

Didn't follow the Jefferey MacDonald case so can't speak on him but definitely, the WM3 are innocent but those boys were convicted before they ever set foot in the courtroom. Arkansas? Dead kids? At the height of satanic panic? The only thing that shocks me about that case is that they didn't finagle a way to execute Damien.

wants2laugh wrote:

if you enjoy reading, I recommend Fatal Vision by Joe McGuinness which makes him look guilty... then read Fatal Justice written to defend him. The poor guys' pregnant wife and 2 kids are murdered while he is being attacked, right after the whole manson crazy killings... and after the army tries him and the judge apologizes for causing him more stress/heartache... the federal government then prosecutes him 9 yrs later as a civilian.. and he is convicted. A witness came forward claiming to be one of the ones who was in the house during the killings, and she admits that she was dressed as he describes, but they convicted him anyway. That was 32 yrs ago... and he is still in jail. crazy


And i think someone above made a reference that one is innocent if acquitted. That isn't exactly true. I took a law class once that discussed this. We have two sayings "innocent until proven guilty".. but we don't find someone "innocent".. we find them "not guilty". Legally these are two different things. "Not guilty" means "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"... as in you could be guilty, we just didnt have enough evidence... which is why those who have been acquitted of murder can be sued in civil court where the standard is "by the preponderance of the evidence" which is much easier to prove.