06 March 2007
This is just a little chilling...
12:05 PM
If you think about it, that is.
A caller to the Limbaugh Show tells Rush that Libby got what he deserved (even if he’s innocent of the charges against him!) because (get this) he defended Marc Rich, not because he’s guilty of the crimes he was charged with in the present case, not even because he’s guilty of any crime, unless defending Marc Rich is a crime. He defended someone that this caller doesn’t like. Therefore he deserves to go to prison. Why? Karma. Yes. That’s what this caller cited as his grounds.
Attention defense attorneys. This guy is after you. If you defend accused murderers, rapists and so forth and then get charged with a crime yourself, then this guy wants you to go to jail – not for breaking any laws, but for doing your job.
A lot of people don’t like defense attorneys. There are a lot of reasons for this: they aggressively defend their clients, and they get their clients off on legal technicalities. Let me help you with something. Defense attorneys have clients; and those clients are due a constitutionally protected right to a trial. Attorneys, regardless the parties they represent, are officers of the courts. They must put forth the best case, give it their best work. They must use every legal and professionally ethical means at their disposal in the representation of their clients. They must represent their clients without passion or prejudice. If they do not they can be dis-barred. This ain’t no party. This ain’t no disco. This ain’t no fooling around. This is serious business.
If Scooter Libby defended Marc Rich then he did his job. And it irritates me that this guy thinks that someone deserves to go to jail, not for a crime he was charged with (and found guilty) but because he did his job. I have a sister who is a federal attorney, a public defender to be precise. On this guy’s view if my sister defends a client, (i.e., someone with a constitutionally guaranteed right to a jury trial) whom this caller thinks is for some reason unsavory, or even guilty, then, if she's ever charged with a crime, she ought to go to prison. And she ought to go to prison not because she committed the crime she was charged with, but because she defended her client.
Chilling.
The jury itself is also a bit chilling. The jury “discerned that Libby was told about Plame at least nine times and they didn't buy the argument that he forgot all about it.” Said one of the jurors (Denis Collins): “Even if he forgot that someone told him about Mrs. Wilson, who had told him, it seemed very unlikely he would not have remembered about Mrs. Wilson.”
So Scooter Libby is accused, among other things, of perjury. In his defense, he says that he forgot something that he was told nine times. The jury finds Libby guilty, not because the prosecution was able to prove that Libby did not forget, but because in their subjective judgment it “seemed…unlikely” that Libby would not have remembered about Mrs. Wilson.
Note the subtle shift in burden here. The prosecution really doesn’t have to prove anything here. Libby has to prove that he forgot. And this, because of the seeming, but not proven, unlikelihood that he would forget something he was told nine times. So for all practical purposes, Libby was guilty until proven innocent.
So you can get up to twenty years in prison because 12 of your, uh, peers think it “seem[s] … unlikely” that you forgot something, on the grounds that you were told it nine times.
(What’s odd abut that is that most women I know like to tell stories about things their husbands forgot, no matter how many times they were told. I don’t think the number of times one is told something has anything to do with how well it is remembered.)
The correct answer would have been: “The prosecution proved that Libby did not forget something he was told nine times.”
Let me be crystal clear about this. It may be unlikely that a man would forget something he was told nine times. But we would be speculating about that, assuming facts not in evidence, facts not presented at trial. But even if we weren’t speculating, when someone is on trial, and is innocent until proven guilty, and that guilt depends upon whether the accused forgot something, then what a juror believes about the likelihood of forgetting is irrelevant. If the prosecution’s case depends upon its being false that the accused forgot then that is one of the things that the prosecution ought to be required to prove. That is why it is called “burden of proof.” And that burden is the prosecution’s, not the jury’s.
Note: If you think you have just read a defense of Scooter Libby then you would have been quite at home on this jury.
A caller to the Limbaugh Show tells Rush that Libby got what he deserved (even if he’s innocent of the charges against him!) because (get this) he defended Marc Rich, not because he’s guilty of the crimes he was charged with in the present case, not even because he’s guilty of any crime, unless defending Marc Rich is a crime. He defended someone that this caller doesn’t like. Therefore he deserves to go to prison. Why? Karma. Yes. That’s what this caller cited as his grounds.
Attention defense attorneys. This guy is after you. If you defend accused murderers, rapists and so forth and then get charged with a crime yourself, then this guy wants you to go to jail – not for breaking any laws, but for doing your job.
A lot of people don’t like defense attorneys. There are a lot of reasons for this: they aggressively defend their clients, and they get their clients off on legal technicalities. Let me help you with something. Defense attorneys have clients; and those clients are due a constitutionally protected right to a trial. Attorneys, regardless the parties they represent, are officers of the courts. They must put forth the best case, give it their best work. They must use every legal and professionally ethical means at their disposal in the representation of their clients. They must represent their clients without passion or prejudice. If they do not they can be dis-barred. This ain’t no party. This ain’t no disco. This ain’t no fooling around. This is serious business.
If Scooter Libby defended Marc Rich then he did his job. And it irritates me that this guy thinks that someone deserves to go to jail, not for a crime he was charged with (and found guilty) but because he did his job. I have a sister who is a federal attorney, a public defender to be precise. On this guy’s view if my sister defends a client, (i.e., someone with a constitutionally guaranteed right to a jury trial) whom this caller thinks is for some reason unsavory, or even guilty, then, if she's ever charged with a crime, she ought to go to prison. And she ought to go to prison not because she committed the crime she was charged with, but because she defended her client.
Chilling.
The jury itself is also a bit chilling. The jury “discerned that Libby was told about Plame at least nine times and they didn't buy the argument that he forgot all about it.” Said one of the jurors (Denis Collins): “Even if he forgot that someone told him about Mrs. Wilson, who had told him, it seemed very unlikely he would not have remembered about Mrs. Wilson.”
So Scooter Libby is accused, among other things, of perjury. In his defense, he says that he forgot something that he was told nine times. The jury finds Libby guilty, not because the prosecution was able to prove that Libby did not forget, but because in their subjective judgment it “seemed…unlikely” that Libby would not have remembered about Mrs. Wilson.
Note the subtle shift in burden here. The prosecution really doesn’t have to prove anything here. Libby has to prove that he forgot. And this, because of the seeming, but not proven, unlikelihood that he would forget something he was told nine times. So for all practical purposes, Libby was guilty until proven innocent.
So you can get up to twenty years in prison because 12 of your, uh, peers think it “seem[s] … unlikely” that you forgot something, on the grounds that you were told it nine times.
(What’s odd abut that is that most women I know like to tell stories about things their husbands forgot, no matter how many times they were told. I don’t think the number of times one is told something has anything to do with how well it is remembered.)
The correct answer would have been: “The prosecution proved that Libby did not forget something he was told nine times.”
Let me be crystal clear about this. It may be unlikely that a man would forget something he was told nine times. But we would be speculating about that, assuming facts not in evidence, facts not presented at trial. But even if we weren’t speculating, when someone is on trial, and is innocent until proven guilty, and that guilt depends upon whether the accused forgot something, then what a juror believes about the likelihood of forgetting is irrelevant. If the prosecution’s case depends upon its being false that the accused forgot then that is one of the things that the prosecution ought to be required to prove. That is why it is called “burden of proof.” And that burden is the prosecution’s, not the jury’s.
Note: If you think you have just read a defense of Scooter Libby then you would have been quite at home on this jury.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- James Frank Solís
- Former soldier (USA). Graduate-level educated. Married 26 years. Texas ex-patriate. Ruling elder in the Presbyterian Church in America.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(187)
-
▼
March
(17)
- A (long overdue) retraction
- If you’ve ever had any interest in studying the la...
- Shoot the hostage(s)!
- Sean Penn wants to know how, if the President’s da...
- I heard Laura Ingraham and Michael Ledeen admit (d...
- Bagman
- While waiting for the rain to cease, I’m presently...
- I was listening to Laura Ingraham this morning. A...
- A headline Rush Limbaugh would ‘love’
- Here’s something I’ve been researching on and off ...
- If I heard the news at the break correctly the Sen...
- Q writes here a comment on this posting.“The reaso...
- You wouldn’t know it the way some people carry on,...
- A reader emailed me and asked me to explain this, ...
- This is just a little chilling...
- In response to this posting,Lorin writes:If evolut...
- Belief in God as a pre-rational commitment (2)
-
▼
March
(17)
0 comments: