The “Hillary as public defender” flak (updated)
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
There’s some nonsense on the interweb about Hillary Clinton when she was appointed by the court to represent an individual accused of assaulting a teen and how she cross-examined the 12-year old complainant and what this means about her as a person or some such thing. Rushing out the door now, but read for yourself here, here and here. Here’s the story in question. I might have more on it later, I might not.
Update: Okay, I’m going to jump in. This whole “story” makes me rather upset. To portray her in a bad light because she did the very thing every competent criminal defense attorney should do just exemplifies the lack of understanding of the functioning and the importance of our adversarial system. So what if the victim was 12 years old? If the defense was that she was lying, then you have to go after her. What if she really was lying? What if she was and Hillary went soft on her? Would we be celebrating Hillary for effectively abandoning Constitution? Have we become that blinded by the media glare on sex crimes that we cannot recognize that every charge must be zealously defended or our rights will be eroded?
Lots of people are chiming in, with various views. Take this, for example:
Indeed, if the young victim were lying, one wonders why Hillary agreed to plead her client to “unlawful fondling of a minor under the age of 14, which carried a five-year sentence.”
And yes, I understand that even a child rapist is entitled to present a defense, but there are other ways to present a defense than by trying to destroy a complaining witness, especially where exoneration is not the goal, but conviction on a lesser charge, as in Hillary’s case. All-out destruction of the “opponent” is not often, if ever, required for effective representation. I’ve seen truly competent attorneys who manage to retain their moral integrity while carrying out their legal duty to their clients.
This monday morning quarterbacking is bullshit and offensive. It’s also disingenuous. At trial, the goal is the best possible outcome, be it a not guilty verdict or a guilty verdict on a lesser included. Why is “all-out” destruction of the opponent’s credibility not required? Why are we encouraging half-hearted lawyering? Different people have different styles and there is absolutely nothing wrong with what she did. Let’s see if you have the same feelings when you’re charged with a crime and your lawyer doesn’t ask the unpopular questions.
Tom, have you never gone to trial on a weak case? Have you never offered a plea bargain to a defendant despite knowing that you’d lose at trial? Then why this bs of “one wonders why Hillary agreed to plead her client”. You know damn well why.
It really is disgraceful that someone who fights to uphold the Constitutional rights of an accused individual is vilified in such a manner.
Sphere: Related Content
Loading ...
I don’t have political aspirations, so I can’t say that this story has any personal effect on me. But, stories like this affirm why it is so difficult to get talented, qualified attorneys to do court-appointed criminal work. People like to say it’s because lawyers are greedy bastards and only out to make millions (which may be true in some cases), but now we’re saying that they’ll be publicly criticized for mounting an effective defense and doing their job. It’s disgusting to think that public service in this regard can and will be spun to be a negative quality in any profession, much less politics. Shame on you, Newsday.
Although I don’t vote, I think it speaks highly of her. Unlike other people that were previously in the race, Hillary has represented someone with the full weight of the law bearing down upon them. Unlike other ex-candidates lawyering, she simply couldn’t schmooze the DA, judge, or “victim” to achieve her result. She had to explain to her client why things might go badly, and she had to deal with people who were really did not like her client.
Here in Texas during the last election the party to which most of the sitting judges belonged put out a flier attacking the challengers (mostly criminal defense attorneys including several assistant public defenders) for representing the kind of people we frequently represent.
Ironically, many of those former judges are now representing that same kind of person.
I don’t really see anyone “attacking” her for doing this. All the articles seem to say that she performed her job adequately, and attacking the credibility of a “victim” is par for the course.
I have a good deal of sympathy for these complaints. However, lawyers who represented big business rarely get such fearsome defenses when people criticize them for representing business. Moreover, Hillary blasted Obama for his representation of a “slumlord.”
Look at this for instance:
For example
Yes, not everyone has that same viewpoint, as I mentioned in the post itself, but this isn’t anything really new. This is a prevalent viewpoint, one that we encounter often from friends, acquaintances and strangers.
Look folks, is political. For whatever sick reason some lawyers go into politics. The opponents of such ex-lawyers (as politicians are not really lawyers in my book) will say anything to get elected, and will bash their choice of clients no matter what. The reason that some lawyers might not get the same level of bashing is that the general public generally doesn’t possess the brain power to understand what a “corporate” lawyer does in the first place, but the lower classes will understand that people that are involved with criminal litigation do.
But, I think that one can make the argument that her performance in this situation is telling of how she would perform under a stressful situation. (In fact, I think it reflects positively upon her, however, I don’t have first hand knowledge of her.) Many people of her age would simply not have the composure to represent someone in such high stakes litigation and would completely flip out.
Now, this doesn’t mean that Obama or McCain is any more or less cool, it is just an example of something that someone did.