I Pit This Gang Rapist and His Legal Team

[Bricker]

@phouka

I don’t see anyone here arguing against Constitutionally protected right to legal representation, defense, or appeal.

What I see is more than a few people disgusted with unethical, dishonest, and immoral attempts to set the convicted free or mitigate the convicted’s sentence for no good reason. While the judicial system is certainly in place to deny or accept requests based on legally sound reasons, asking the court to reduce a convicted rapist’s sentence because his victim did not suffer any harm is beyond the pale. A vigorous defense should not contain outright lies or distortions or a complete denial of culpability and consequence. Any lawyer who thinks denying the harm done by such a vicious crime (that did happen and for which the defendent was found guilty) is a legitimate tactic in an ethical defense should be disbarred.

I’ll say that again:

Any lawyer who thinks denying the harm done by such a vicious crime is a legitimate tactic in an ethical defense should be disbarred.

Period.

End of story.

1. Did you read the linked story?

2. Did the victim suffer any lasting physical bodily injury?

3. Did the lawyer say the victim suffered no harm and stop, or was the next sentence out of his mouth a qualification that he was discussing physical harm?

[Shamozzle]

In the article cited in the OP, the defending lawyer is quoted as saying:

“The Gosling Park incident appears to take place over less than one hour.”

“There was no significant harm caused to the complainant.”

Now I realize it’s his job to act upon the legal interests of his client, and that everyone has a right to such service, but if this lawyer doesn’t abso-fucking-lutely hate his job at times, then he’s a world-class turbo-douche.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Shamozzle

Now I realize it’s his job to act upon the legal interests of his client, and that everyone has a right to such service, but if this lawyer doesn’t abso-fucking-lutely hate his job at times, then he’s a world-class turbo-douche.

That is a statement I can agree with.

[Contrapuntal]

@Bricker

If you’ll read the story – not just the headline – you’ll see that the lawyer qualified his statement as meaning “No significant physical harm.” That’s (presumably) true, and it distinguishes the terrible tragedy of a rape from the even worse tragedy of a rape compounded by significant, lasting physical bodily damage.

I did read the story, thank you. If you have drawn another conclusion, it is invalid.

I see no reason to assume from the quoted text that he was qualifying his statement rather than just adding another item to the list. At any rate, as I stated above, to refer to gang rape as insignificant in the physical sense is to lack empathy to an appalling degree.

No one is sacrificing his humanity and saying rape isn’t significant harm. But he should point out, especially when seeking a modification of sentence, that we’re not talking about a case in which lasting physical bodily injury was a factor.

So “significant” means “lasting physical bodily?” Really? Must be some kind of legal term.

You’d kind of think, him being a zealous defense lawyer and all, and a paragon of the profession, that a certain precision of speech would be part of the deal, and that if he meant “lasting physical bodily harm” he would have said so.

[VinylTurnip]

@Malthus

As an aside - this thread makes me seriously wonder how some people envisiage how a really perfect justice system would work.

Maybe one in which both sides see “truth” as something to strive for, rather than a regrettable inconvenience to be twisted, battered, spun, concealed, or completely avoided in the interest of your side winning at any cost? (Hey, you didn’t specify that it had to be plausible…)

Legal defense (of even the most odious filth) is, of course, a necessity—and as with carting away my trash, de-gutting and chopping up animals for my dinner, and filtering the shit from the effluvium exiting my home on a daily basis, I’m grateful to the elect few willing to hold their noses, cross their fingers behind their backs, and do a job I’d never want to do myself.

[Miller]

@Bricker

Their ethics require they vigorously defend their client within the bounds of the la.

But only is he gets paid plenty of doh.

[Otto]

@Really Not All That Bright

You can’t “show that client the door” in the middle of the sentencing phase in a criminal trial.

Well, you can show it to them, but they can’t really go through it because it’s locked.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Contrapuntal

You’d kind of think, him being a zealous defense lawyer and all, and a paragon of the profession, that a certain precision of speech would be part of the deal, and that if he meant “lasting physical bodily harm” he would have said so.

You’d think, since you’re apparently much more familiar with the facts of the case than we are, you’d be able to tell us what physical injury she did suffer.

@Otto

Well, you can show it to them, but they can’t really go through it because it’s locked.

Win.

[Miller]

@Contrapuntal

This is what he said, as far as we know.
“The Gosling Park incident appears to take place over less than one hour,” he told the court.

“There was no significant harm caused to the complainant. No significant physical injury.”
He seems to be saying that since it didn’t last an hour, no significant harm occurred.

No, he’s saying it “only” lasted an hour, as opposed to, say, two or three days.

He then adds that no significant physical injury occurred. Your take is that he means “physical injury” when he says “harm,” but it is by no means the only interpretation, or a *necessary *interpretation.

No, but it is both the most likely, and most obvious interpretation, unless you’re deliberatly looking for a reason to be pissed off at a lawyer.

Is being physically assaulted by a gang of men for 55 minutes insignificant, physically? Would you feel that way if it happened to you? Your loved one? It’s a bullshit statement.

And to imply that a gang rape by fourteen men is somehow mitigated by the fact that it didn’t even last an hour is heartless. He should be ashamed. He should quit his job if doing it properly forces him to make such appalling claims.

Jesus, dude, he’s not arguing that a gang rape isn’t a big deal, he’s arguing that this isn’t the worst possible instance of rape that could have occured, and therefore, doesn’t deserve the worst possible punishment one can impose for rape. They didn’t beat her bloody while they were raping her. They didn’t try to cut her throat so she couldn’t report it. They didn’t drag her off to some remote cabin and rape her over and over for days on end. There’s a hundred thousand ways this attack could have been worse, but pointing that out isn’t the same as saying what did happen is okay.

[Bricker]

@Don't Call Me Shirley

Bullshit. Lawyers do it all the time with respect to defense tactics. For example, I see them constantly talking defendants out of testifying on their own behalf.

I trust you can see the difference between urging their clients to do X, and accepting that the client has the ultimate authority to decide X. Even in the example you give, it’s not unheard of for a lawyer to plead with a client not to testify, and yet ultimately be forced to call him to the stand, because the client insists, steamrollering right over the lawyer’s objection.

[Mr.Excellent]

@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup

Except for the facts that

1. the lawyer is not permitted to substitute his own judgment for the client’s;
2. it is the CLIENT’s case and ultimate decision;
3. you have no idea what went on in the attorney’s meetings with his client; and
4. you are attempting to substitute your own judgment for the client’s;

you’re spot-on.

Excellent analysis.

You’ve got it. The first thing we learn in legal ethics is that the clients determines his own legal objectives, and the lawyer’s duty is to use those (lawful and ethical) tactics which best advance those objectives. This is absolutely necessary - say, for example, that my client wished to challenge his involuntary commitment to a psychiatric institution. I may sincerely believe that he needs to be committed - but if I simply apply my own assessment of his “best interests”, instead of his own, then he (and others in similar circumstances) could never get the legal representation they needed.

[pravnik]

@Contrapuntal

This is what he said, as far as we know.
“The Gosling Park incident appears to take place over less than one hour,” he told the court.

“There was no significant harm caused to the complainant. No significant physical injury.”
He seems to be saying that since it didn’t last an hour, no significant harm occurred. He then adds that no significant physical injury occurred. Your take is that he means “physical injury” when he says “harm,” but it is by no means the only interpretation, or a *necessary *interpretation.

That has to be the necessary interpretation, because he can’t argue outside the evidence. If he argued she suffered no emotional harm when the uncontorverted evidence showed that she would be in treatment until she was 80 for her PTSD, or that she suffered no immediate physical injury when she was actually hospitalized for a month, or that she suffered no lasting physical injury when she actually suffered horrible scarring and a complete hysterectomy, the prosecutor would be on his or her feet screaming bloody murder, because it’s improper argument.

[Mr.Excellent]

@phouka

I’ll say that again:

Any lawyer who thinks denying the harm done by such a vicious crime is a legitimate tactic in an ethical defense should be disbarred.

Period.

End of story.

Why? The severity of a crime is one of the factors that’s weighed in sentencing - it’s part of the adversarial legal practice.

Here’s a thought experiment: Let’s say that this victim claimed that, in the course of the rape, her arm was broken. The defense team finds evidence that, in fact, the victim’s arm was broken a week earlier in a skiing accident. Should the defense attorneys be disbarred for presenting this evidence, and denying that some of the harm - the broken arm - was sustained in the rape? I doubt you’d agree to that. Why should similar arguments regarding psychological harm be beyond the pale?

(Note: I’m not saying that an argument the rape wasn’t psychologically harmful would be particularly persuasive - just that it’s not unethical to try it.)

[Autolycus]

@Malthus

As an aside - this thread makes me seriously wonder how some people envisiage how a really perfect justice system would work.

Hammurabi’s Code.

[NinetyWt]

@pravnik

Do you mention this in argument? If you don’t, what justification can you give for not doing so? What do you say instead?

See my post #42. Again, I’m glad I’m not an attorney who has to be in situations like that. Well, I’m glad I’m not an attorney period. I’m thankful that other folks are willing to do it.

[Mr.Excellent]

@Autolycus

Hammurabi’s Code.

As I understand it, Hammurabi’s Code largely dealt with sentencing, not the fact-finding process. So far as that side of things goes - how 'bout Trial by Ordeal?

[Maeglin]

@Mr. Excellent

As I understand it, Hammurabi’s Code largely dealt with sentencing, not the fact-finding process. So far as that side of things goes - how 'bout Trial by Ordeal?

Combat. Trial by combat. That I could get behind.

[Jackmannii]

Mr Haesler also said the 18-year sentence was manifestly excessive.

“The Gosling Park incident appears to take place over less than one hour,” he told the court.

“There was no significant harm caused to the complainant. No significant physical injury.”

How could anyone think that this reflects insensitivity on the part of the defense attorney, or that his statements might untowardly influence other potential rapists or jurors?

In fact, it reminds me of something a famous (or notorious, take your pick) early to mid-20th century American defense lawyer, Jerry Giesler said in his autobiography. He spoke with pride of one of his greatest career accomplishments, succeeding (in California, at any rate) at getting testimony about the sexual history of underage girls introduced into trials of their alleged rapists.

You just gotta do your best for your client, no matter what comes out of your mouth or what the consequences might be. End of story. Quit whining.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Autolycus

Hammurabi’s Code.

[Daily Show’s America: The Book] 1760 BC: Hammurabi’s Code redefines social contract from “I will kill you” to “I will kill you if you do any one of the follow 1,462 things” [/DS’s A:tB]

[Mr.Excellent]

@Don't Call Me Shirley

He didn’t try to talk the guy into doing what was in his best interest. And I know that because I asked him. He just waited for the check to clear and then did something harmful to his client.

I think **Mosier **made an excellent point. The lawyer’s code of ethics was written by lawyers. Its intent is not to ensure fairness or justice, and it is not necessarily based upon any other ethics or morals. So the lawyer’s code of ethics can be the opposite of what any reasonable person would define “ethical” to be, and the lawyers can still claim that they are being ethical. For instance, in the lawyer’s code of ethics, it is perfectly acceptable to lie and say that rape victims are not harmed by the crime, because the ends justify the means. A reasonable (ie: non-lawyer) person looks at that and sees it for the absurdity that it is. But the lawyers can point to their own code of ethics and state that it is perfectly acceptable to state that a rape victim is not harmed by a rape, because their ethics tell them so. The fact that lawyer’s code of ethics have no relationship to ethics in the real world is why debates like this one arise.

Don’t Call Me Shirley, have you ever read the Model Rules of Professional Conduct? If you haven’t, I recommend it - I think it may address a lot of your misunderstandings about legal ethics. It’s online, here: http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/mrpc_toc.html . I know someone else has already posted a link, but it might be helpful to point out a few points:

** Rule 3.1 - Meritorious Claims and Contentions **

A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.

Note that this rule does not allow lawyers to lie, or misrepresent facts, or otherwise act dishonestly. It does allow lawyers to say to the other side, for every claim they make, “Really? Prove it.”

Rule 3.3 “Candor Toward The Tribunal” elaborates upon a lawyer’s duty to act honestly:

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

  (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

  (2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or

  (3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false. [. . .] 

So, lawyers can’t put on evidence they know is false, or lie themselves. These rules seem consistent with “reasonable people” would view to be ethical to me - do you disagree? The rules also include other provisions that seem consistent with ordinary morality - for example, lawyers are encouraged to offer “pro bono” legal services.

Can you point to something in the MRPC, or your local bar’s code of ethics, that seems genuinely inconsistent with ordinary morality?

ETA: Fixed name of Model Rules. Darnit, I should know better.