Hillary As Rapist's Defense Lawyer: Is It Relevant?

Jul 2011
78,387
44,052
Memphis, Tn.
I don't know what is so hard for you to understand here. Defense attorneys are not allowed to publicly state a personal opinion that their client was guilty.
Why is it you cluck at anyone on this board who you think violates the presumption of innocence but can't wrap your head around that very simple concept of defense attorney ethics?
She did NOT "Publically STATE a personal opinion that her client was guilty." Period.

Read your own fucking links:

1. I quote: "...and she shockingly laughs as she INDICATED she knew here client MAY have been guilty." That's NOT exactly stating publically that she KNEW her client was guilty? NOT even "pretty much" saying that.

2. The tapes were made between 1983 and 1987 for a magazine article that was NEVER PUBLISHED. So, tell me again about what she PUBLICALLY STATED.

3. The trial was in 1975. How in the fuck could comments she made years later in the 1980's effect the accused getting a fair trial or damaging his right to presumed innocence?
 

Macduff

Moderator
Apr 2010
94,891
32,404
Pittsburgh, PA
Why not? Not saying either way, for the moment; just asking what you're thinking is, here.
Don't defense attorneys rely on their clients being open and honest so they can provide the best possible defense? Hence attorney client privilege. How open would people be if they thought their attorney was going to throw them under the bus afterwards?
When we discussed this before, didn't you say that you personally wouldn't have said what she said? If I'm remembering that correctly, why not?
 

Macduff

Moderator
Apr 2010
94,891
32,404
Pittsburgh, PA
She did NOT "Publically STATE a personal opinion that her client was guilty." Period.

Read your own fucking links:

1. I quote: "...and she shockingly laughs as she INDICATED she knew here client MAY have been guilty." That's NOT exactly stating publically that she KNEW her client was guilty? NOT even "pretty much" saying that.

2. The tapes were made between 1983 and 1987 for a magazine article that was NEVER PUBLISHED. So, tell me again about what she PUBLICALLY STATED.

3. The trial was in 1975. How in the fuck could comments she made years later in the 1980's effect the accused getting a fair trial or damaging his right to presumed innocence?
1. There is nothing ambivalent about what she said. She didn't say she questioned her faith in polygraphs or she had to think about it. She said it was "destroyed". Now why would her faith in polygraphs be "destroyed" after her client passed one? There is no other interpretation.

2. Please don't try to say that comments made to a reporter on the record in an interview aren't meant for public consumption. That's just going to be embarrassing for everyone if you try to make that argument.

3. How in the fuck do comments made on this board affect anyone getting a fair trial? And yet you don't mind nagging about presumption of innocence. I guess it only counts when you can shake your finger at right wingers.
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
75,102
43,836
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
Don't defense attorneys rely on their clients being open and honest so they can provide the best possible defense? Hence attorney client privilege. How open would people be if they thought their attorney was going to throw them under the bus afterwards?
Not just privilege (an evidentiary rule), but confidentiality (an ethical responsibility). But there is no "afterward" in this case. He'd already been convicted of a different charge on a plea deal, whereby the state agreed to drop the more serious charge(s) in return. A deal's a deal, and not undoable simply because the state changed its mind.

But more importantly, she did not reveal any confidential information by stating an opinion. Had she revealed confidential information, she could be subject to bar discipline even now that no such information could be used. But she didn't; she only expressed an opinion, and that violates no ethical rule.

When we discussed this before, didn't you say that you personally wouldn't have said what she said? If I'm remembering that correctly, why not?
You remember correctly. I think it's a bad habit to get into, and I don't want to get into that habit, especially while I'm practicing law. Clinton isn't anymore, she's a politician, so it matters less - so long as she doesn't violate any of the rules, and she didn't with her statement of opinion.

And for all we know, she doesn't actually know whether he did it or not. Wasn't there a line from Chicago that went something like, "I didn't ask if you did it, I asked if you had $5,000"? When acting as a defense attorney, my issue isn't with "guilt," but whether the state can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It could even actually hinder my job to know if the defendant was guilty.
 
Likes: 1 person
Jul 2011
78,387
44,052
Memphis, Tn.
1. There is nothing ambivalent about what she said. She didn't say she questioned her faith in polygraphs or she had to think about it. She said it was "destroyed". Now why would her faith in polygraphs be "destroyed" after her client passed one? There is no other interpretation.

2. Please don't try to say that comments made to a reporter on the record in an interview aren't meant for public consumption. That's just going to be embarrassing for everyone if you try to make that argument.

3. How in the fuck do comments made on this board affect anyone getting a fair trial? And yet you don't mind nagging about presumption of innocence. I guess it only counts when you can shake your finger at right wingers.
1. I'm not explaining it to you again. Is my quote from your link accurate or is it not?

2. Are my comments accurate or are they not?

3.We are not talking about comments made on the board. We are talking about comments made by Hillary Clinton years AFTER the trial in question was concluded.

You answer no questions posed to you and refute nothing I said. Damn, but you are getting overly emotional.
Adios.
 
May 2014
12,533
9,805
American in Socialist Sweden
Not just privilege (an evidentiary rule), but confidentiality (an ethical responsibility). But there is no "afterward" in this case. He'd already been convicted of a different charge on a plea deal, whereby the state agreed to drop the more serious charge(s) in return. A deal's a deal, and not undoable simply because the state changed its mind.

But more importantly, she did not reveal any confidential information by stating an opinion. Had she revealed confidential information, she could be subject to bar discipline even now that no such information could be used. But she didn't; she only expressed an opinion, and that violates no ethical rule.


You remember correctly. I think it's a bad habit to get into, and I don't want to get into that habit, especially while I'm practicing law. Clinton isn't anymore, she's a politician, so it matters less - so long as she doesn't violate any of the rules, and she didn't with her statement of opinion.

And for all we know, she doesn't actually know whether he did it or not. Wasn't there a line from Chicago that went something like, "I didn't ask if you did it, I asked if you had $5,000"? When acting as a defense attorney, my issue isn't with "guilt," but whether the state can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It could even actually hinder my job to know if the defendant was guilty.


so, you would NOT ask if a client is GUILTY…. YOU would only ask if the STATE can PROVE their case….. ????
 

Macduff

Moderator
Apr 2010
94,891
32,404
Pittsburgh, PA
Not just privilege (an evidentiary rule), but confidentiality (an ethical responsibility). But there is no "afterward" in this case. He'd already been convicted of a different charge on a plea deal, whereby the state agreed to drop the more serious charge(s) in return. A deal's a deal, and not undoable simply because the state changed its mind.

But more importantly, she did not reveal any confidential information by stating an opinion. Had she revealed confidential information, she could be subject to bar discipline even now that no such information could be used. But she didn't; she only expressed an opinion, and that violates no ethical rule.
OK hypothetical here. Suppose you have someone convicted of a crime. Can his lawyer then go on tv and say "He totally did it."


You remember correctly. I think it's a bad habit to get into, and I don't want to get into that habit, especially while I'm practicing law. Clinton isn't anymore, she's a politician, so it matters less - so long as she doesn't violate any of the rules, and she didn't with her statement of opinion.
But she was a lawyer when she gave the interview. I think it's fair to expect someone to abide the ethical rules of a profession while they are practicing it and fair for people to judge their character afterwards by how well they maintained those ethics.

And for all we know, she doesn't actually know whether he did it or not. Wasn't there a line from Chicago that went something like, "I didn't ask if you did it, I asked if you had $5,000"? When acting as a defense attorney, my issue isn't with "guilt," but whether the state can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It could even actually hinder my job to know if the defendant was guilty.
I understand the difference between legal and factual guilt. But if you ask a client something, don't you need them to answer openly and honestly?
For example, supposed someone is accused of a crime but he has an alibi. That alibi is that he was somewhere else cheating on his wife. As counsel, wouldn't you need to know this; and as a defendant wouldn't he need to trust counsel enough to divulge that kind of information?
 

Macduff

Moderator
Apr 2010
94,891
32,404
Pittsburgh, PA
1. I'm not explaining it to you again. Is my quote from your link accurate or is it not?
You are not characterizing it accurately

2. Are my comments accurate or are they not?
No, they are completely wrong. Who on earth thinks that comments made on the record to a reporter are private?

3.We are not talking about comments made on the board. We are talking about comments made by Hillary Clinton years AFTER the trial in question was concluded.
And I am asking why you treat them differently.

You answer no questions posed to you and refute nothing I said. Damn, but you are getting overly emotional.
Adios.[/QUOTE]
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
75,102
43,836
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
so, you would NOT ask if a client is GUILTY…. YOU would only ask if the STATE can PROVE their case….. ????
Depends on the case. Most of the time, the question isn't whether the person did something, but rather whether the act constitutes a crime. Take your basic bar fight: A punches B and is arrested for assault. A admits he punched B; but was the punch a criminal act, or not? E.g., could it have been self-defense? Or is there some other defense? He still "did it," but did he commit a crime when he "did it"? Or was it really C, and not A, who punched B, and A was just in the wrong place at the wrong time when the police came? Or is there some other defense?

So, no, I don't ask the person if he's "guilty," as that's a legal conclusion anyway that he's not qualified to make anyway.

* In my state, Harassment is a touching of another person that a reasonable person would find offensive, that was intended to harass or annoy. That's the short version, anyway. Contrast Assault, which is roughly the same thing except it also must have a physical injury (defined as either a physical impairment or substantial pain).