The Constitution is a wet blanket
The Constitution was intended to be many things: a guide, a charter, founding principles and at the very least a set of instructions for those that sought to build a just and fair country from the ashes of rebellion.
What it was never intended to be was a blanket, and a wet one at that. Unfortunately, state Sen. Tim Burchett, R-Knoxville, TN (hey! stop rolling your eyes) didn’t get that particular memo.
So, in his Tennesseean way, he has introduced a bill making it a felony for criminal defense lawyers to make “unproven insinuations” about crime victims during the course of a trial.
Lawmakers said it isn’t fair for attorneys to try to make criminals out of victims during a trial. However, some attorneys believe this notion is unconstitutional.
The discussion for the new law came about after a couple in Knoxville was tortured and killed in 2007. The parents of Channon Christian listened to the graphic details in court last year and said defense attorneys insinuated their daughter used drugs.
“They criminalize the victims. They are in the grave. They have no defense,” said state Sen. Tim Burchett, a Republican from Knoxville.
The irony of this all is that it is prosecutors who far more often commit egregious acts during the course of trials. It is prosecutors who engage in misconduct impropriety more often than defense attorneys. Yet, prosecutors are immune from civil liability.
Police departments cannot be sued unless there was no probable cause for an arrest. The so-called “forensic experts” in child sex cases can coax a victimization out of a rock, yet there are no consequences for them when the “allegation” is later proven to be utterly false.
No, it is everyone’s favorite punching bag and scum of the Earth, the criminal defense lawyer, who must expose himself to criminal liability for doing the very thing that the Constitution mandates: defending the accused.
It’s not like there aren’t avenues for discipline of defense lawyers who engage in offensive behavior: prosecutors and judges are free to file grievances if they think the lawyer has crossed the line: this results in suspensions and disbarments.
But to create a whole new category of criminal offense for merely giving the jury a reason to question the credibility of complainants? Might as well do away with the whole “trial” thing, no?
While lawyers have called this bill unconstitutional, Burchett said it is the right thing to do.
“If I was member of the legal community, I would quit wrapping myself up in the Constitution and start thinking about what’s right,” said Burchett.
I could say many things here, all sarcastic, all witty, all derisive, but I don’t think anything I can come up with can top the sheer stupidity emanating from every pore of that statement, so I shall let it stand on its own.
Wow is all I can say. I can’t believe that a senator is actually advising attorneys to “quit wrapping themselves up in the Constitution.” Maybe judges and police officers should stop wrapping themselves up in the Constitution as well? This sounds like a direct call for anarchy.
Perhaps, guys, you ought to think about what is generating such a proposal.
Relatives of crime victims can choose not to attend trial if they are so sensitive that “unproven insinuations” would upset them. They can leave court during that portion of cross-examination.
A defendant, however, has no choice. He has to be there to hear the prosecution vilify him (if innocent), or to hear his sentencing (if guilty).
Mark your post is completely obtuse. First of all, let’s not forget that with respect to victims’ families, they didn’t ask to be in the position they’re in. I’m sure the Newsoms and the Christians felt duty-bound to attend the trial of that subhuman scum that killed their children. (The facts of that case are about as bad as you can get.) So your “well, they can leave” is a pretty disgusting comment. Additionally, people aren’t exactly jazzed about bogus insinuations of drug use or what have you with respect to their dead kids even if they’re not there.
As for the idea that the poor defense attorney is going to expose himself to criminal liability for “defending the accused”, please. There may be loads of cases where the victims’ conduct is relevant to the guilt of the accused, and, of course, the evidence has to come in (unless it is more prejudicial than probative), but irrelevant casual asides? There’s no need for it–unless you’re just trying to get the jury to hate the victim, and in that case, there should be no protection.
I wouldn’t go so far as criminal liability, but the bench, I think, has an obligation to discipline lawyers who play this little game.
By the way, this is why many people absolutely despise defense attorneys:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/11/jaycee.dugard.journal/index.html?hpt=C1
The defense attorney is trying to help this scum revictimize the victim. She can rot in hell.