Author: matthaiduk

I’m already sick of hearing about Rod Blagojevich’s sentencing.  Not just because it’s Blago.  Mostly because of the news story that surfaced yesterday regarding what prosecutors plan to argue: that Rod’s sentence should be lengthened because he has never accepted responsibility or shown remorse.  I don’t know if he has, or if he hasn’t. I don’t really care.

I wish prosecutors would stop with that line of thought.  Why? This line of thinking directly results in people who are actually wrongfully convicted receiving more harsh penalties than their “actually not innocent” counterparts.  That is to say that a murderer who begs for forgiveness at sentencing might get a better sentence than a wrongfully convicted man who maintains his innocence.  There is some seemingly legitimate thought to the idea that people wrongfully convicted of murder are more likely to end up on death row because they won’t take responsibility for “their” crime.  So, it would be easier for my consciousness if nobody ever made that argument.

It’s impossible to not go full-guns at Blago, though.  Just another way in which Hot Rod is ruining things for the rest of us, I guess.

In reading about the plight of our former Governor, I came across a story about that poor fellow above.  That’s a mug shot.  Much to my surprise, he is not the victim of a crime.  He is the accused.

It seems he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.  And, by that, I mean he may-or-may-not have tried to rob the wrong guy.  He, apparently, stuck a gun in the face of a guy who is fairly well trained as a Mixed Martial Arts fighter.  From the looks of the picture, I think this probably started like the final scene in Pulp Fiction.  Remember that?  When confronted by a robber, Jules Winnfield calmly says, “I hate to shatter your ego, but this ain’t the first time I’ve had a gun pointed at me.”

Unlike Blago, I’m going to go ahead and guess that this guy will not be shy in admitting the error of his ways-  assuming his jaw hasn’t been wired shut.

I have a friend who once started ranting about getting pulled over by the cops for speeding.  The gist of his complaint was that police should either give you the ticket or give you a speech, but not give you both a ticket and a speech.  I don’t disagree with with that.  With serious crimes it doesn’t have to be a complete “either/or” thing, though.

This guy in the picture? He already got the speech. In a bad, bad way, too.  His speech didn’t come from the cops.  By the looks of it, that talking came from from Chuck Norris.  Chuck Norris speaks in sign language… with his feet.

I’m obviously not saying they shouldn’t charge this swollen headed gentleman. I am saying that if Blago should go to prison longer because he has not taken any responsibility, maybe this guy’s discolored head won’t be in prison as long as normal because he has taken some responsibility (whether he wanted to or not).  That seems to be what the prosecutor’s argument should suggest, right?

All the strong opinion, and half the work.  Make your life easy and “subscribe” to the blog.  Fill in your email to the box on the right, and hit the subscribe button.  The paperboy will deliver all new blog updates right to your doorstep.  I mean inbox.

I promise you will love it.  If you don’t love it, come back and unsubscribe.  Go ahead and try.  All of your friends are doing it.

Have you ever tried to fly?  I mean, without an airplane, hang glider, parachute, or any of that stuff.  Try it.  Go ahead.  Try it.

Sometimes this job is like trying to fly.  You have a goal and no way to get there.  It’s going to take a miracle.  Maybe a miracle delivered by a flying pig.

This happens in criminal cases all the time.  Lawyers are stuck with cases that have no real upside, or have a client who will testify (it is the client’s decision to make and not the lawyer’s) and his testimony is not supported by any of the facts.  When faced with this extremely stressful situation lawyers do one of two things: fight or flee.  Lots of lawyers flee.  Nobody wants to be on a sinking ship.

“Flee” can look many different ways.  Some lawyers will come up with reasons to withdraw from the case.  Others will do any and everything they can to force a client to enter a plea he doesn’t want to enter.  Still others will put on a “token” defense.  Unfortunately, the German invasion of France in WWII was not the only time somebody “pretended” to fight.

“Flee” is what the bloodthirsty public wants us to do.  Fleeing is more honest, right?  It’s more morally correct to make sure somebody you “know” is guilty gets convicted, right?

Wrong.  It’s completely immoral to flee.  It’s also unconstitutional.

I’ll say that again: It’s Immoral.

Beside the fact that we never really know the truth, our job is not to determine right or wrong.  Our job is to make sure that a Judge or Jury has complete information so that they can determine right or wrong.   And, we are not “just doing our job.”  The job of a defense attorney is important- so much so that it is in the constitution.  We are a “check” on the government.  Police busted into your house for no reason whatsoever lately?  Thank a defense attorney.

You may not like my spin on this.  I’m fine with that idea. Change the system.  I will work with whatever rules you pass.

Until then, don’t blame the attorneys.  When defense attorneys start short cutting the process to ensure poor results for their clients, the entire system fails.  Those defense attorneys who “flee” are depriving the jury of the job they have sworn under oath to do.

Opposite of the lawyers who flee in these situations are the lawyers who fight.  I like to call these the “lawyer’s lawyers”.  Lawyer’s lawyers know that sometimes you just catch a whooping, but that it’s better to do your job and catch an occasional beating than cherry-pick.  It cracks me up when lawyers brag about winning 15 or 20 trials in-a-row.  Makes me skeptical, actually.  Not every carry Walter Payton ever had went for positive yardage, but he attacked each and every time he got the pigskin.  Remember Raymont Harris?  I didn’t think so.  I believe he’s the Bears record holder for either most consecutive carries with positivie yards, or greatest percent of carries without a loss of yardage.  Do you want Walter Payton or Raymont Harris when it’s 4th and inches?

Sandusky’s lawyer might just be a lawyer’s lawyer.  What would you do if your only real inside information on this case was Sandusky’s story?  Without police reports, FULL grand jury transcripts (you don’t have them, either) and only his story to go on, it seems that your defense may be that Sandusky is creepy. Really creepy.  In fact, he’s so creepy that he wigs people out.  His interview spooked the hell out of me, and I do this stuff every day.  People may very well be so creeped out that they embellish when talking about him.  I could see it.  Maybe they do.

You do have to wonder, though, if so many people had seen, heard, and heard about so much, how come they never did anything?  What would you do?  What would any rational person do?  What is everybody saying they would do?  Call the police.  9-1-1.

The fact that nothing, really, was ever done might dovetail into the possibility that people embellished a little about creepy Sandusky.  Maybe stories got worse as time went on.  I have no idea.  Neither do you.

So, why let him speak to Costas?   He is going to have to testify.  Assuming his testimony is similar to what he told Costas (which, at this point, it’s going to have to be), his creepy story will be much less shocking to the jury if they have already heard it.  He’s “drawing the sting.”  The “Oh, my” moment will have long since passed.  It won’t be as creepy.

Before you get your guts in an uproar and question I can say Sandusky is innocent when you know he is guilty, look how many times I used “might” or “may”.  I’m not commenting on Sandusky’s guilt-or-innocence.  I’m trying to break down why his lawyer may have had a good basis to have Sandusky do the interview.  I can tell you right now that I would not have made the same choice, but I don’t know what is going on behindthe scenes.  More importantly, I know that there is more than one way to skin a cat.  I don’t know. Neither do you.

Everybody who knows nothing about anything will tell you that Sandusky’s lawyer is a total idiot.  Seems they all know this without reference to mens rea, acteus reus, burdens, the constitution, elements of the offense or anything that actually makes a difference in the courtroom.  Sandusky’s lawyer may just be a buffoon.  He also might be a lawyer’s lawyer trying to fly.  Maybe he’s an idiot.  Maybe he’s not as dumb as you think.