TSPN attorneys...serious question to ponder


Status
Not open for further replies.
Seeing Spots

Seeing Spots

Joyful Woman!
JSTUS, Robber, JState Tiger...and others,

This probably should be moved to Round Table Discussion, BUT, I know you guys would see it here FIRST since we all "play" on Small Talk more...

I have been following the John Walker Lindh case with great interest. I presented its complexity to my class as a part of an ethics and professionalism lecture. You know the age old queries:
Can you represent someone you know/believe is guilty? Do you think EVERYONE has a right to a fair trial? Can you remove your personal feelings, and stick only to the issues at hand, regardless of which side you represent? Can you live with yourself, after you have represent someone who you knew was guilty and they got off because of your skills? Can you live with yourself, after you have represented the government and the defendant was innocent, but was found guilty because of your skills?

The John Walker Lindh case poses great ethical questions and tugs at the professionalism issue but just think about it--WHAT A GREAT CASE TO BE A LAWYER ON!...

So what do you guys think? I know JST is a persecu...oops :D prosecutor and I am a defense counsel...but this case is a litigator's dream! I could easily be on either side of the well! My personal feelings are that he should be tried and convicted and put to death for treason. But as defenders of justice, we all know he has a right to be tried, evidence must support the charges, the burden of proof must be met, etc.

It is interesting that 3 former federal prosecutors have signed on to represent him. I think I would want to defend the traitor.

Where do you guys come down?
 
I would represent Lindh in a New York minute. I believe everybody got a right to have effective representation and a fair trial. If I got him off (dude ain't got a prayer) I wouldn't feel bad. If you know the person is guilty and still present evidence that suggests that he didn't do it, that's unethical as hell. You're lying to the court, which is something we aren't supposed to do. I used to try and avoid asking a client if they did it, that way I wouldn't have to worry about the ethics of introducing exonerating or exculpatory evidence. Now, I'm too damned nosey.:( I be wanting to know.:D

That'd be like the Johnny Cochran effect. He got OJ off, and now the Black general public sees him as THE MAN. If you get this Lindh fool off, I see the same thing happening.
 

I am going to the 7-11 store around the corner to get some Blue Bell Ice Cream (Pralines & Cream) so I can get back and watch the TSPN lawyers speak about this.

Court TV aint got nothing on this!

Come wit it yall!
 
I ain't no dayum lawyer, but...

I have 5 cents to chip in for a bullet! Ain't no use in wasting taxpayers money on a fool who was caught with these folks. If it had been Hakeem from down the street, he wouldn't have made it back to the US alive! Where do I send my nickel??? :redhot:
 
Re: I ain't no dayum lawyer, but...

Originally posted by Jaguar Diehard
I have 5 cents to chip in for a bullet! Ain't no use in wasting taxpayers money on a fool who was caught with these folks. If it had been Hakeem from down the street, he wouldn't have made it back to the US alive! Where do I send my nickel??? :redhot:
Click to expand...
I don't know about Hakeem, but Ray Ray definitely wouldn't have made it back alive.
 
I'm definitely not a lawyer...my mom's raised me better than that!
But I'm wondering about the argument that he wasn't committing treason against the United States. I don't know all the facts, but had he become an Afghanistan citizen. If so, that means he no longer had any allegiance to the United States.

Also, just because he was a part of the Taliban and apparently the Al-Quida (sp?) does that mean he had knowledge of the attack on the Twin Towers. I mean, how high up was this dude in the rank of Bin Ladin's "army". Maybe his involvement was not terrorist attacks on the United States, that has not yet been proven.

I'm not defending this dude at all, but what if I decided that I wanted to reside in Cuba. What if I decided that the Cuban lifestyle fit me and I wanted to live with a nice little Cuban honey and make little Havana Biggs! All of a sudden, Fidel decides to kick the US ass off of Guantelemo Bay (the US military base on Cuban Soil) and as a result of the retaliatory US offensive, my po azz gets captured defending my little Havana's?

Is that treason?
 
Originally posted by Robber
I used to try and avoid asking a client if they did it, that way I wouldn't have to worry about the ethics of introducing exonerating or exculpatory evidence. Now, I'm too damned nosey.:( I be wanting to know.:D
Click to expand...
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
Robber I got the same dayum NOSE problem! And I represent CHILDREN! You know I am researching/writing a law review article on the complexities and implications of representing children and when/how/if to apply the ATTORNEY-CLIENT privilege. Who do you owe it to? the child--children lack contractual capacity!!!; the parent-they are not the CLIENT, and are not in jeopardy of losing their liberty!!! Anyway, I digress, I will post a thread on this issue later so I can pick your brains for my article.

Okay, so far it is me and you at the defense counsel's table!

We already know where JST will be, but let's hear it from him anyway.:rolleyes:

After we have assembled the team, then we can discuss the strategy we will employ to free the traitor-bastard and beat JState Tiger and the other persecutors.
 
Let me take a stab at this. Is he still an US civilian? If not, then he is an Afghanistan citizen, right? What is the faith of the other Afghanistan troops? Are they on trial and subjected to be put to death if found guilty? Then, why is this guy not tried by the same standards? If you are tried for murder are you subjected to be put to death? Then, why not try this guy under the same standards?

Pls help me understand this one, cause I am @$$ backwards on this.......:(
 
Originally posted by Blacknbengal
Let me take a stab at this. Is he still an US civilian? If not, then he is an Afghanistan citizen, right? What is the faith of the other Afghanistan troops? Are they on trial and subjected to be put to death if found guilty? Then, why is this guy not tried by the same standards? If you are tried for murder are you subjected to be put to death? Then, why not try this guy under the same standards?

Pls help me understand this one, cause I am @$$ backwards on this.......:(
Click to expand...

Your query is good and you are not backwards...EVERYONE is trying to ask and answer those same questions. And the all have "WHAT IF" implications.

According to newsreports now, we are told he is STILL a U.S. citizen. He did not become a Afgan citizen. That is why he was taken and sent back to the U.S. to be tried. He has a constitutional rights as an American. That is why he is not being treated like the Taliban "detainees" being held at GuitMo. They are not "POWs" but detainees so they can be interrogated. The Geneva Convention does not allow POWs to be interrogated. It is both a semantical and legal technicality that allows the U.S. to imprison and rough up the Taliban troops. (imprison and rough up, my opinion :D)

As far as we know, all Taliban and Afganistanis are Muslim. Lindh converted to the Islamic faith.

If you are tried for treason, it is punishable by death and so is murder under federal law. (remember the Oklahoma bomber!)

MikeBigg

We don't know the answer to your questions. Those answers will come out at trial!!!!!! WE ALL WANT TO KNOW WHY HE IS NOT ON TRIAL FOR TREASON!!:redhot: LOOKS AND SMELLS LIKE TREASON TO ME! What he knew and when he knew it will play a big part in his trial. It's going to be a GOOD ONE!

And hey Mikey, watch your mouth, trying to talk about us LAWYERS. When you finish with that CONTAGIOUS tour you just might need one of us!
 
Originally posted by Seeing Spots


We are told he is STILL a U.S. citizen. He did not become a Afgan citizen. That is why he was taken and sent back to the U.S. to be tried. He has a constitutional rights as an American.

If you are tried for treason, it is punishable by death and so is murder under federal law. (remember the Oklahoma bomber!)
Click to expand...

My point exactly!!! Why cant this guy be tried for murder and put to sleep like the Oklahoma Bomber? This country never cease to amaze me. :(
 
Would I take on this case?
YES, YES, YES. I would quit my job and do this one pro bono, for nada, zelch, zero, no $, however you want to say it. I, too, am a prosecutor but on this one I would love to be the defender.

Like SEEING SPOTS said, this is a dream case for an attorney...really on either side. The exposure an attorney would get is unimaginable. This is the type of case that an individual is suppose to have gone to law school for...to guarantee JUSTICE(JSTUS) FOR ALL. The experience gained from this case is unimaginable, also.

When I worked as a Public Defender, I never once asked a client if they did it. I didn't care. I strongly believe everyone has a right to a fair trial. With the way the justice system is set up, it does not matter if they did it or not. In the criminal system, it is only about can it be proven beyond a "reasonable doubt." When you are on the prosecution side that burden is very hard to carry. So, as a PD, I used the system that "those other folks" created against "them". Now as a prosecutor I have to use that same system to my advantage. Shows my versitility (my own plug). ;)

I think the defense attorneys on this one took the case as a challenge. There is nothing noteable about a lazy attorney. They are gonna have to bust their butts on this one. You see they are already on it arguing "he asked for an attorney". I would do it and give it my all. I would go through that constitution like I was putting salt in a salt shaker grain by grain, not pinch by pinch. And yes, I could live with myself for doing it and live even better with myself after it was all over. I wouldn't even need a resume' anymore. My name would speak for itself.

He will have a FAIR trial. It's called WORKING THE SYSTEM.
 
Seeing Spots can a Latrine Lawyer take a shot at this since most cases are solved in the Latrine?

Anyway, Plea Bargaining, you have to give up something to get something. This is what this case is about.

There is no such thing as a fair trial. Everybody is entitle to representation, but in the overloaded system, the PD is handed your case 20 minutes before the trial.
 
Originally posted by MightyDog
There is no such thing as a fair trial. Everybody is entitle to representation, but in the overloaded system, the PD is handed your case 20 minutes before the trial.
Click to expand...

Not true. A PD never gets a case 20 minutes before a "trial". There are certain steps that you must go through leading up to a trial and if an attorney is hired immediately before a trial and has not had time to request what is known as discovery, through no fault of his own, he/she can always request a continuance to give them time to do so. A defendant also has the right to subpeona witnesses on his behalf and those withness can not be subpoened in 20 minutes. There are so many rights that are afforded a defendant that would be violated if a PD was forced to go to trial 20 minutes after having been "handed" a case.

WHEW. It's so hard to put legalise in everyday language.

Am I on retainer for this??;)
 
I represent his ass in a New York Minute. We all know he is guilty. But id be on the Court hose steps at the end of every day, getting my shine on on MSNBC and Rivera Live.

Having said that, Johnnie Taliban has already gotten his break when he wasnt charged with Treason. He needs to go on and plead guilty.

I'd say in my courtroom 95% of the people that come in are guilty as sin. Defense Attorneys dont care whether they did it. They just want to get their money. Everyone is entitled to a defense and a trial and to have the state to prove the charges. But Trials are rare. Why? Because the people are guilty.
 

Originally posted by J-State Tiger
I represent his ass in a New York Minute. We all know he is guilty. But id be on the Court hose steps at the end of every day, getting my shine on on MSNBC and Rivera Live.

Having said that, Johnnie Taliban has already gotten his break when he wasnt charged with Treason. He needs to go on and plead guilty.

<font color=red>I'd say in my courtroom 95% of the people that come in are guilty as sin. Defense Attorneys dont care whether they did it. They just want to get their money. Everyone is entitled to a defense and a trial and to have the state to prove the charges. But Trials are rare. Why? Because the people are guilty.</font>
Click to expand...
Spoken like a true prosecutor. :rolleyes::p :D
 
Love that JState Tiger!

Originally posted by Robber

Spoken like a true prosecutor. :rolleyes::p :D
Click to expand...

Robber, I knew that PROSECUTOR would say 95% are guilty and they plead out and that's true, I must admit.

JST, you are right that Lindh got a GIANT break when they did not charge him with TREASON. Talk about PRE-TRIAL negotiations! And those lesser charges will be easy to plead to. Do you think after the SHOW and it's all said and done that they will plead him. I know dayum well if I was representing him, no way would I want a full blown trial with all that evidence trotted out and no way would I put him on the stand. Brace yourself, you know a motion for a psych eval cannot be far behind, just to see how that dog would hunt.

Okay all of us picked Lindh to represent. Obviously, the fame and fortune to follow is just too much to past up. Like JUSTUS said, the legal challenge, the opportunity to showcase your skills would be awesome.

But for sake of this great discussion let's choose a prosecutor to argue for the United States. Any suggestions how we should pick among us to take the "other" side.

Come on JUSTUS and JST you guys already officially work for the evil empire for real! Be the government for TSPN-land and let me and Robber represent the traitor.

What do you think?
 
Ok counselor. Lets say your boy wants to plea, but you want the fame and glory of a trial. What do you do?

When does Jury Selection begin in out TSPN trial or do you want a bench trial?
 
FIRST MOTION TO QUASH "CONFESSION"

Originally posted by J-State Tiger
Ok counselor. Lets say your boy wants to plea, but you want the fame and glory of a trial. What do you do?

When does Jury Selection begin in out TSPN trial or do you want a bench trial?
Click to expand...
JURY!

But not just yet PERSECU er er Mr. Prosecutor, before we get to voir dire a jury, PRE-TRIAL motions...

That SO-CALLED, RANK AZZ CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATING ILL GOTTEN confession gotta go! So we need to argue the merits of that...

WHO WILL BE OUR TSPN PRESIDING JUDGE?????????

:idea: HOW ABOUT SAME OLD G????

What say you SOG?

Any objections TO SOG, JST and JUSTUS?

(Hey everybody get ready to be impaneled as our TSPN jury...we will pick 6, okay JST, Robber and JUSTUS? A petite jury is just about right with this motely crew!:lmao:
 
This is better than Court TV.

SOG, You can pass that Blue Bell over to the cat daddy because you've been called to do your civic duty!!!
 
Re: FIRST MOTION TO QUASH "CONFESSION"

Originally posted by Seeing Spots

JURY!
Click to expand...
BWAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

You are going to turn this case over to Joe Meatball and Sally Housecoat who already know Walker is guilty and are looking for somebody to punish? LOL BTW, We are trying Johnny Taliban(JT) in the Southern district of New York.

Judge, JT, as an enemy beligerant was not entitled to a lawyer. Judge, just imagine the precedent we would set if every enemy of this nation could demand an attorney in the early stages of his detenion. Judge as soon as we determined Walker's status, and he was returned to face these charges he was afforded counsel.

In the alternative judge, the US government would argue that JT waived his right to counsel and made the decision to speak with authorities. He was not rerpresented by counsel and spoke freely without one, which is his constitutional right.
 
Re: Re: FIRST MOTION TO QUASH "CONFESSION"

Originally posted by J-State Tiger
Judge, JT, as an enemy beligerant was not entitled to a lawyer. Judge, just imagine the precedent we would set if every enemy of this nation could demand an attorney in the early stages of his detenion. Judge as soon as we determined Walker's status, and he was returned to face these charges he was afforded counsel.

In the alternative judge, the US government would argue that JT waived his right to counsel and made the decision to speak with authorities. He was not rerpresented by counsel and spoke freely without one, which is his constitutional right.
Click to expand...
Not so fast my friend.

First of all, Your Honor, I object to the reference of Mr. Lindh as "Johnny Taliban" or "JT" or any name other than his given name of John Walker Lindh.

Having said that, the gov't has just argued that at the time Mr. Lindh was arrested and taken into custody, they did not believe him to be an American citizen, so he wasn't accorded the rights of an American citizen, including the right to counsel. And over his repeated requests for counsel they coerced a confession. But as soon as they realized that he was a citizen, they quickly provided him with counsel. AFTER THE CONFESSION. And then they argue that even if he were a citizen, he waived his right to counsel prior to the confession.

Your Honor, this is a classic case of governmental abuse. Mr. Lindh was an American citizen at the time of his arrest and should have been provided his constitutional right to counsel upon his request. The government's refusal to provide him with counsel clearly violates the constitution. Having gotten a confession over Mr. Lindh's request for counsel, the government should not be allowed to mention or infer that Mr. Lindh, in any way, confessed to committing the acts of which he is accused.

The government makes a policy argument that every enemy of this nation would demand an attorney if Mr. Lindh's confession is quashed. Well, if those enemies are to be tried in our courts, then they should be accorded all the rights under the constitution. The 14th amendment to the constitution states that no PERSON shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Trying Mr. Lindh in U.S. courts makes U.S. laws applicable. They are applicable to all persons, and not just citizens.

Clearly, Mr. Lindh is an American citizen. He should have been provided counsel upon his first request. All interrogations should have ceased until after he had conferred with counsel. However, if the Court questions Mr. Lindh's citizenship, as previously stated, as this case is being pursued in U.S. courts, then U.S. law applies. In either event, Mr. Lindh was entitled to counsel. He was not provided with counsel. The confession was illegally and unlawfully obtained and should be thrown out. QUASHED!!!!
 
OH Isht!!!!! This is the 3rd time in the last year that I have been called for Jury Duty. But my first time doing so on the net. Yeah SS! I am down!

Cat Daddy,

Here...Take the Blue Bell! I haven't even opened it yet! :(
 
You know there is always a drunk at the trial... Ghetto Trials that is.......

YOU KNOW HE DID IT!!!


runs out of courthouse before being detained
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top