Depo P Adegbile is rejected by senate.

[Stratocaster]

@Lightnin

Occam’s Razor would imply that “They thought he hadn’t gotten a fair trial” would be a more likely motivation, wouldn’t it?

No, I don’t think so. They alleged that the Philly DA’s office had a longstanding practice of jury selection that was discriminatory, and this pattern (that they alone seemed to detect and find persuasive) should have been a factor in the Third Circuit’s decision.

So, if it’s a longstanding pattern, what would Occam’s razor tell us regarding their selection of Mumia as their case to test this argument? There were thousands of convicted black felons who had gone through the same DA office’s “pattern of discrimination.” Why was the time ripe for this argument only when Mumia, an obviously guilty cop killer, could benefit from it? Why only for Mumia?

My hypothesis seems more logical, speculation though it is. It played to the base, with a nationally covered subject. Made the right people happy and made donations more likely. They made their choice, and Adegbile ultimately (and fortunately for us) had to live with it.

[dropzone]

Am I the only one who thought that “Depo P Adegbile” was a new contraceptive? I really need to fix my car radio.

[andros]

No. You’re really, really not.

[Shodan]

@lance_strongarm

No. I take no position on whether the racism allegations are real. I’m saying a few senators don’t know or care if they are real either.

Why are you assuming that senators who vote a certain way don’t know or care whether the allegations are real?

You can’t seem to understand the difference between the facts of the case and the way senators choose how to vote.

You have already stated that you don’t know the facts of the case, so it appears to be you who cannot understand the difference.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=Procrustus]
I would be quite happy with the Civil Rights Division being run by someone with a broader view of racism than yours. It is worse to deny racism where it probably exists than to suspect it where it may not.
[/QUOTE]
Someone who assumes racism “probably” exists with no evidence is not qualified to head the Civil Rights division. We need someone with more sense than that.

Regards,
Shodan

[lance_strongarm]

@Shodan

Why are you assuming that senators who vote a certain way don’t know or care whether the allegations are real?

Because that’s the premise of this thread.

I freely admit it’s an assumption only. It’s probably a good one though given that the vote was unusual and crossed party lines.

You have already stated that you don’t know the facts of the case, so it appears to be you who cannot understand the difference.

Well, no, that’s you continuing not to know the difference. The facts of the case aren’t the issue - that’s the point.

[lance_strongarm]

@Shodan

Someone who assumes racism “probably” exists with no evidence is not qualified to head the Civil Rights division.

“Probably” is a little short of an assumption. It’s more of a guess. One could easily say something “probably” exists, but would require evidence to confirm.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Shodan

Someone who assumes racism “probably” exists with no evidence is not qualified to head the Civil Rights division. We need someone with more sense than that.

The Batson claim is not dependent on whether or not racism exists.

[BigT]

@DigitalC

The problem with this is that the answer could easily have been “all of the above”. Just because that guy was guilty as sin does not mean his civil rights were not violated, that there was no racial discrimination involved and that the race card was not justified.

This is stupid. If the results of finding his civil rights violated doesn’t change his guilty verdict, then there’s no point in bringing it up. As has been pointed out, there are limited funds. Pursuing the “race angle” should be reserved for cases where you might actually have a chance of reversing the verdict.

I didn’t come in here with any preconceptions about this issue. I’d not heard about it, as I don’t follow this stuff anymore. But Shodan and Stratocaster make a compelling case for why the guy did not deserve the nomination. This guy clearly played the race card for the spectacle and not to actually help someone. If he had won, the new trial would still have resulted in the same guilty verdict. That means it would have accomplished nothing.

That’s the ultimate point of any appeal–to reverse the verdict. I know some people want to use the courts for activism, but that requires picking a case where a ruling in your favor would reverse the verdict. Otherwise you are failing at your primary duty, which is to your client.

A defense attorney who pursues a case he knows he has no chance of winning has made a poor choice. And winning means reversing the verdict. That’s why it’s called an appeal. It means “I appeal this verdict.” “I argue that it was wrong.”

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

You know that he would have received a new trial if the appeal succeeded, right?

[Mr.Miskatonic]

The issue that strikes is that the Mumia case has a lot of ‘taint’ on it.

First of all, you have a unrepentant, remorseless cop-killer who had an overwhelming amount of evidence against him.

But even these people deserve a fair trial and fair representation. However, Mumia tried to make a mockery of his own case by acting as his own lawyer, constantly disrupting the court, and trying to make a sham of the case. Despite his antics the trial proceeded without any major violations of Mumia’s rights. This was pretty much agreed unanimously by the PA supreme court in their 90’s review of the case.

Had Agegbile been in place of Jackson, Mumia’s legal assistant during the trial, I doubt many would care much. The man got his day in court and had a legal right to a lawyer. No biggie.

The bigger issue comes with what happened later. Mumia’s lawyers in the 90’s started a lot of myth-making and bullshit lionizing of Mumia. From here we ended up with a lot of people making Mumia out to be a ‘political prisoner’ a ‘hero’ a ‘victim of a racist system’. In addition, Mumia was writing a lot of crap about his fellow prisoners being victims of a racist system, including the fellow death-row inmate who raped a pre-teen girl to death.

The myths, as was later discovered, turned out to be just that. Myths. Not one was ever proved true and in the appeals Mumia’s lawyers didn’t even bring up most of the tales they had been spreading out of the courthouse. Mumia’s appeal flopped badly.

In desperation, Mumia fired his lawyers and signed a laughable affidavid that had been made by someone who could be called a ‘serial confessor’. This bizarro world account was laughable in its narrative and unlikely events - the noblizing of Mumia in this account was raised to Sainthood when he tried to help the dying Faulkner and got shot for his pains.

At this point Mumia was simply seen as a desperate, pathetic man who didn’t want to pay for his crimes, and his defenders seen as foolish kids, opportunistic race-card players, or self-promoting lawyers.

In the final hours the only legitimate complaint about the trial case was made that jury instructions were not complete. But that came along with a load of the usual garbage accusations: Racism, unfair trial, blah, blah blah.

There is a taint with the case now that will affect the lawyers who defended Mumia and frankly I consider that an indicator of their poor judgement. There are probably lots of people in prison or on death row who deserve this level of representation because they did face unfair trials, racism or were convicted on poor evidence. But they didn’t have a fan club.

I’m not crying for Adegbile. He chose to play in the spotlight and now he has to pay the power bill.

[lance_strongarm]

@Mr.Miskatonic

There is a taint with the case now that will affect the lawyers who defended Mumia and frankly I consider that an indicator of their poor judgement. There are probably lots of people in prison or on death row who deserve this level of representation because they did face unfair trials, racism or were convicted on poor evidence. But they didn’t have a fan club.

I’m not crying for Adegbile. He chose to play in the spotlight and now he has to pay the power bill.

Oh come on. Defense lawyers aren’t supposed to take “reasonable” positions - they’re supposed to give their clients as vigorous a defense as possible, and try anything that might work. They shouldn’t be judged negatively for that. Adegbile didn’t say he thought there was racism - he used it as an attempted defense. Big difference. If we judged every defense lawyer by the logic of their defenses, or their clients for that matter, most would be disqualified. He did his job.

And let’s back up here. It’s not really the racism defense that was the defining issue here, it was the client himself - a cop killer. Probably any defense attorney for a cop killer is going to have a tough time in the Senate, regardless of his/her defense issues. The only reason race comes up is the job he was nominated for. The police unions probably don’t even weigh in on other nominees for this office at all.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@lance_strongarm

Oh come on. Defense lawyers aren’t supposed to take “reasonable” positions - they’re supposed to give their clients as vigorous a defense as possible, and try anything that might work. They shouldn’t be judged negatively for that. Adegbile didn’t say he thought there was racism - he used it as an attempted defense. Big difference. If we judged every defense lawyer by the logic of their defenses, or their clients for that matter, most would be disqualified. He did his job.

Defending your client does not give you the right to make baseless, vile, and completely unsubstaniated accusations against innocent parties. Inventing wholecloth racist conspiracies by police to cover the overwhelming guilt of your client will not win you points with anyone. Seriously, try that shit in front of a judge and tell them you were ‘just doing your job’. That will go over well. :rolleyes:

If it is allowed, then tough shit when it bites you in the ass later on.

And let’s back up here. It’s not really the racism defense that was the defining issue here, it was the client himself - a cop killer. Probably any defense attorney for a cop killer is going to have a tough time in the Senate, regardless of his/her defense issues. The only reason race comes up is the job he was nominated for. The police unions probably don’t even weigh in on other nominees for this office at all.

Not automatically, for example most of the JFDF (Justice for Daniel Faulkner) group give Mumia’s original lawyer a decent amount of respect. Partly because he did a thankless job with a losing case and a beligerent client, and partly because he didn’t fall into the nonsense performed by Mumia’s later lawyers (who accused him of incompetence). If Jackson were put up to a prominent judge position I doubt most would shrug any more than they would any other criminal defense attorney put up for the position.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@BobLibDem

And with political decisions come political consequences. Just one more chance for the Republicans to give the back of their hand to black Americans.

Or to cop killer.

@Stratocaster

It is clearly a desperation strategy in support of a spectacularly guilty scumbag.

There are spectacularly guilty scumbags being thrown in jail eery day. Why this one? After all thi stime, why would they step in for this particular scumbag? Why would they expend their erseources this way? Is this particular scumbag particularly well connected or some sort of symbol?

[quote=“Revenant_Threshold, post:482, topic:681742”]

No, i’m not saying that. I have no particular clue as to proportions of the more extreme beliefs of activists or the country or world at large.

[lance_strongarm]

@Mr.Miskatonic

Defending your client does not give you the right to make baseless, vile, and completely unsubstaniated accusations against innocent parties.

OF COURSE it does.

Inventing wholecloth racist conspiracies by police to cover the overwhelming guilt of your client will not win you points with anyone.

Really? Because it just might.

Seriously, try that shit in front of a judge and tell them you were ‘just doing your job’. That will go over well. :rolleyes:

Since it happens all the time in front of judges, I think they can handle it.

If it is allowed, then tough shit when it bites you in the ass later on.

Yes, it’s probably not a good career move to be a defense attorney for high-profile criminals, especially cop killers, before trying to get confirmed in the Senate.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@lance_strongarm

OF COURSE it does.

You say this as a lawyer?

Really? Because it just might.

It didn’t. Some of Mumia’s earlier lawyers didn’t make it part of their case. Mostly because it was fucking stupid.

Since it happens all the time in front of judges, I think they can handle it.

They might handle it by rejecting it outright or maybe giving you a contempt charge.

Yes, it’s probably not a good career move to be a defense attorney for high-profile criminals, especially cop killers, before trying to get confirmed in the Senate.

Not if their defense is accusing the cops of a racist conspiracy without a scrap of evidence, no.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

nm, think i read some quoting wrong.

[lance_strongarm]

@Mr.Miskatonic

You say this as a lawyer?

Let’s not play that game.

Defense attorneys can and do routinely make all kinds of claims, some of them outrageous, in defense of their clients.

It didn’t. Some of Mumia’s earlier lawyers didn’t make it part of their case. Mostly because it was fucking stupid.

Yes. Defense attorneys often make longshot defenses they know probably won’t work. But they are not only smart to do so, they are OBLIGED to do so. They must give their client a vigorous defense. To fail to try something that might work is a failure of that defense. It could be considered malpractice not to.

It doesn’t hurt the client (usually). It might hurt the defense attorney later when he tries to get confirmed by the Senate, but if he’s worried about himself instead of his client, he shouldn’t be a defense attorney.

They might handle it by rejecting it outright or maybe giving you a contempt charge.

Show me a case where a defense attorney was charged with contempt in such a situation.

Not if their defense is accusing the cops of a racist conspiracy without a scrap of evidence, no.

You’re confused - I was agreeing.

Yeah, you did read it wrong. My fault - I wrote it in a confusing way.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@lance_strongarm

Let’s not play that game.

Defense attorneys can and do routinely make all kinds of claims, some of them outrageous, in defense of their clients.

Actually, I would say it is pretty rare that that happens. Most defenses are conventional and try to attack the evidence or the eyewitness accounts. That is a much more solid way of defending a case. While the occasional oddball defense comes up ('black rage" for the Long Island RR shooter, for example) it is often a desperation tactic for a defenseless case.

Yes. Defense attorneys often make longshot defenses they know probably won’t work.

Longshot defenses are made but still within the realm of possible and conventional. Invoking conspiracies is pretty damn rare in the realm of defense -and conspiracies that accuse people of very vile acts and crimes goes beyond longshot and into the realm of pathetic.

But they are not only smart to do so, they are OBLIGED to do so.

I rather doubt that, or else every trial would be a morass of obscure conspiracy claims, wildcard defenses and other nonsense. Any defense attorney pulling antics like this is wasting his time when concentrating other conventional tactics could work.

They must give their client a vigorous defense. To fail to try something that might work is a failure of that defense. It could be considered malpractice not to.

A vigorous defense does not mean throwing everything you can come up with and hope something sticks. He was doing his job when making a case for the improper jury instructions, he did not have a leg to stand on when making conspiracy claims.

[Procrustus]

@Mr.Miskatonic

I rather doubt that, or else every trial would be a morass of obscure conspiracy claims, wildcard defenses and other nonsense. Any defense attorney pulling antics like this is wasting his time when concentrating other conventional tactics could work.

A vigorous defense does not mean throwing everything you can come up with and hope something sticks. He was doing his job when making a case for the improper jury instructions, he did not have a leg to stand on when making conspiracy claims.

If the guy is innocent, there must have been a conspiracy.

Personally, I didn’t know too much about Adegbile’s involvement. I was fairly aware of the underlying case. I’ve been googling for the past hour or so to try to learn what this lawyer did that was so offensive. Certainly nothing the senators have said sounds like a valid reason to block the nomination.