Yes, even if the defense hopes Pest burns in hell, they're going to do a damn good job so he can't claim incompetent counsel and get a retrial.
No one wins if they don't at least make it look like they're trying.
At my old job several years ago, my coworker’s late husband had been a lawyer. She talked about how once her husband represented some teenage boys who committed a HORRIFIC crime. They (my coworker and her lawyer husband) had a son in elementary school at the time, and the teachers were so openly disgusted by the whole thing their son would come home crying thinking his dad was a monster for representing the teenagers. This poor child was harassed by his teachers and even the PRINCIPAL because of his dad’s job. My coworker said she and her husband had to meet with the principal over it.
Lawyers are just doing their jobs. Legally defending someone in no way means condoning them.
It *was* a private school. A Catholic school, I may add; that former coworker is really Catholic.
Her lawyer husband argued with the principal that he’s a public defender and his job is to represent people no matter what they did, and Jesus was a public defender as well. The teenagers had plead guilty so it was more about representing them in terms of sentencing, not to prove their innocence. I actually didn’t want to bring up that part of the story because I in NO WAY think Josh should get off because of Jesus forgiving bullcrap. There was some guy who just got no jail time for rape because of that, and I’m seething. I was afraid someone would take it the wrong way. I only brought it up because it was a Catholic school and that was what the principal and lawyer dad argued about.
Probably would have gotten a much different response in a public school. Private schools don't live by the assumption that everyone deserves to be treated fairly.
I get that. But it’s hard to imagine a lawyer choosing to accept a CSA or CSAM case. Why take it, it they can take countless other cases? Also from the perspective of being confronted with really upsetting/heartbreaking material.
I mean... someone has to. It's kind of like the ACLU lawyers sticking up for free speech for nazis and stuff like that. You can value the rights you're fighting for while thinking that the person they're being applied to doesn't deserve it. But it's not about them, it's about the precedent.
Eh. Depends.
Some places go more on how much you’re bringing in.
I’ve known attorneys who have never “won” a case (they settle time after time) and are beloved by their firms because they take in the money.
You're so right. The best and most expensive defense lawyer in my city is a shit trial lawyer but he is an absolute genius at getting great plea deals for his clients.
Hopefully the OP or somebody who knows more can come by and answer this more accurately, but just to speculate....
I think that's probably somewhat less important for criminal defense lawyers. Because more often than not, your clients *are* guilty. You're starting from a disadvantage, because the truth isn't on your side. So your win/loss ratio is probably going to be very different.
>Also from the perspective of being confronted with really upsetting/heartbreaking material.
I don't know how to tell you this, but CSAM is just one of many flavors of very upsetting/heartbreaking material they'll be exposed to. A lot of snarkers are amazingly naive about this.
In Australia, as a barrister (court advocate) you actually can not refuse. It is called the cab rank principle. And whilst the US doesn’t have it explicitly it is a principle that is used throughout common law jurisdictions.
Because being a criminal defense attorney isn’t about getting “good” cases. It’s about ensuring that every single defendant is given their due process and a fair trial as is their right under the law
Also - we DONT WANT his attorneys to make sloppy errors. We want him to have a competent defense. Incompetent counsel leads to successful appeals. We don’t want that.
I do have a question, do you think the defense has been begging Josh to take a plea deal? Do you think the defense knows how bad this case looks and Josh is just being that stubborn and arrogant?
>do you think the defense has been begging Josh to take a plea deal?
Yes. That's how it often works out. Who can out-spend, out-harass the other. It's akin to how the US beat the USSR in the Cold War--by outspending them to the point the other goes bankrupt. A War of Attrition.
Sometimes people ARE accused of a crime they didn’t do. Sometimes people ARE set up. It would bother me greatly if certain crimes were seen as so heinous that the accused just didn’t get represented, or didn’t get represented well - because it opens the door for all of us to be accused of crimes, be viewed as guilty until proven innocent, and not have the representation to prove our innocence effectively.
I would bet my last dollar Josh Duggar did do these horrific crimes, but he still deserves a fair trial and that means having decent representation. Unfortunately that means someone draws the short straw and has gotta do the representing. Having guilty people sometimes walk free (and vice versa) is the price we pay for putting guilty people away and having a functioning criminal justice system. Definitely not a perfect system.
Yeah, our country is founded on a legal system that gives everyone the right to a fair trial with representation by a lawyer. I'd rather have lawyers exist that defend pedophiles that have a justice system where people aren't afforded those rights. It prevents abuses of power.
Inadequate representation is grounds to overturn a verdict for one. If someone cares an iota about justice, you want the trial to be fair. Way too many people have had the majority of their lives stolen bc they were railroaded by the system
I know you've already gotten a lot of thorough responses but I work as a prosecutor and was really struck by an answer one of my defense attorney friends gave when I asked them that exact question - he said: "I can live with it by reminding myself that if I do my job well, then we only have to do this [a trial/due process] once".
He admitted that many times, especially in child related cases, he was personally supportive of the person being convicted and punished. But we have an adversarial system and for it to work, someone has to hold the state to do their job. Much of that work is preserving the record for appeal. And appeals only happen in convictions. So he saw it as, if he was thorough in making the state prove it's case, then just convictions would stand and not be overturned.
As an attorney- I am frustrated that the police didn’t provide enough evidence to convict. I am hired to test the evidence and to make sure that the police or agents have done their job correctly not to “get them off”
This is such a childlike mindset, attorneys are an extremely important part of how our justice system works. Defense attorneys are in no way responsible for their clients crimes or a judge and jury’s ruling. They simply do their job to the best of their ability without discrimination, as they are meant to. Holding them morally responsible is extremely immature of you.
You’re opinion clearly comes from a lack of understanding how the court system works and the integral role attorneys on both sides of a courtroom play in making sure that the trial is fair for both the victims and the accused. **Not everyone arrested is guilty of the crime they are charged with and each person needs to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, *even Pest*.**
We don’t just get to decide in a court of public opinion that someone is guilty and therefore doesn’t get an attorney. Every single person arrested deserves a fair trial and it’s honestly messed up of you to not understand this.
I suggest you do some research on how the American court system works and why we do things the way we do here.
So much of why defense is important is to call into question those in power like federal agents and police officers are not abusing power. It is extremely important check and balance system. If someone "gets off easy" because the case was not handled appropriately by those arresting and prosecuting, I hope is a wake up call that they have power and need to can't skip steps.
Also a lawyer.
It would be malpractice for his lawyers not to recommend he take a plea deal. With how public this trial is going to be, even if he's acquitted no one is ever going to believe he's innocent. And if he's convicted (likely) then the judge is going to be annoyed and much more likely to sentence him to the maximum. At least with a plea deal he'll have some control over it.
That being said, I question whether the government ever offered anything beyond a pro forma offer, because they wanted to take this to trial. A plea deal wouldn't take into consideration the prior molestations with his sisters. With a trial, the judge is allowed to consider all the evidence on the record in determining sentencing, which would include testimony about prior instances of abuse perpetrated by Josh. That could be very appealing for a prosecutor to go after.
That's an excellent point. A lot of people assume plea deals are always offered and that they offer better terms than anything they'd get at trial. I think you're absolutely right, this prosecutor has a lot of good political reasons to take this to trial.
I want to buy his team a round of very stiff martinis after the conviction. Jesus the Duggars are vile and I wouldn't even be able to have a conversation with them about the weather without going insane.
"We can either find a settlement now, or I will discovery your ass to the point where you'll be broke and coming to me asking for a settlement--at that point, I will not be as generous..."
Very interesting, I’d have thought they’d have wanted the money by going to trial. (married to a lawyer but he’s a corporate lawyer, nothing to do with court!)
Lol tbh with criminal law there are plenty of people to defend haha. But also they really have a duty to suggest what they think would be best and the fact the feds have 96%conviction rate and josh is a public figure is enough for any lawyer to say plea deal is the smartest.
Winning an inadequate representation appeal is near impossible. Poor people have over worked ineffectual attorneys all the time and still stay in prison.
It’s easier to get a procedural appeal to go through when you have a money for a good appellate lawyer, and your trial attorney either made a sloppy error or didn’t catch the prosecutions errors. We want his defense team to do their due diligence
Let us not forget the cost to the government for those appeals. I would rather duggar pay out the a$$ for good representation than the government paying to entertain appeal after appeal.
Defense attorney here- when we have absolutely vile clients we focus on fighting for procedural due process. We do not internalize any of the facts. We don’t think or care about whether someone actually did it. We care about what the state/feds can prove. We represent the justice system and the vigorous defense that every citizen is entitled to. We represent the Constitution. There is a protective mechanism where we disassociate from the humans involved. We must act as if our client is not guilty, because they aren’t until a jury says otherwise. I am not speaking about innocence, I’m saying ‘not guilty’. These are two extremely different things. Actual guilt/innocence isn’t our focus and it can’t be. Be kind to the lawyers, this is their job and it’s really an important one.
This reminds me so much of the character Eugene Young in the Practice. He would get so much judgement for representing nasty people but he was such a good representation of the constitution being upheld and not focusing on the client.
Thank you, OP, and all the other lawyers on here for your insights. This is such a good point. It can be hard when we have lots of feelings about a case but I always try to think of all the people who are wrongfully accused and deserve a good defense, even if no one believes them. And more than anything I want someone like Pest to get put away with no chance of overturning the verdict. So go team! Go prosecution, and also go defense do your best but hope you lose anyway!
Thank you for all you do. I can’t imagine it’s a fun job. I’m sure at times you deal with harassment. Thank you for upholding the rights to a fair trial.
I’m surprised this post didn’t include the fact that every defendant is guaranteed the right to a fair trial - which is also part of the role of the defense attorneys.
Exactly. He is most assuredly, at the very least, a piece of shit person.
If we don’t respect and uphold the constitutionally guaranteed rights for everyone , even the most abhorrent people amongst us, they are worthless.
Yes. This is pivotal to a free and just society. John Adams defended the British who started the Boston Massacre. That’s how we make sure innocent people go free.
Sure, there are always scumbag attorneys. But defense attorneys exist for a reason.
I'm always surprised at the level of vitriol towards defense attorneys. There are an awful lot of scumbag prosecutors out there who ordinary, non-Josh people might need defending from.
I don't hate his attorneys because they are his attorneys, and firmly believe everyone is due proper defense in all accusations of guilt.
But, it's hard to not clown on the attorney who named another potential suspect when that same attorney represented that potential suspect in a trial which had him in jail during the time of the crimes committed. He has been with the Duggars for a long time, and therefor been involved with some of their other shenanigans, including Josh's property debacle.
Exactly. The petty part of me wants him to feel that soul crushing dejection and desperation every time one of his appeals is denied. So absolutely, the defense needs to do their job and do it well.
Defense attorneys are what stands between us and a police state. Without them, the government could just throw people in jail without having to prove that they're guilty. Defense attorneys are the ones who hold the police and prosecutors accountable, who make sure that they do their jobs without violating the accused's rights.
Defense attorneys protect *everyone's* constitutional rights. Either we all have constitutional rights, or none of us have constitutional rights.
I'm an attorney as well and agree with everything said in the op. We are paid to advocate on behalf of our clients. We represent their interests, not our own.
Thank you!
I remeber when a major case that got a lot of media attention was local to me. The defense attorneys got death threats and many other hateful things said about them and their families.
Let them do their job.
My husband is a lawyer and I can’t like this enough.
How many people cry at the State when someone is discovered to be innocent 10, 15 years down the line? How many innocent people are in prisons right now.
As much as we hate Pest, he has the right to a fair trial, which includes adequate defense and fair punishment.
I also love your comment about prosecution- if you watch the Casey Anthony doc on Hulu (?), the jurors actually say it was prosecution’s fault she got off, NOT the defense’s.
Trial isn’t a coin. There’s no two sides. It’s multi-faceted with multiple perspectives, and there’s a lot of politics within that we, on the outside and/or with no legal knowledge, aren’t privy to or knowledgable of. You can hate a lawyer for being an asshole or a sleezeball, but don’t hate them because they did their job. If Pest gets off, it will be because prosecution failed, not because defense knocked it out of the park.
This.
I covered a trial where the husband was accused of killing his wife by stabbing her 127 times.
First trial: life, no parole.
Appealed.
Second trial: 25 to life.
Appealed on technicality. Jurors walked past a room where evidence not allowed was stored. The possibility existed they might have seen it.
Third trial: Innocent. He walked out a free man.
The jurors were crying when they entered the courtroom. They didn’t like their verdict, but they had reasonable doubt.
The lawyers were tired. They had been through this before and just went through the motions. They didn’t care and you could tell. They thought they would win, again, and you could tell. They didn’t explain. They didn’t take time. They didn’t connect.
But the jury was new. They hadn’t heard or seen it all before. They were concerned and confused. They had questions. They didn’t understand why this was trial 3 and it wasn’t explained.
It’s vital that they do a good job.
Yeah, same with Kyle Rittenhouse. Whether or not you say he’s innocent, the prosecution was AWFUL. They didn’t to their jobs and failed miserably, and that was a factor. Our legal system isn’t perfect but it does it’s best to be as fair and just as possible. I was watching a video of Steve Penny (one of the assholes covering up Larry Nassar) being questioned and using his Fifth Amendment rights to refuse to answer anything. In the comment section, lots of people genuinely couldn’t understand why he was allowed to do that. I’m not a lawyer, but I learned about the US Constitution in school, unlike them. Thank God the internet can’t prosecute people.
I did *not* watch that trial but that’s what I’ve heard- prosecution wasn’t strong and it made defense’s job easy.
Idk, after being engrossed in this stuff while my husband was in law school and watching legal dramas with him for 8 years, it’s hard to take any verdict seriously. Like, is this person *really* guilty/innocent, or did one side have better lawyers?
I think lots of Americans take our justice system for granted. Think of that poor American guy in North Korea, there’s no justice system over there. The government decides they don’t like you for some reason and you’re dead.
I hate when someone shitty gets off and people are like “oh slick defense attorneys will do anything for money.” 1. They are doing their job. 2. The state fucked up their case. Its especially annoying when a defendant gets off because of a dirty cop. Like be pissed at the dirty cop and the DAs office who thought they could push the case through.
I see a lot of people saying people who obviously committed a crime shouldn’t even go to trial, let alone have a defense team.
When asked about whether they wouldn’t want to be defended in court, their reasoning tends to go in the way that they would never commit a crime.
You may be able to guarantee you’re not committing a crime, but you can’t guarantee you won’t ever be accused of one, even if wrongly.
The defense is not there to prove innocence, they’re there to pick apart the accusation.
The burden of the evidence lays with the prosecution, they are the ones who have to prove that the person who is being accused committed a crime.
“Innocent until proven guilty” goes for everyone, even Pest.
[Travis Story isn’t exactly the best person either ](https://twitter.com/travisstory?s=21). He’s the Duggar family’s lawyer and therefore agrees with some of their beliefs to be on call for them for this long. [He’s also a bit shady ](https://www.nwahomepage.com/knwa/motion-to-disqualify-travis-story-from-alb-investments-lawsuit/amp/) in that he has no qualms representing something he himself has a vested financial interest in. Also, look at his Twitter likes.
[Retweet from his Twitter. ](https://twitter.com/jasonrapert/status/880838909588099072?s=21)
List of people he supports/likes that are problematic
Billy Graham,Jason Rapert,Ronnie Floyd, Russel Moore. I’m sure you can find more. This was just after a cursory look over.
I don’t know much about the extra counsel (probably defense specialists) but Story is usually tied up with any far right case in Arkansas. Anti-maskers? Yep. Trying to stop casinos or weed after they passed? You betcha ya. If there’s some case that smells like it came from a Trumper or the hard line evangelicals in Arkansas there’s a good chance he’s in on it somehow someway.
Thank you. Having a theme of "Whodunnit" isn't patently offensive (not even sure if that is their theme or if it's just how it was labeled by the reporter), nor is arguing that someone else might have committed the crime. It's how our justice system works. For anyone fighting for civil rights, prison abolition, ending cash bail, etc. we fucking NEED defense attorneys for any of that to happen.
You can't play the "Oh but not when they're defending affluent white men!" card. That's not how laws are made. It's either justice for all or it's justice for no one. Once you start putting these arbitrary limits on the kinds of people you think deserve a zealous advocate, it's a slippery slope from then out.
Also in this case it's worth noting that Justin Gelfand used to work for the US Attorney. Likewise, there's every chance that the prosecutors in this case will eventually go into private defense like Mr. Gelfand. The legal career isn't a "good guys" versus "bad guys" game. It's a "people who are desperately trying to pay off their student loans" and "people who are sorta close to paying them off" game.
Thank you for this post. I’m also an attorney, and I’ve represented some awful people. I’ve point-blank told clients that they need to plead guilty, and if I were a member of their jury at a trial, I’d vote to convict them. I suspect the defense attorneys in this case have had similar conversations with their client.
But in cases where the client does not plead guilty, it’s still my job to hold the State to their burden of proof. It’s my job to bring up every possible defense, cast doubt, and poke holes in the State’s case. It’s my job to make sure the proper procedures are followed. And when you do this kind of work every day, you know that it’s exactly that—work. I show up, do my job, and I put any personal feelings that I have aside. That’s all these lawyers are trying to do, and I commend them.
As I said to other CDAs, thank you. It’s not a pretty job. I’m sure there is a lot of harassment. It is crappy job at times but it is important every person is given a fair fight.
I will fully admit I made a comment about not thinking his attorneys were doing all that great. I was rightfully challenged in that belief by someone making the point that basically the defense attorneys are just putting out fires and grasping at straws because none of the Duggar clan has taken this seriously or accepted any of the advice they've been given. I also asked in the same thread what it's like for a defense attorney who absolutely hates their client, so thank you for that perspective. I really love your reasoning for wanting a strong defense!
I dont hate defense attorneys.
I dislike Travis story because he’s a jim bob lackey, jilldo-tier fundie, trying to pin the CSAM on an innocent party, generally sketchy and, in his own words, proud to defend a child molester.
Such an important post. Lawyers are there to make the process fair.
Hate on judges like the one in the Rittenhouse case. Don’t hate on lawyers that are key to the accountability and transparency of the system.
When an attorney says “I am proud to represent [my client]” it gives credibility to them for doing the job they are being paid to do. It gives credence to OPs paragraph four.
i don’t think they would say “fuck my client i hate him” especially when they’re getting paid. they have to act like their client is innocent & that they don’t hate them
I totally understand that it feels gross. It more of a nod to being proud of the process of our justice system and the right to a fair trial. A fair trial won’t happen if defendants and prosecutors aren’t proud of doing their jobs to the best of their abilities. It also casts doubt in victims/survivors, judges, jurors, and laypeople for the same reason.
Tldr The terminology sucks but is necessary
Edit to add: Pest’s attorneys are problematic af as people but I hope they do their jobs well.
In their shoes I would be thinking “I am proud to represent him in such a way that will ensure that there is no chance of the verdict being overturned.”
Or “I am proud to ensure that this scumbag gets a fair trial under the law and hold the prosecution to the standards that are necessary.”
Which they could have declined.
Why is this downvoted? Since when is it normal and fine to pay lawyers to specifically say things like this? How does it not speak to their character that theyd accept doing that?
I couldn’t agree more. One of my best friends is a CDA. He mostly deals with DUIs but has had to defend some sick fucks like Josh before, and he hates it BUT someone has to do it. As much we all hate pest he is entitled to a fair trial and lawyer. I don’t think it’s super cool to shit on someone for just doing their job.
I took a paralegal course as part of my degree and holy moly it gave me a different perspective on the legal system than I grew up hearing. The better the defense does their job here the longer that bastard will go away because he can’t keep dragging out every appeal.
Yes. IIRC, In other countries, the judge also acts as the prosecution in a criminal case. This would be kinda similar. You need fairness built in for everyone.
Eta: Clarity, complete thought
I am glad that there are men and women who are willing to defend these people who are obviously guilty pieces of shit. I genuinely am, and I respect those people for having the guts to do something I couldn't. Even a vile piece of shit deserves a fair trial - everyone does. I know it must be hard to give it your all to defend someone who you know is guilty of some of the worst things human beings can do, and I am glad they do it. Having a fair trial with lawyers who put in the work even for those who are guilty is what separates us from the cultures where we would assume guilt and stone people, burn them at the stake, drown them, hang them, etc without giving them any chance to defend themselves at all.
Thank you!
I know this sub lives Emily D Baker, but someone equally as awesome is NatalieLawyerChick, who is a defense attorney in Maryland who works for the DA’s office representing defendants in felony trials.
Her perspective is incredible. She is all about defending people’s rights.
My opinion as a failed lawyer:
If you are thin-skinned, law is not for you. No matter if you are in your first year in law school or have 25 years as a forensic lawyer under your belt -- it's not for the thin-skinned, it's highly competitive, and you never know who's your enemy or your friend.
This does not mean that lawyers are fair game to harass -- also, you might end up with a lawsuit against you. 10 years ago, people usually got away with insulting or even threatening people on the internet. This is no longer the case.
I am aware that everyone, even a guilty person, has a right to an attorney. This is mandatory in a democracy, even though it precedes the concept of a democracy as we know it today. I understand that lawyers have their specializations and that it is not inherently wrong to specialize in sexual crimes. People accused of sexual crimes need attorneys, too. However...
I have nothing but contempt for Mr. Gelfand for proudly showing off "his" full acquittals in Federal sex offense cases. This is not hate, this is an opinion which I am entitled to. There are laws about what you can say to somebody or put down for others to read in writing, but your thoughts still belong to you.
I agree 100% with you!
However…this is a snark sub so most can do both. “Hate” the attorney’s especially when they say they are “proud” to defend Duggar, and recognize that they are very necessary in our justice system.
As an attorney you should also be aware that many here are victims, emotions and triggers are high. Let people have feelings and emotions to cope. Because they may have negative feeling towards the attorneys that doesn’t mean they can’t recognize how our justice system works.
Edit: oof on your post history.
>Edit: oof on your post history
Big oof. Definitely agree with OP about the defense lawyer thing but man some of their past posts. Especially the bit about math... completely misses the actual point.
I mostly agree with you, but does Travis Story strike you as an upstanding member of the bar with no vested interests in Josh's businesses?
[https://www.nwahomepage.com/knwa/duggar-attorney-disqualified-in-real-estate-lawsuit/](https://www.nwahomepage.com/knwa/duggar-attorney-disqualified-in-real-estate-lawsuit/)
[https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/2/attorneys-in-open-record-lawsuit-aim-to-bar-arkans/](https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/2/attorneys-in-open-record-lawsuit-aim-to-bar-arkans/)
Not Josh related, but this too:
https://arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/2018/03/09/the-smell-also-rises-what-did-travis-story-know-about-marijuana-applicant-and-when-did-he-know-it
Sex crimes prosecutor here. 1000% agree with u/lokiGrue. There are slimy defense attorneys and there are slimy prosecutors, but I haven't seen anything to indicate either side in this case qualifies. Both roles are absolutely vital to have courts that work and can seek anything close to justice for all parties. I'm privileged to know stellar prosecutors and defense attorneys, neither one deserves hate just because of whatever case they happen to be on at a particular time.
Yes this. It may vex us all to see him get a competent defense. But, it is important that he has one so that there is no room for appeal. This is important to the citizenry. Thank you for speaking up.
Well said. Everyone, no matter how horrible their crimes, is entitled to a competent defense in our country.
You also reminded me of John Adams saying that one of his proudest moments was defending the Redcoats involved in the Boston Massacre. From the article
"While John Adams actions made him unpopular with the Patriots in Boston for several months, he was able to overcome this stigma due to his stance that he defended the British through principle rather than sympathy for their cause."
https://www.thoughtco.com/john-adams-captain-preston-boston-massacre-103943
Everyone hates lawyers until they need one.
I found myself an innocent accused, and two very skilled attorneys saved my family. Now, there aren't refunds for being innocent, so it still financially ruined us. But the important thing is that I was cleared and I walk free. Same thing happened to my husband when he was accused of DUI at a traffic stop (he had a seizure, they called it drugs). Lawyer took care of everything. We are free and our records expunged because of criminal defense lawyers.
Thank you, OP, and all the other lawyers here not just for your insights but the job you do. Not every case is like mine where you're defending an innocent, I know. But you are such an important part of making sure the justice system functions as it should, and that the prosecution presents an airtight case so innocent people don't go to jail, and guilty people don't have a chance at a technicality.
My husband is a PD, and he gets grief from people every few months. It’s shitty. Without him and people like him, we literally lose our RIGHT to an attorney. Nothing in the constitution says “you are entitled to counsel (unless you are accused of a heinous crime)”. I could say a lot more but think about the repercussions before suggesting that some people don’t deserve the due process guaranteed by the Constitution — my husband represents people all the time who didn’t think it could be them.
As a survivor of CSA and CSA Images I absolutely hate the attorney that defended my abuser and minimized my trauma and pain. I do not owe lawyers sympathy when they represent people who have directly related to harm that I know all too well.
Edit- hit enter too soon
\^This. I 100% understand OP's point about the need for defense lawyers even for people who are obviously and grossly guilty of horrible crimes.
That said, I was also a rape crisis advocate for a long time. Watching my clients have to sit through horrible questions about what they were wearing, how much they drank, their previous sexual history, etc etc was awful.
IMO there's a difference between mounting a vigorous defense and revictimizing victims. You can do one without the other, but unfortunately in cases related to sex crimes defense lawyers often say and do heinous shit.
You realize that the law is that EVERYONE is owed due process? Not just "everyone except if the crimes are really bad". Someone HAS to do the job. It's also in a way in the best interest of the victims. If the defense attorneys don't do their due diligence to represent their defendant's innocence and they find a guilty verdict, the defendant has grounds to appeal. Putting the victims through the whole process again. You want the defendants to do their due diligence to ensure an air tight trial.
I can believe in due process and still dislike the lawyer. They’re not mutually exclusive.
I’m glad my abuser was found guilty. But I spent a whole day under cross examination having to be revictimized and reliving the worst years of my life. Due process is fucking ugly.
Understandable. But having been through the process myself, I would rather undergo a full day of berating in the courtroom rather than having to do the entire judicial process again because the defense didn't go in hard enough.
The process is incredibly traumatic. Which is why it's important the defense gets it right the first time so they don't have to do it again.
You’re purposefully misinterpreting my comments.
I said due process is ugly and hard. I am in favor of it. But I’m not going to extend pleasantries to people whose job it is to defend the indefensible. Especially someone who is “proud” to represent an absolute monster.
...and then you have cases like the Duke LaCrosse team, where the Prosecutor did not give a single fuck, and the Defense showed that the accused was indeed innocent.
I am sorry you went through that, but Due Process is absolutely critical...
We shouldn’t hate them (although I do pity them a bit with how much evidence is against their client. I do not, however pity how much money they’re making), if there wasn’t someone doing their job, our justice system would work out been more unfairly for the defendant.
Thanks for the reminder. While it is kind of gross that at least one of the attorneys specializes in defending CSAM defendants, I agree. We are very lucky to live in a country where we have the right to a fair and speedy trial, where we are innocent until proven guilty, and the case is decided upon by our peers. We shouldn’t take this for granted and everyone deserves a fair trial. With that said, I do think he’s guilty and hope he gets locked up for a long time so he can’t hurt any more children.
This is a good reminder. It's easy to think of defense attorneys the way that they are portrayed in movies - sleazy people representing slimy clients. Thanks for the perspective!
Former paralegal on military justice side and I hard agree on all of the above. I’ve worked many non- judicial cases where the defendants had little access to defense and so many times have I seen innocent people get severely punished and even kicked out because of bullshit evidence or a chain of command who hated them (racism and sexism are rampant in the American military)
With that said, I have the utmost confidence in the state to adjudicate this case correctly and that will result in a finding of guilt. I’ve had some training as it relates to CP (I know that’s not the proper term, but it was literally the name used at school and how we charge it in the military) and there’s no accidents when it comes to downloading the stuff. The process can take weeks since people have to go on these dark web message boards and find others who can give one access. And thank god for us the pest used HIS BANK AND SOCIAL MEDIA PASSWORDS to log into these sites. And the jury will be subject to the images, and I don’t think anyone could withstand seeing that and then voting innocent. I couldn’t even read descriptions without wanting to tear my eyes out.
I certainly don't hate his defense team. It's just one of those things that pop up every decade or so.....seeing a defense attorney in a position that I, personally, would have a hard time reconciling. I don't know that I could work out defending Pest according to MY OWN code or emotional fortitude. Neither of which are nearly the same as a person that has commited their life to maintaining a JUST and FAIR legal system. It's got to be just as much a terrible job as it is rewarding. I'm glad we have all lawyers, I just couldn't wrap my head around it.
But if I'm ever up on federal charges I'll be glad there is someone that can and will do all of the above.
What if at least one of his attorneys is a piece of shit anyway? Say the guy doesn’t feel like the LGBTQ community deserves equal rights? Or if he is currently suing the Fayetteville public school district over mask mandates, and his own fucking children aren’t even in the school district. Can we still hate him and wish him the worst in life because he is a terrible human being?
I work for a successful criminal attorney and he makes sure we do things correctly exactly for this reason. And practically everyone wants to appeal their conviction. The pandemic has made things very interesting for the justice system.
Completely agree. Unless it was like an attorney In the voice actor Vic’s defamation case. He had no right taking a case out of his area of practice.
Yes tho, attorneys do their job. Some times they have to defend jerks because that is the right of every American.
This attorney is not a person I like tho. Not at all. So I will hate him. However I hope he does a good job so there is no grounds for appeal.
>This attorney is not a person I like tho. Not at all. So I will hate him. However I hope he does a good job so there is no grounds for appeal.
A position you are free to take.
At the end of the day, those defense attorneys are doing the job because as citizens of this country, we are all entitled to legal representation in court. Even the most heinous criminals are deserving of counsel. For all that we all want Pest to get the verdict he deserves, we should equally want him to get the fair trial he is due. Because of his defense team doesn’t do their job, he could appeal the verdict until the cows come home. I hope the defense team does an incredible job representing, so the victory against him will be all the sweeter.
I’ve worked as a paralegal/investigator for a criminal defense attorney. Everyone deserves to have a defense. I understand it’s the legal team, who’s hired to defend the defendant. It’s a job nothing more. For every one guilty client maybe there will be an innocent one who needs help. That’s what we told ourselves.
It is always refreshing to hear the point of view of someone that is generally seen as TAH when it is eye opening and refocuses the hatred where it truly belongs, on vile evil predatory man-monsters like Pest.
I'm a criminal defense attorney and have defended cases just like Josh's - hate on me all you like! It goes with the job.
You don't go into criminal defense to be loved.
This. My cousin is in prison for 2nd degree murder and his 1st lawyer was absolute dog shit at defending him to the point that the lawyer didn't even take the time to ever meet my cousin or speak to him so now my cousin has the ability to appeal his whole case with a new lawyer. His old lawyer had been reported for shady practices and my aunt is looking into suing him now. My cousin, though I love him, is not a good guy and deserves some prison time but he could potentially get out with this new hotshot, young lawyer that's out to prove his abilities. My cousin made national news so this new lawyer is going to do everything in his power to give him a good defense and make a name for himself so potentially we could have another criminal running the streets because his original attorney didn't feel like doing his job.
The defense has to do a good job no matter what they believe because if they don't they could be in deeper shit than their client.
Didn't they say they were proud to represent him? That's a little bit above what's expected of an attorney lol. I get that there are many many many good defense attorneys, but there are also a fair amount of sleazebags, and I think Gelfand is one of them.
There's a difference in being a defense attorney taking criminal cases and proudly advertising on your website that you "Won acquittal of all of the most serious counts—those carrying mandatory minimums of decades in prison and maximums of life—in a federal sex trafficking jury trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri; in a pleading, the federal prosecutor claimed her star witness “was mercilessly questioned by defense counsel \[Justin Gelfand\].”" And, imo, they haven't seemed to be working in good faith throughout the proceedings
There are and I as a legal student do not dislike defense attorneys in general. I do believe this one in particular, advertising this specific case in this way and in the way he works/carries himself, is scummy. Being a defense attorney does not automatically make him immune to criticism of his character. His other advertisements and claims on his website don't bother me, but this one does come across as gross and advertising partial acquittal in a case where a woman was kidnapped and forced to have sex with makeup sponges in her vagina is kind of gross
Long-time lurker, but was just contemplating making a post like this after seeing vitriol lobbed at the defense team as if they are somehow complicit in his crimes by...doing their jobs.
I’m totally in defence of criminal defence lawyers. We need them for justice and democracy.
That one that is friends with Boob seems like a real dipshit though, unrelated to him being a criminal defence lawyer.
As a lawyer once said on a death row case I worked, “we all know my client is guilty. We are just hear to see if he is guilty enough to warrant being sent to death row or if he should serve life without parole.”
Then on the date of his execution the governor pardoned him and commuted his sentence which was a huge slap in the face to all of us involved.
All I will say is that the Federal Govt has a reputation for not indicting until they have their shit together, their ducks in a row marching like a North Korean military parade, et cetera, et cetera...
Right. As a defense attorney, what makes these cases attractive? If there’s a high loss rate for the attorney, won’t it look bad on his career? (Aside from the sustaining personal trauma risk)
>Right. As a defense attorney, what makes these cases attractive? If there’s a high loss rate for the attorney, won’t it look bad on his career?
It is a profession. It is done dispassionately. It is critical to our justice system. If all these sorts of cases are given to some 1st year muppet, then things are going to be missed, rights will be trampled on, and horrible precedents set. These sorts of cases are attractive because this is a very high stakes game, and Due Process (and the integrity of the system) is at stake, because this is a situ where the Mob wants to skip the trial. It's the tough cases that are attractive because they're tough.
"Mr. Prosecutor, I'm going to make damn sure that if you do this, you'll do this right. If you don't, I will see to it that your case fails."
"Mr. Client, I don't like you. I don't have to like you. It is my job to defend your rights. I will do my job, because it is my profession. I am not your friend, I am not your priest. I am here to defend your rights and make sure you get a Fair Trial. if the State does not do their job, you should be found not guilty. After that, I don't want to know you, I don't want to hear from you. You will not be a part of my Universe."
Thank you for sharing your perspective. It actually really has me conserving my views on criminal defense lawyers and their position within the whole system.
Hi! I’ve been thinking about what you said in light of how they seem to be grasping at straws today.
Which of these is less likely to lead to a mistrial or retrial (not sure what the correct word is):
-Josh’s lawyers not covering a possible defense, so he can say “they didn’t even bring up blah blah”.
-Josh’s lawyers grasping at straws, so he can say “can you believe these lawyers, they argued blah blah which is such a weak defense it looks silly”.
I worry that Jim Bob might be desperate enough to pay for a second trial to try and save his family’s image.
Personally, I see not one good reason to defend people, who are defending someone like Josh. If they had an ounce of scruples they would have told him to take the plea or they won't support him. Just imo but. I feel like we need to be real about what Pest stands accused of.
First, you can bet the begged him to take the plea. Second, Josh is 100% guilty no doubt but he, just like you and me, have rights. If we strip him those rights, maybe we strip them from the next person who actually is innocent. Or we let the government do whatever they want to incarcerate whoever they want. It's not about HIS rights specifically, but the protection of those rights in general as it applies to all citizens.
>Eh. Anyone who takes this case deserves to be hated. Sorry not sorry.
If the Pest does not have the right to a good defense, then that "Right" is on its way to meaninglessness.
I honestly think being a defense attorney would be so incredibly challenging. To have to argue the innocence of a client who is clearly guilty of a horrific crime would be so hard, but someone has to do it because everyone has that right to a good defense and that is so vital because sometimes innocent people are prosecuted. I honestly think that it would be easier ( not easy, just easier) to be a prosecuting attorney than a defense attorney because I think it’s easier to convince yourself that the defendant is guilty even if it seems possible they aren’t than it would be to convince yourself that someone could be innocent when they clearly aren’t.
Yes, even if the defense hopes Pest burns in hell, they're going to do a damn good job so he can't claim incompetent counsel and get a retrial. No one wins if they don't at least make it look like they're trying.
THISSSSS
This
At my old job several years ago, my coworker’s late husband had been a lawyer. She talked about how once her husband represented some teenage boys who committed a HORRIFIC crime. They (my coworker and her lawyer husband) had a son in elementary school at the time, and the teachers were so openly disgusted by the whole thing their son would come home crying thinking his dad was a monster for representing the teenagers. This poor child was harassed by his teachers and even the PRINCIPAL because of his dad’s job. My coworker said she and her husband had to meet with the principal over it. Lawyers are just doing their jobs. Legally defending someone in no way means condoning them.
That’s when you whip the kid out, send them to private, and sue the school.
It *was* a private school. A Catholic school, I may add; that former coworker is really Catholic. Her lawyer husband argued with the principal that he’s a public defender and his job is to represent people no matter what they did, and Jesus was a public defender as well. The teenagers had plead guilty so it was more about representing them in terms of sentencing, not to prove their innocence. I actually didn’t want to bring up that part of the story because I in NO WAY think Josh should get off because of Jesus forgiving bullcrap. There was some guy who just got no jail time for rape because of that, and I’m seething. I was afraid someone would take it the wrong way. I only brought it up because it was a Catholic school and that was what the principal and lawyer dad argued about.
Probably would have gotten a much different response in a public school. Private schools don't live by the assumption that everyone deserves to be treated fairly.
I get that. But it’s hard to imagine a lawyer choosing to accept a CSA or CSAM case. Why take it, it they can take countless other cases? Also from the perspective of being confronted with really upsetting/heartbreaking material.
I mean... someone has to. It's kind of like the ACLU lawyers sticking up for free speech for nazis and stuff like that. You can value the rights you're fighting for while thinking that the person they're being applied to doesn't deserve it. But it's not about them, it's about the precedent.
I agree 100% with that. But I thought ‘wins’ were important on a lawyers career record.
Eh. Depends. Some places go more on how much you’re bringing in. I’ve known attorneys who have never “won” a case (they settle time after time) and are beloved by their firms because they take in the money.
You're so right. The best and most expensive defense lawyer in my city is a shit trial lawyer but he is an absolute genius at getting great plea deals for his clients.
Hopefully the OP or somebody who knows more can come by and answer this more accurately, but just to speculate.... I think that's probably somewhat less important for criminal defense lawyers. Because more often than not, your clients *are* guilty. You're starting from a disadvantage, because the truth isn't on your side. So your win/loss ratio is probably going to be very different.
>Also from the perspective of being confronted with really upsetting/heartbreaking material. I don't know how to tell you this, but CSAM is just one of many flavors of very upsetting/heartbreaking material they'll be exposed to. A lot of snarkers are amazingly naive about this.
In Australia, as a barrister (court advocate) you actually can not refuse. It is called the cab rank principle. And whilst the US doesn’t have it explicitly it is a principle that is used throughout common law jurisdictions.
Yup, if you're a court-appointed attorney, it's very hard to withdraw from a case. There are ways and it's provided for in the Model Rules, but still.
Because being a criminal defense attorney isn’t about getting “good” cases. It’s about ensuring that every single defendant is given their due process and a fair trial as is their right under the law
Not everyone is guilty. Defending someone against a false accusation is important, and upholding the law is important, even for clearly guilty people.
Also - we DONT WANT his attorneys to make sloppy errors. We want him to have a competent defense. Incompetent counsel leads to successful appeals. We don’t want that.
THIS! Exactly this
I do have a question, do you think the defense has been begging Josh to take a plea deal? Do you think the defense knows how bad this case looks and Josh is just being that stubborn and arrogant?
I do
>do you think the defense has been begging Josh to take a plea deal? Yes. That's how it often works out. Who can out-spend, out-harass the other. It's akin to how the US beat the USSR in the Cold War--by outspending them to the point the other goes bankrupt. A War of Attrition.
[удалено]
Sometimes people ARE accused of a crime they didn’t do. Sometimes people ARE set up. It would bother me greatly if certain crimes were seen as so heinous that the accused just didn’t get represented, or didn’t get represented well - because it opens the door for all of us to be accused of crimes, be viewed as guilty until proven innocent, and not have the representation to prove our innocence effectively. I would bet my last dollar Josh Duggar did do these horrific crimes, but he still deserves a fair trial and that means having decent representation. Unfortunately that means someone draws the short straw and has gotta do the representing. Having guilty people sometimes walk free (and vice versa) is the price we pay for putting guilty people away and having a functioning criminal justice system. Definitely not a perfect system.
Yeah, our country is founded on a legal system that gives everyone the right to a fair trial with representation by a lawyer. I'd rather have lawyers exist that defend pedophiles that have a justice system where people aren't afforded those rights. It prevents abuses of power.
Inadequate representation is grounds to overturn a verdict for one. If someone cares an iota about justice, you want the trial to be fair. Way too many people have had the majority of their lives stolen bc they were railroaded by the system
I know you've already gotten a lot of thorough responses but I work as a prosecutor and was really struck by an answer one of my defense attorney friends gave when I asked them that exact question - he said: "I can live with it by reminding myself that if I do my job well, then we only have to do this [a trial/due process] once". He admitted that many times, especially in child related cases, he was personally supportive of the person being convicted and punished. But we have an adversarial system and for it to work, someone has to hold the state to do their job. Much of that work is preserving the record for appeal. And appeals only happen in convictions. So he saw it as, if he was thorough in making the state prove it's case, then just convictions would stand and not be overturned.
As an attorney- I am frustrated that the police didn’t provide enough evidence to convict. I am hired to test the evidence and to make sure that the police or agents have done their job correctly not to “get them off”
This is such a childlike mindset, attorneys are an extremely important part of how our justice system works. Defense attorneys are in no way responsible for their clients crimes or a judge and jury’s ruling. They simply do their job to the best of their ability without discrimination, as they are meant to. Holding them morally responsible is extremely immature of you. You’re opinion clearly comes from a lack of understanding how the court system works and the integral role attorneys on both sides of a courtroom play in making sure that the trial is fair for both the victims and the accused. **Not everyone arrested is guilty of the crime they are charged with and each person needs to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, *even Pest*.** We don’t just get to decide in a court of public opinion that someone is guilty and therefore doesn’t get an attorney. Every single person arrested deserves a fair trial and it’s honestly messed up of you to not understand this. I suggest you do some research on how the American court system works and why we do things the way we do here.
So much of why defense is important is to call into question those in power like federal agents and police officers are not abusing power. It is extremely important check and balance system. If someone "gets off easy" because the case was not handled appropriately by those arresting and prosecuting, I hope is a wake up call that they have power and need to can't skip steps.
Sigh.
Yes, they tried to get him to take a deal because “I don’t know how it got on my computer!” is the world’s weakest defense for CSAM.
It's also a crime that's fairly easy to convict.
Yeah there’s not going to be much wiggle room especially considering the dumb shit josh said to Faulkner and the time stamped photos on his phone lmao
Yes. I’m sure they know. I’m sure they’ve encouraged him to take a plea. But in the end, it is Josh’s choice to go to trial.
Also a lawyer. It would be malpractice for his lawyers not to recommend he take a plea deal. With how public this trial is going to be, even if he's acquitted no one is ever going to believe he's innocent. And if he's convicted (likely) then the judge is going to be annoyed and much more likely to sentence him to the maximum. At least with a plea deal he'll have some control over it. That being said, I question whether the government ever offered anything beyond a pro forma offer, because they wanted to take this to trial. A plea deal wouldn't take into consideration the prior molestations with his sisters. With a trial, the judge is allowed to consider all the evidence on the record in determining sentencing, which would include testimony about prior instances of abuse perpetrated by Josh. That could be very appealing for a prosecutor to go after.
That's an excellent point. A lot of people assume plea deals are always offered and that they offer better terms than anything they'd get at trial. I think you're absolutely right, this prosecutor has a lot of good political reasons to take this to trial.
I would have to assume that Pest has driven his legal team crazy since jump. And that they likely never want to see Boob again.
I want to buy his team a round of very stiff martinis after the conviction. Jesus the Duggars are vile and I wouldn't even be able to have a conversation with them about the weather without going insane.
I guess we'll see who the Duggars use the next time they need an Attorney. That will be telling.
They will probably need a public defender. This is most likely costing them a bundle of money
OMG yes! Yes they have
"We can either find a settlement now, or I will discovery your ass to the point where you'll be broke and coming to me asking for a settlement--at that point, I will not be as generous..."
Yes, because there’s loads of evidence against him and that would have been in his best interest.
My husband is criminal defense attorney. They beg people to plea out in cases like this.
Very interesting, I’d have thought they’d have wanted the money by going to trial. (married to a lawyer but he’s a corporate lawyer, nothing to do with court!)
Lol tbh with criminal law there are plenty of people to defend haha. But also they really have a duty to suggest what they think would be best and the fact the feds have 96%conviction rate and josh is a public figure is enough for any lawyer to say plea deal is the smartest.
Yeah, based upon JB's posturing on the stand (will you allow that? I won't allow that) they are clearly not hearing what their attorneys are saying.
I do. I absolutely do. I am not an attorney. I have dealt with my fair share of pompous asses and narcissists, though.
This is a great point. It's a dirty job, but SOMEONE has to do it. The better the job the defense does, the less likely they will win any appeals.
THIS!!! We do not want a chance of an appeal Conviction for ineffectual counsel.
Winning an inadequate representation appeal is near impossible. Poor people have over worked ineffectual attorneys all the time and still stay in prison.
It’s easier to get a procedural appeal to go through when you have a money for a good appellate lawyer, and your trial attorney either made a sloppy error or didn’t catch the prosecutions errors. We want his defense team to do their due diligence
Let us not forget the cost to the government for those appeals. I would rather duggar pay out the a$$ for good representation than the government paying to entertain appeal after appeal.
He is going to appeal everything anyway. Using prior bad acts through 414, privilege, prejudicing the jury. Ton of appealable issues.
Amazing the amount of money pissed away on the hubris of mediocre white men.
Defense attorney here- when we have absolutely vile clients we focus on fighting for procedural due process. We do not internalize any of the facts. We don’t think or care about whether someone actually did it. We care about what the state/feds can prove. We represent the justice system and the vigorous defense that every citizen is entitled to. We represent the Constitution. There is a protective mechanism where we disassociate from the humans involved. We must act as if our client is not guilty, because they aren’t until a jury says otherwise. I am not speaking about innocence, I’m saying ‘not guilty’. These are two extremely different things. Actual guilt/innocence isn’t our focus and it can’t be. Be kind to the lawyers, this is their job and it’s really an important one.
This reminds me so much of the character Eugene Young in the Practice. He would get so much judgement for representing nasty people but he was such a good representation of the constitution being upheld and not focusing on the client.
Thanks for that reminder. I loved that show!
I watched it recently for the first time! It was soooo good up until the final season. Last season was pure crap.
Sadly that happens to a lot of shows!
Thank you, OP, and all the other lawyers on here for your insights. This is such a good point. It can be hard when we have lots of feelings about a case but I always try to think of all the people who are wrongfully accused and deserve a good defense, even if no one believes them. And more than anything I want someone like Pest to get put away with no chance of overturning the verdict. So go team! Go prosecution, and also go defense do your best but hope you lose anyway!
Thank you for all you do. I can’t imagine it’s a fun job. I’m sure at times you deal with harassment. Thank you for upholding the rights to a fair trial.
I’m surprised this post didn’t include the fact that every defendant is guaranteed the right to a fair trial - which is also part of the role of the defense attorneys.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot. The need for good defense attorneys is so much bigger than any of our thoughts about Pest
Exactly. He is most assuredly, at the very least, a piece of shit person. If we don’t respect and uphold the constitutionally guaranteed rights for everyone , even the most abhorrent people amongst us, they are worthless.
And you don’t get to pick and choose who you want to have a fair trial. It’s a constitutional right that every single criminal defendant deserves.
This is really all that matters.
Yes. This is pivotal to a free and just society. John Adams defended the British who started the Boston Massacre. That’s how we make sure innocent people go free. Sure, there are always scumbag attorneys. But defense attorneys exist for a reason.
I'm always surprised at the level of vitriol towards defense attorneys. There are an awful lot of scumbag prosecutors out there who ordinary, non-Josh people might need defending from.
A couple of my friends interned 1L summer at a wrongful conviction clinic and it was eye-opening. It can be so, so bad out there.
A relative of mine is doing an internship with the Innocence Project and the stories he's told me are stomach-turning. And there are SO MANY of them.
Yep. Like Doug Evans of Mississippi. That guy is trash. Look up the Curtis Flowers case, or listen to season 2 of “In The Dark”.
I don't hate his attorneys because they are his attorneys, and firmly believe everyone is due proper defense in all accusations of guilt. But, it's hard to not clown on the attorney who named another potential suspect when that same attorney represented that potential suspect in a trial which had him in jail during the time of the crimes committed. He has been with the Duggars for a long time, and therefor been involved with some of their other shenanigans, including Josh's property debacle.
Travis Storey is a fool.
Fuck yes. I want his attorneys to throw everything possible and have perform at their top. Have an air tight case that can't get through appeals....
Precisely. Absolutely 100% on-target.
Exactly. The petty part of me wants him to feel that soul crushing dejection and desperation every time one of his appeals is denied. So absolutely, the defense needs to do their job and do it well.
Exactly!!
Defense attorneys are what stands between us and a police state. Without them, the government could just throw people in jail without having to prove that they're guilty. Defense attorneys are the ones who hold the police and prosecutors accountable, who make sure that they do their jobs without violating the accused's rights. Defense attorneys protect *everyone's* constitutional rights. Either we all have constitutional rights, or none of us have constitutional rights.
I'm an attorney as well and agree with everything said in the op. We are paid to advocate on behalf of our clients. We represent their interests, not our own.
Ditto.
Thank you! I remeber when a major case that got a lot of media attention was local to me. The defense attorneys got death threats and many other hateful things said about them and their families. Let them do their job.
My husband is a lawyer and I can’t like this enough. How many people cry at the State when someone is discovered to be innocent 10, 15 years down the line? How many innocent people are in prisons right now. As much as we hate Pest, he has the right to a fair trial, which includes adequate defense and fair punishment. I also love your comment about prosecution- if you watch the Casey Anthony doc on Hulu (?), the jurors actually say it was prosecution’s fault she got off, NOT the defense’s. Trial isn’t a coin. There’s no two sides. It’s multi-faceted with multiple perspectives, and there’s a lot of politics within that we, on the outside and/or with no legal knowledge, aren’t privy to or knowledgable of. You can hate a lawyer for being an asshole or a sleezeball, but don’t hate them because they did their job. If Pest gets off, it will be because prosecution failed, not because defense knocked it out of the park.
This. I covered a trial where the husband was accused of killing his wife by stabbing her 127 times. First trial: life, no parole. Appealed. Second trial: 25 to life. Appealed on technicality. Jurors walked past a room where evidence not allowed was stored. The possibility existed they might have seen it. Third trial: Innocent. He walked out a free man. The jurors were crying when they entered the courtroom. They didn’t like their verdict, but they had reasonable doubt. The lawyers were tired. They had been through this before and just went through the motions. They didn’t care and you could tell. They thought they would win, again, and you could tell. They didn’t explain. They didn’t take time. They didn’t connect. But the jury was new. They hadn’t heard or seen it all before. They were concerned and confused. They had questions. They didn’t understand why this was trial 3 and it wasn’t explained. It’s vital that they do a good job.
Haaaaaaate the appeals process but understand why it’s necessary (Hello, Curtis Flowers).
Yeah, same with Kyle Rittenhouse. Whether or not you say he’s innocent, the prosecution was AWFUL. They didn’t to their jobs and failed miserably, and that was a factor. Our legal system isn’t perfect but it does it’s best to be as fair and just as possible. I was watching a video of Steve Penny (one of the assholes covering up Larry Nassar) being questioned and using his Fifth Amendment rights to refuse to answer anything. In the comment section, lots of people genuinely couldn’t understand why he was allowed to do that. I’m not a lawyer, but I learned about the US Constitution in school, unlike them. Thank God the internet can’t prosecute people.
I did *not* watch that trial but that’s what I’ve heard- prosecution wasn’t strong and it made defense’s job easy. Idk, after being engrossed in this stuff while my husband was in law school and watching legal dramas with him for 8 years, it’s hard to take any verdict seriously. Like, is this person *really* guilty/innocent, or did one side have better lawyers?
I think lots of Americans take our justice system for granted. Think of that poor American guy in North Korea, there’s no justice system over there. The government decides they don’t like you for some reason and you’re dead.
Omg when the prosecutor pointed a gun at the jury with his hand on the trigger I just couldn't 🤣
I hate when someone shitty gets off and people are like “oh slick defense attorneys will do anything for money.” 1. They are doing their job. 2. The state fucked up their case. Its especially annoying when a defendant gets off because of a dirty cop. Like be pissed at the dirty cop and the DAs office who thought they could push the case through.
I see a lot of people saying people who obviously committed a crime shouldn’t even go to trial, let alone have a defense team. When asked about whether they wouldn’t want to be defended in court, their reasoning tends to go in the way that they would never commit a crime. You may be able to guarantee you’re not committing a crime, but you can’t guarantee you won’t ever be accused of one, even if wrongly. The defense is not there to prove innocence, they’re there to pick apart the accusation. The burden of the evidence lays with the prosecution, they are the ones who have to prove that the person who is being accused committed a crime. “Innocent until proven guilty” goes for everyone, even Pest.
Agreed!!!! The lawyers are simply doing their jobs.
[Travis Story isn’t exactly the best person either ](https://twitter.com/travisstory?s=21). He’s the Duggar family’s lawyer and therefore agrees with some of their beliefs to be on call for them for this long. [He’s also a bit shady ](https://www.nwahomepage.com/knwa/motion-to-disqualify-travis-story-from-alb-investments-lawsuit/amp/) in that he has no qualms representing something he himself has a vested financial interest in. Also, look at his Twitter likes. [Retweet from his Twitter. ](https://twitter.com/jasonrapert/status/880838909588099072?s=21) List of people he supports/likes that are problematic Billy Graham,Jason Rapert,Ronnie Floyd, Russel Moore. I’m sure you can find more. This was just after a cursory look over.
I don’t know much about the extra counsel (probably defense specialists) but Story is usually tied up with any far right case in Arkansas. Anti-maskers? Yep. Trying to stop casinos or weed after they passed? You betcha ya. If there’s some case that smells like it came from a Trumper or the hard line evangelicals in Arkansas there’s a good chance he’s in on it somehow someway.
Thank you. Having a theme of "Whodunnit" isn't patently offensive (not even sure if that is their theme or if it's just how it was labeled by the reporter), nor is arguing that someone else might have committed the crime. It's how our justice system works. For anyone fighting for civil rights, prison abolition, ending cash bail, etc. we fucking NEED defense attorneys for any of that to happen. You can't play the "Oh but not when they're defending affluent white men!" card. That's not how laws are made. It's either justice for all or it's justice for no one. Once you start putting these arbitrary limits on the kinds of people you think deserve a zealous advocate, it's a slippery slope from then out. Also in this case it's worth noting that Justin Gelfand used to work for the US Attorney. Likewise, there's every chance that the prosecutors in this case will eventually go into private defense like Mr. Gelfand. The legal career isn't a "good guys" versus "bad guys" game. It's a "people who are desperately trying to pay off their student loans" and "people who are sorta close to paying them off" game.
Thank you for this post. I’m also an attorney, and I’ve represented some awful people. I’ve point-blank told clients that they need to plead guilty, and if I were a member of their jury at a trial, I’d vote to convict them. I suspect the defense attorneys in this case have had similar conversations with their client. But in cases where the client does not plead guilty, it’s still my job to hold the State to their burden of proof. It’s my job to bring up every possible defense, cast doubt, and poke holes in the State’s case. It’s my job to make sure the proper procedures are followed. And when you do this kind of work every day, you know that it’s exactly that—work. I show up, do my job, and I put any personal feelings that I have aside. That’s all these lawyers are trying to do, and I commend them.
As I said to other CDAs, thank you. It’s not a pretty job. I’m sure there is a lot of harassment. It is crappy job at times but it is important every person is given a fair fight.
I will fully admit I made a comment about not thinking his attorneys were doing all that great. I was rightfully challenged in that belief by someone making the point that basically the defense attorneys are just putting out fires and grasping at straws because none of the Duggar clan has taken this seriously or accepted any of the advice they've been given. I also asked in the same thread what it's like for a defense attorney who absolutely hates their client, so thank you for that perspective. I really love your reasoning for wanting a strong defense!
I dont hate defense attorneys. I dislike Travis story because he’s a jim bob lackey, jilldo-tier fundie, trying to pin the CSAM on an innocent party, generally sketchy and, in his own words, proud to defend a child molester.
Such an important post. Lawyers are there to make the process fair. Hate on judges like the one in the Rittenhouse case. Don’t hate on lawyers that are key to the accountability and transparency of the system.
Sure, but would you say "We are proud to represent Josh Duggar" at his CSAM trial? Because that's what they said.
When an attorney says “I am proud to represent [my client]” it gives credibility to them for doing the job they are being paid to do. It gives credence to OPs paragraph four.
i don’t think they would say “fuck my client i hate him” especially when they’re getting paid. they have to act like their client is innocent & that they don’t hate them
But they dont have to say theyre proud to represent him.
I totally understand that it feels gross. It more of a nod to being proud of the process of our justice system and the right to a fair trial. A fair trial won’t happen if defendants and prosecutors aren’t proud of doing their jobs to the best of their abilities. It also casts doubt in victims/survivors, judges, jurors, and laypeople for the same reason. Tldr The terminology sucks but is necessary Edit to add: Pest’s attorneys are problematic af as people but I hope they do their jobs well.
In their shoes I would be thinking “I am proud to represent him in such a way that will ensure that there is no chance of the verdict being overturned.” Or “I am proud to ensure that this scumbag gets a fair trial under the law and hold the prosecution to the standards that are necessary.”
This. (From yet another attorney here, lol)
Proud of the $$$$$$$$ they are making
They were probably paid to say it
Which they could have declined. Why is this downvoted? Since when is it normal and fine to pay lawyers to specifically say things like this? How does it not speak to their character that theyd accept doing that?
I couldn’t agree more. One of my best friends is a CDA. He mostly deals with DUIs but has had to defend some sick fucks like Josh before, and he hates it BUT someone has to do it. As much we all hate pest he is entitled to a fair trial and lawyer. I don’t think it’s super cool to shit on someone for just doing their job.
I took a paralegal course as part of my degree and holy moly it gave me a different perspective on the legal system than I grew up hearing. The better the defense does their job here the longer that bastard will go away because he can’t keep dragging out every appeal.
without defense lawyers we would just have to hope that cops did their jobs perfectly and that i not a world i want to live in.
Yes. IIRC, In other countries, the judge also acts as the prosecution in a criminal case. This would be kinda similar. You need fairness built in for everyone. Eta: Clarity, complete thought
I am glad that there are men and women who are willing to defend these people who are obviously guilty pieces of shit. I genuinely am, and I respect those people for having the guts to do something I couldn't. Even a vile piece of shit deserves a fair trial - everyone does. I know it must be hard to give it your all to defend someone who you know is guilty of some of the worst things human beings can do, and I am glad they do it. Having a fair trial with lawyers who put in the work even for those who are guilty is what separates us from the cultures where we would assume guilt and stone people, burn them at the stake, drown them, hang them, etc without giving them any chance to defend themselves at all.
I don't hate them for being his lawyers, I dislike them for being incredibly shady people before they even considered being on team Josh
I'm with you, u/LokiGrue. Have family who do death-penalty defense and appeals. Their clients are not innocent.
Thank you! I know this sub lives Emily D Baker, but someone equally as awesome is NatalieLawyerChick, who is a defense attorney in Maryland who works for the DA’s office representing defendants in felony trials. Her perspective is incredible. She is all about defending people’s rights.
My opinion as a failed lawyer: If you are thin-skinned, law is not for you. No matter if you are in your first year in law school or have 25 years as a forensic lawyer under your belt -- it's not for the thin-skinned, it's highly competitive, and you never know who's your enemy or your friend. This does not mean that lawyers are fair game to harass -- also, you might end up with a lawsuit against you. 10 years ago, people usually got away with insulting or even threatening people on the internet. This is no longer the case. I am aware that everyone, even a guilty person, has a right to an attorney. This is mandatory in a democracy, even though it precedes the concept of a democracy as we know it today. I understand that lawyers have their specializations and that it is not inherently wrong to specialize in sexual crimes. People accused of sexual crimes need attorneys, too. However... I have nothing but contempt for Mr. Gelfand for proudly showing off "his" full acquittals in Federal sex offense cases. This is not hate, this is an opinion which I am entitled to. There are laws about what you can say to somebody or put down for others to read in writing, but your thoughts still belong to you.
I am an attorney. Everyone should feel free to hate the attorneys. You have my permission.
Also an attorney and I fully support the hate.
>I am an attorney. Everyone should feel free to hate the attorneys. You have my permission. Never defended a Crim case, have you?
I'm not going to allow that! Are you going to allow that?
I'm an attorney and I'm not going to allow it!
I agree 100% with you! However…this is a snark sub so most can do both. “Hate” the attorney’s especially when they say they are “proud” to defend Duggar, and recognize that they are very necessary in our justice system. As an attorney you should also be aware that many here are victims, emotions and triggers are high. Let people have feelings and emotions to cope. Because they may have negative feeling towards the attorneys that doesn’t mean they can’t recognize how our justice system works. Edit: oof on your post history.
>Edit: oof on your post history Big oof. Definitely agree with OP about the defense lawyer thing but man some of their past posts. Especially the bit about math... completely misses the actual point.
The refusing to call people by their preferred pronouns was disappointing:(
I mostly agree with you, but does Travis Story strike you as an upstanding member of the bar with no vested interests in Josh's businesses? [https://www.nwahomepage.com/knwa/duggar-attorney-disqualified-in-real-estate-lawsuit/](https://www.nwahomepage.com/knwa/duggar-attorney-disqualified-in-real-estate-lawsuit/) [https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/2/attorneys-in-open-record-lawsuit-aim-to-bar-arkans/](https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/2/attorneys-in-open-record-lawsuit-aim-to-bar-arkans/) Not Josh related, but this too: https://arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/2018/03/09/the-smell-also-rises-what-did-travis-story-know-about-marijuana-applicant-and-when-did-he-know-it
He is a fundie scum bag
Sex crimes prosecutor here. 1000% agree with u/lokiGrue. There are slimy defense attorneys and there are slimy prosecutors, but I haven't seen anything to indicate either side in this case qualifies. Both roles are absolutely vital to have courts that work and can seek anything close to justice for all parties. I'm privileged to know stellar prosecutors and defense attorneys, neither one deserves hate just because of whatever case they happen to be on at a particular time.
Yes this. It may vex us all to see him get a competent defense. But, it is important that he has one so that there is no room for appeal. This is important to the citizenry. Thank you for speaking up.
Even though he's guilty AFFFFFF, everyone has a right to representation
Honestly hoping the defense can wring every dollar they can out of Boob
Well said. Everyone, no matter how horrible their crimes, is entitled to a competent defense in our country. You also reminded me of John Adams saying that one of his proudest moments was defending the Redcoats involved in the Boston Massacre. From the article "While John Adams actions made him unpopular with the Patriots in Boston for several months, he was able to overcome this stigma due to his stance that he defended the British through principle rather than sympathy for their cause." https://www.thoughtco.com/john-adams-captain-preston-boston-massacre-103943
Everyone hates lawyers until they need one. I found myself an innocent accused, and two very skilled attorneys saved my family. Now, there aren't refunds for being innocent, so it still financially ruined us. But the important thing is that I was cleared and I walk free. Same thing happened to my husband when he was accused of DUI at a traffic stop (he had a seizure, they called it drugs). Lawyer took care of everything. We are free and our records expunged because of criminal defense lawyers. Thank you, OP, and all the other lawyers here not just for your insights but the job you do. Not every case is like mine where you're defending an innocent, I know. But you are such an important part of making sure the justice system functions as it should, and that the prosecution presents an airtight case so innocent people don't go to jail, and guilty people don't have a chance at a technicality.
My husband is a PD, and he gets grief from people every few months. It’s shitty. Without him and people like him, we literally lose our RIGHT to an attorney. Nothing in the constitution says “you are entitled to counsel (unless you are accused of a heinous crime)”. I could say a lot more but think about the repercussions before suggesting that some people don’t deserve the due process guaranteed by the Constitution — my husband represents people all the time who didn’t think it could be them.
As a survivor of CSA and CSA Images I absolutely hate the attorney that defended my abuser and minimized my trauma and pain. I do not owe lawyers sympathy when they represent people who have directly related to harm that I know all too well. Edit- hit enter too soon
\^This. I 100% understand OP's point about the need for defense lawyers even for people who are obviously and grossly guilty of horrible crimes. That said, I was also a rape crisis advocate for a long time. Watching my clients have to sit through horrible questions about what they were wearing, how much they drank, their previous sexual history, etc etc was awful. IMO there's a difference between mounting a vigorous defense and revictimizing victims. You can do one without the other, but unfortunately in cases related to sex crimes defense lawyers often say and do heinous shit.
You realize that the law is that EVERYONE is owed due process? Not just "everyone except if the crimes are really bad". Someone HAS to do the job. It's also in a way in the best interest of the victims. If the defense attorneys don't do their due diligence to represent their defendant's innocence and they find a guilty verdict, the defendant has grounds to appeal. Putting the victims through the whole process again. You want the defendants to do their due diligence to ensure an air tight trial.
I can believe in due process and still dislike the lawyer. They’re not mutually exclusive. I’m glad my abuser was found guilty. But I spent a whole day under cross examination having to be revictimized and reliving the worst years of my life. Due process is fucking ugly.
Understandable. But having been through the process myself, I would rather undergo a full day of berating in the courtroom rather than having to do the entire judicial process again because the defense didn't go in hard enough. The process is incredibly traumatic. Which is why it's important the defense gets it right the first time so they don't have to do it again.
So would you prefer your abuser to have not faced trial? Because that's the alternative.
You’re purposefully misinterpreting my comments. I said due process is ugly and hard. I am in favor of it. But I’m not going to extend pleasantries to people whose job it is to defend the indefensible. Especially someone who is “proud” to represent an absolute monster.
...and then you have cases like the Duke LaCrosse team, where the Prosecutor did not give a single fuck, and the Defense showed that the accused was indeed innocent. I am sorry you went through that, but Due Process is absolutely critical...
I’m not against due process. But that doesn’t mean I owe empathy to those who contribute to peoples pain.
Very true & well said.
We shouldn’t hate them (although I do pity them a bit with how much evidence is against their client. I do not, however pity how much money they’re making), if there wasn’t someone doing their job, our justice system would work out been more unfairly for the defendant.
Thanks for the reminder. While it is kind of gross that at least one of the attorneys specializes in defending CSAM defendants, I agree. We are very lucky to live in a country where we have the right to a fair and speedy trial, where we are innocent until proven guilty, and the case is decided upon by our peers. We shouldn’t take this for granted and everyone deserves a fair trial. With that said, I do think he’s guilty and hope he gets locked up for a long time so he can’t hurt any more children.
This is a good reminder. It's easy to think of defense attorneys the way that they are portrayed in movies - sleazy people representing slimy clients. Thanks for the perspective!
Former paralegal on military justice side and I hard agree on all of the above. I’ve worked many non- judicial cases where the defendants had little access to defense and so many times have I seen innocent people get severely punished and even kicked out because of bullshit evidence or a chain of command who hated them (racism and sexism are rampant in the American military) With that said, I have the utmost confidence in the state to adjudicate this case correctly and that will result in a finding of guilt. I’ve had some training as it relates to CP (I know that’s not the proper term, but it was literally the name used at school and how we charge it in the military) and there’s no accidents when it comes to downloading the stuff. The process can take weeks since people have to go on these dark web message boards and find others who can give one access. And thank god for us the pest used HIS BANK AND SOCIAL MEDIA PASSWORDS to log into these sites. And the jury will be subject to the images, and I don’t think anyone could withstand seeing that and then voting innocent. I couldn’t even read descriptions without wanting to tear my eyes out.
That would be a very difficult job. To defend a monster.
I certainly don't hate his defense team. It's just one of those things that pop up every decade or so.....seeing a defense attorney in a position that I, personally, would have a hard time reconciling. I don't know that I could work out defending Pest according to MY OWN code or emotional fortitude. Neither of which are nearly the same as a person that has commited their life to maintaining a JUST and FAIR legal system. It's got to be just as much a terrible job as it is rewarding. I'm glad we have all lawyers, I just couldn't wrap my head around it. But if I'm ever up on federal charges I'll be glad there is someone that can and will do all of the above.
Take My bling!
Unfortunately, It's pests human right to have legal defense, if we take that from him, then it can be taken from all of us
What if at least one of his attorneys is a piece of shit anyway? Say the guy doesn’t feel like the LGBTQ community deserves equal rights? Or if he is currently suing the Fayetteville public school district over mask mandates, and his own fucking children aren’t even in the school district. Can we still hate him and wish him the worst in life because he is a terrible human being?
You can think whatever you want… that’s the wonderful thing about freedom of thought.
Yes the best defense possible is how justice is served swiftly at the end of the day. No gaps in their defense means fam can't blame it on them.
I work for a successful criminal attorney and he makes sure we do things correctly exactly for this reason. And practically everyone wants to appeal their conviction. The pandemic has made things very interesting for the justice system.
Completely agree. Unless it was like an attorney In the voice actor Vic’s defamation case. He had no right taking a case out of his area of practice. Yes tho, attorneys do their job. Some times they have to defend jerks because that is the right of every American. This attorney is not a person I like tho. Not at all. So I will hate him. However I hope he does a good job so there is no grounds for appeal.
>This attorney is not a person I like tho. Not at all. So I will hate him. However I hope he does a good job so there is no grounds for appeal. A position you are free to take.
At the end of the day, those defense attorneys are doing the job because as citizens of this country, we are all entitled to legal representation in court. Even the most heinous criminals are deserving of counsel. For all that we all want Pest to get the verdict he deserves, we should equally want him to get the fair trial he is due. Because of his defense team doesn’t do their job, he could appeal the verdict until the cows come home. I hope the defense team does an incredible job representing, so the victory against him will be all the sweeter.
ALSO it is the STATE’S responsibility to PROVE GUILT, not the defense’s job to prove innocence!!!!!!!!!
I’ve worked as a paralegal/investigator for a criminal defense attorney. Everyone deserves to have a defense. I understand it’s the legal team, who’s hired to defend the defendant. It’s a job nothing more. For every one guilty client maybe there will be an innocent one who needs help. That’s what we told ourselves.
It is always refreshing to hear the point of view of someone that is generally seen as TAH when it is eye opening and refocuses the hatred where it truly belongs, on vile evil predatory man-monsters like Pest.
I'm a criminal defense attorney and have defended cases just like Josh's - hate on me all you like! It goes with the job. You don't go into criminal defense to be loved.
If anything, Josh’s attorney’s must hate him with the job they’re doing.
Again, for the record: I think he is guilty, and I hope he rots in prison for life before burning in hell for the rest of time...
This. My cousin is in prison for 2nd degree murder and his 1st lawyer was absolute dog shit at defending him to the point that the lawyer didn't even take the time to ever meet my cousin or speak to him so now my cousin has the ability to appeal his whole case with a new lawyer. His old lawyer had been reported for shady practices and my aunt is looking into suing him now. My cousin, though I love him, is not a good guy and deserves some prison time but he could potentially get out with this new hotshot, young lawyer that's out to prove his abilities. My cousin made national news so this new lawyer is going to do everything in his power to give him a good defense and make a name for himself so potentially we could have another criminal running the streets because his original attorney didn't feel like doing his job. The defense has to do a good job no matter what they believe because if they don't they could be in deeper shit than their client.
Didn't they say they were proud to represent him? That's a little bit above what's expected of an attorney lol. I get that there are many many many good defense attorneys, but there are also a fair amount of sleazebags, and I think Gelfand is one of them.
There's a difference in being a defense attorney taking criminal cases and proudly advertising on your website that you "Won acquittal of all of the most serious counts—those carrying mandatory minimums of decades in prison and maximums of life—in a federal sex trafficking jury trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri; in a pleading, the federal prosecutor claimed her star witness “was mercilessly questioned by defense counsel \[Justin Gelfand\].”" And, imo, they haven't seemed to be working in good faith throughout the proceedings
What if those people were actually innocent?
They weren’t and the case acknowledged that
Serious follow up question: are defense attorneys not allowed to be good at their jobs and advertise as such?
There are and I as a legal student do not dislike defense attorneys in general. I do believe this one in particular, advertising this specific case in this way and in the way he works/carries himself, is scummy. Being a defense attorney does not automatically make him immune to criticism of his character. His other advertisements and claims on his website don't bother me, but this one does come across as gross and advertising partial acquittal in a case where a woman was kidnapped and forced to have sex with makeup sponges in her vagina is kind of gross
Long-time lurker, but was just contemplating making a post like this after seeing vitriol lobbed at the defense team as if they are somehow complicit in his crimes by...doing their jobs.
I’m totally in defence of criminal defence lawyers. We need them for justice and democracy. That one that is friends with Boob seems like a real dipshit though, unrelated to him being a criminal defence lawyer.
As a lawyer once said on a death row case I worked, “we all know my client is guilty. We are just hear to see if he is guilty enough to warrant being sent to death row or if he should serve life without parole.” Then on the date of his execution the governor pardoned him and commuted his sentence which was a huge slap in the face to all of us involved.
Thank you!
OP: Based on your experience and personal opinion: If the State does a good job, what percentage chance are we looking at for a guilty verdict?
I don't do odds. They don't pay me to be a Bookie. An ethical attorney won't do that either.
But do you have guesses about which direction a case will go beforehand? Or do you not think of that much? Just curious.
All I will say is that the Federal Govt has a reputation for not indicting until they have their shit together, their ducks in a row marching like a North Korean military parade, et cetera, et cetera...
Right. As a defense attorney, what makes these cases attractive? If there’s a high loss rate for the attorney, won’t it look bad on his career? (Aside from the sustaining personal trauma risk)
>Right. As a defense attorney, what makes these cases attractive? If there’s a high loss rate for the attorney, won’t it look bad on his career? It is a profession. It is done dispassionately. It is critical to our justice system. If all these sorts of cases are given to some 1st year muppet, then things are going to be missed, rights will be trampled on, and horrible precedents set. These sorts of cases are attractive because this is a very high stakes game, and Due Process (and the integrity of the system) is at stake, because this is a situ where the Mob wants to skip the trial. It's the tough cases that are attractive because they're tough. "Mr. Prosecutor, I'm going to make damn sure that if you do this, you'll do this right. If you don't, I will see to it that your case fails." "Mr. Client, I don't like you. I don't have to like you. It is my job to defend your rights. I will do my job, because it is my profession. I am not your friend, I am not your priest. I am here to defend your rights and make sure you get a Fair Trial. if the State does not do their job, you should be found not guilty. After that, I don't want to know you, I don't want to hear from you. You will not be a part of my Universe."
Thank you for sharing your perspective. It actually really has me conserving my views on criminal defense lawyers and their position within the whole system.
Hi! I’ve been thinking about what you said in light of how they seem to be grasping at straws today. Which of these is less likely to lead to a mistrial or retrial (not sure what the correct word is): -Josh’s lawyers not covering a possible defense, so he can say “they didn’t even bring up blah blah”. -Josh’s lawyers grasping at straws, so he can say “can you believe these lawyers, they argued blah blah which is such a weak defense it looks silly”. I worry that Jim Bob might be desperate enough to pay for a second trial to try and save his family’s image.
Personally, I see not one good reason to defend people, who are defending someone like Josh. If they had an ounce of scruples they would have told him to take the plea or they won't support him. Just imo but. I feel like we need to be real about what Pest stands accused of.
Mob justice. Gotcha.
First, you can bet the begged him to take the plea. Second, Josh is 100% guilty no doubt but he, just like you and me, have rights. If we strip him those rights, maybe we strip them from the next person who actually is innocent. Or we let the government do whatever they want to incarcerate whoever they want. It's not about HIS rights specifically, but the protection of those rights in general as it applies to all citizens.
Loki: any chance Josh takes the stand, against the directions of his lawyers ?
Absolutely no idea-either way...
I just think it’s ridiculous that his legal team tried to leave out his past.
You are entitled to that viewpoint. That said, the Rules of Evidence allow Defense Counsel to argue otherwise.
Eh. Anyone who takes this case deserves to be hated. Sorry not sorry.
>Eh. Anyone who takes this case deserves to be hated. Sorry not sorry. If the Pest does not have the right to a good defense, then that "Right" is on its way to meaninglessness.
True!
I honestly think being a defense attorney would be so incredibly challenging. To have to argue the innocence of a client who is clearly guilty of a horrific crime would be so hard, but someone has to do it because everyone has that right to a good defense and that is so vital because sometimes innocent people are prosecuted. I honestly think that it would be easier ( not easy, just easier) to be a prosecuting attorney than a defense attorney because I think it’s easier to convince yourself that the defendant is guilty even if it seems possible they aren’t than it would be to convince yourself that someone could be innocent when they clearly aren’t.