This stuns me...

Defense attorneys-no souls. They will be judged by a higher power one day. I'd love to see them hide behind the "They're only giving the accused their right to legal representation" if it was one of their family members on the receiving end.

Sigh, this is such a frustrating view. This is how our legal system works - its actually codified in the Constitution. What would you suggest, convict the man on the basis of a police report? No thanks, I'll take the system we've got.
And yes, "if it was one of their family members on the receiving end" I would think that most of us would be emotional, enraged, even irrational. That is why we don't make public policy, or laws, on the basis of emotion.

Disgusting....beyond disgusting. I hope he's convicted and gets shanked in prison, and dies painfully.

Do you think the defense attorney comes up with the defense in a case like this? You don't think the attorney hasn't reviewed the evidence and tried to talk some sense into the defendant?

I heard that a local big name attorney got off this case before the trial, and the court had to appoint a new attorney to walk into this spinning propellor.

That's what I was thinking - if this is his defense, he should have just copped to it. But don't vilify Ms. West-Estell for doing her job (as best she can in this case).

Not that you were vilifying her, Johnny. Others were; didn't mean to imply you were.

Progress...you are missing the point entirely. Of course the right to a fair and speedy trial w/legal representation is enshrined in the Constitution. Don't make a straw man out of me. My point is that this is a poor, insulting, and amateurish defense...it has zero chance of working. The defense attorney should have thought of something better.

The legal system has become not about right or wrong, or evidence. Unfortunately the constitution did not and could not account for all the evil that mankind has in pursuit of money. It's become about who can put on a better show to the jury.
Like elected judges, maybe there should be elected or appointed jurys. Jury of your peers? Usually jurys are made up of who can't get out of jury duty. $10 a day? Who in their right mind can afford to sit on a jury? Jury selection has become a "who fits" the defense's profile of who will favor the defendant. They have profilers give them guidelines on who to choose and/or dismiss to win.
I agree that some cases need to have trials. Fair trials. But trials have become side shows and prison has become like resorts.
The system needs looked at and changed.

Dap - I got your point and I agree. I can't think of a better one though. Seriously, what could the guy say? They've got him dead to right.
My comment was toward hockey fan who apparently thinks that the attorney is somehow guilty of something for doing her job.
Hockeyfan, I doubt anyone who lives in a shitty apartment in Toledo is getting the kind of representation that you are describing -you really think his attorney is going to be handpicking the jury? And prisons are resorts? Where the hell do you vacation? You ever watch "locked-up raw?"

Let's see...

Free Health Care. Free Food. Free Shelter. Unlimited Leisure time. Free Dental. Free access to entertainment such as television and books. Free Internet. Paid Utilities...

And as a bonus... A lifetime of unlimited sodomy!

Who needs pension plans anymore? Just get locked up!

I don't know. I can't picture myself doing anything for someone who has raped a girl, let alone a girl with mental issues, no matter what the reason. For no amount of money.
Just doing her job? I guess you could forgive the nazi soldiers because they were just "doing their job" too. You are justifying this women helping this monster defending himself because it's her living. I know, someone is going to say that she is just wearing the red, white, and blue in doing her job because it's a constitutional right. I think some kind of morals should be applied. It's my opinion. I have not sold my soul for money or a job. There are some things I won't do for money or a job.
My comments about jury selection were meant for the bigger cases. Not this one. It was a criticism about the legal system and what it has become. And how when the constitution was written, I'm sure the founding fathers could not take into consideration everything in the future.
My comment about prisons being "resorts" was a reach. I'm talking about tv, access to college courses, internet, etc. I believe everyone has rights until they break the law. Then your rights should be taken away in accordance to what you have done.
As far as you comparing it to "locked up raw". That is a tv show. TV has become so "scripted" that they will edit and assemble anything to sell their show. It's about money. Sure, they show some tough prisons. Too tough? I don't think so.

Lawyers take an oath to uphold the Costitution and zealously represent their clients. HF, What oath did you take to do your job?

Don't fault the attorney. She id doing the best she can to assure this guy gets locked up. Once that happens the others locked up with him will "entertain" themselves with him. They call guys like this a "tree jumper" or a guy who likes to jump on little underaged girls. Nobody likes a tree jumper.

Max, you lower the level of the discussion when you insinuate that a local professional is not doing an honest job, and then insult yourself when you pick the low-hanging fruit of a prison-rape joke. Please, contribute here in a more enlightened fashion.

An oath is only as good as the person who takes it. Please don't try and tell me that just because attorneys take an oath, they can't be corrupt or crooked. And being zealous about defending someone is subjective.
I guess the only oath I ever took to do my job was to defend this country when I was in the military. Is that good enough for you? That job wasn't about the money by the way and I didn't have to rub shoulders with rapists, then hide behind the constitution to justify it. Even with taking that oath, if told to do something against my beliefs, I wouldn't have. That's just me.
No one forces people to become attorneys.
This discussion is mute. What I say about her isn't going to change her, you, or anyone else. What I am saying is that everyone must decide what they're willing to do and sacrifice for the almighty dollar. She made her choice and I don't agree with it. I could imagine being able to look myself in the mirror after "defending" this guy. Don't care if it was my job or not. It's about what is inside your head and heart.
I'm not saying that I'm any better or worse than anyone else. I just wouldn't want to put myself in a position where I have to even lift a finger for someone like that.

HF, I can understand how you wouldnt want to do that job. I know I wouldn't. But most of the defense attorneys I know do not do the job because they believe their clients do not deserve to get punished. They do it to ensure that the process is fair and, if the government proves their case, to make sure that the punishment fits the crime. That's it.

We don't defend "that guy" zealously because we want him to go free. We dot it because it protects the rights of innocent people to a fair trial. Only Rebecca knows why she chose the line of defense put forth, but it may have been the only plausible explanation based on the facts her client provided.

If you ask any attorney who regularly practices criminal defense, we will all tell you that we don'y always like the clients but we believe in the system. It isn't fun and I certainly don't relish "rubbing elbows" with people like the guy in this case, but it is important. There is no hiding behind the Constitution - without people to defend the principles, there would be no Constitution to speak of.

I, for one, find it comforting that I live in a country where, no matter what horrible thing I do, I still have some rights. One of those rights is to a fair trial, with representation. That is one of the things that sets the USA apart: even the scoundrels have a few rights. That is not true of every nation on this planet.

hockeyfan, for your sake, if you are ever accused of any crime--especially if you happen to be innocent--I hope they can find a lawyer willing to defend you, despite your rather narrow-minded comments here.

I know they will find you one. IT'S YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. God Bless America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

well shoot, if wikipedia says it, then it must be true.

"No matter what horrible thing I do, I still have rights"
I guess if did horrible things, or write something about possibly doing horrible things, I'd want rights too.

There is the big difference in our points of view. I cannot think of ever doing a "horrible" thing and you are glad to know that no matter what "horrible" thing you do, you'll still have some rights to "get out of it". If I ever do a "horrible" thing then I deserve what I get for it.
Who are you? Andrew Z?
You watch too much Lifetime tv. Innocent people aren't rounded up and accused of crimes. Usually, if you hang around with criminals, eventually, you'll get accused of a crime.
We differ on our opinions. I have never heard of a "completely innocent" man being accused of a crime. Usually it's an accomplish, partner, or other person who was at the crime scene or had some knowledge or involvement of the crime.
I guess I'm too old fashioned. Good people aren't supposed to commit crimes or even get accused of them. We come from very different places apparently. Good luck keeping yourself from committing a horrible crime.

What is needed is a Star Chamber. A system of review and execution that operated outside the boundaries of the legal shylocks and their corrupt system.

Yeah, you're right. Innocent people are never accused of crimes. We really don't even need a court system. To hell with "innocent until proven guilty."

Do you realize what a moron you sound like?

"Innocent people aren't rounded up and accused of crimes."

So you're unfamiliar with the story of local resident Danny Brown. He served 19 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. He was released in 2002. But in 2012, "Brown has not received an apology or compensation for the years he spent behind bars. Lucas County Prosecutor Julia Bates refuses to exonerate Brown and will not retry him." That's because Julia Bates still believes Brown committed murder.

Or of the Innocence Project, which has cleared over 300 wrongfully convicted individuals, including several who were within days of execution.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

Usually jurys are made up of who can't get out of jury duty. $10 a day? Who in their right mind can afford to sit on a jury?

Almost every employer I've ever had has a policy to compensate employees who are called to jury duty.

Cut & pasted from my current employer's policy:

PURPOSE:
To provide appropriate time off from scheduled work days and income protection for eligible full-time and part-time employees to meet the civic obligation of jury duty.

POLICY:
XYZ supports the civic responsibility of jury duty by allowing appropriate time off from scheduled work days and compensating employees to prevent the loss of income during the required period of service.

^^

BTW - I'm not insinuating that every employer does and/or should continue to pay employees who are on jury duty.

Just pointing out that many employers already do have a jury duty compensation policy, so it's not accurate to assume that only unemployed and/or uneducated people end up on juries.

I am pretty sure that police officers get all the time they need to be on a reality tv show.

Almost every employer I've ever had has a policy to compensate employees who are called to jury duty.

I've never had an employer that offers any compensation at all for jury duty. I've always wanted to serve on a jury, though.

I guess if [I] did horrible things, or write [wrote] something about possibly doing horrible things, I'd want rights too.

You'd have them. Constitutional rights, that is.

The thing to remember here is that this situation isn't about what you've done or haven't done. The entire judicial system is about what you've been accused of doing. There's a world of difference.

MoreThanRhetoric did a good job of summing the attorney's position up. Everyone is entitled to a competent, zealous defense, along with a few other things. An impartial judge would be nice (Christiansen maybe? Maybe not so much...) and a jury of the defendant's peers who have been correctly instructed about the duty of a jury. That includes jury nullification, a thing that prosecutors and judges hate with a passion.

How dare a group of citizens take the law into their own hands? Who do they think they are? Heresy! Heresy, I say! Let none deny it. Extract a confession from the guilty parties and then burn them all at the stake in the village square!

It isn't that the accused is completely innocent of any and all wrongdoing - a state that is impossible. It's that if we the people fail to treat everyone equally in the judicial system, we will end up with cases like Danny Brown and the rest of the people freed by the efforts of The Innocence Project.

How about that?

I originally stated that I do not like defense attorneys. That they are soul-less. They don't care.

So before the thread went stray talking about accused innocents, etc. the topic was defense attorneys.
Let's talk about them and the system.
What failed Danny Brown? The defense attorney? The system? The jury? He was convicted in 1981 without DNA evidence. Who was this woman that accused him? Did she have something against him or was he in the wrong place at the wrong time? It wasn't until 2000 that the DNA was examined and found not to be Danny Brown's.

Yes, we all have constitutional rights and attorneys help provide them. I get that. But like any job, if the person doing the job doesn't care or give 100 percent, they aren't doing anything for you. Rights or not. Do defense attorneys really care who they represent?

I can't imagine doing their job and I can't see how they do it.

It looks like that defense attorney that represented that carry-out clerk cared about what he was doing this week.

Hockey:

Why do I have to like the guy I am representing to zealously represent him? Had you been accused of some crime related to the incident at the ice rick, I would have happily come to your aid despite the fact that you often come across like a complete asshole. I don't like the way you present yourself on this board, but that would not stop me from working my ass off to protect your rights. Some days my job is really unpleasant, but I get over it because I know that someone has to defend the Constitution against overzealous cops and pandering politicians, not to mention a public ignorant of the protections they depend upon to continue living in ignorance.

There was no accuser, hockeyfan: the victim was raped and murdered. Danny Brown knew her and dated her some months before the crime, but he was convicted solely on the testimony of a 6-year-old child, the son of the victim.

Why was Danny Brown convicted? IMHO because he was a convenient defendent: he was young, black, poor, and had something of a record (charged with a minor menacing felony, but no time in jail, after an argument on a bus when he was a senior in high school). They once offered him a plea bargain to manslaughter, meaning he could have been out in about a year, but he turned it down, as he maintained his innocence. Just as he steadfastly did for 19 fucking years.

Was this overt racism? Probably not. However, to the justice system personnel he was just another violent young black man, and the fact that he had no money to mount a decent defense made this case much simpler to successfully prosecute. Some defense errors were made, some exonerating evidence was withheld, and perhaps the child witness was coached a bit, but ultimately Danny Brown was simply a easy person to accuse and convict. Heck, there were something like a dozen witnesses who put Danny 10 miles away at a party watching sports on television, but the prosecutor successfully found time inconsistencies in some of the recollections of the witnesses: GASP - alcohol was involved at that party, and some witnesses were fuzzy on the exact times they saw Danny there. It is possible that Danny hopped on the bus (he did not own a car) and rode across town to the east side, killed the victim, and rode the bus back to the west side in the 40-minute span that was possible with some differences in the testimony of witnesses who placed Danny at the party. Oh, and this was during a snow storm, but maybe the busses had good snow tires and made all the lights. </sarcasm>.

The worst part of the Danny Brown case is that the DNA actually matches a criminal named Sherman Preston who was convicted of a similar rape-murder. When Julia Bates actually deigns to comment every once in a while on Danny Brown's case, she says something like this: "Well, perhaps Danny Brown did not rape the victim, and so we think he must have been working with someone else in the killing." Yes: when physical evidence gets in the way, just create a new working theory.

The reason the prosecutor will not retry is simple: there is no way in hell a conviction could be obtained. Over 30 years have passed since that 6-year-old boy testified, and there is no guarantee the kid (now a grown man) would even travel all the way from Colorado to testify. Even if he did, a competent defense attorney would make mincemeat of the ancient recollections, and the DNA evidence would make short work of any attempts to physically tie Danny brown to the scene.

As long as there continues to be no statute of limitations on murder cases, the prosecutor can sit on this forever.

Why do I have to like the guy I am representing...

Well, mainly because it isn't nice not to like someone. You should try liking people - you'll feel better about yourself!

...I would have happily come to your aid despite the fact that you often come across like a complete asshole.

If that goes for me too, you're hired.

Some days my job is really unpleasant, but I get over it because I know that someone has to defend the Constitution against overzealous cops... [and] a public ignorant of the protections they depend upon to continue living in ignorance.

Yeah, that ignorance is something else. This is a good explanation and way better than most. Note that if we are to believe MoreThanRhetoric (and he sounds credible here) the defense attorney's personal feelings for his client really don't matter much, nor does the attorney's opinion of his client's guilt or innocence. What the attorney does is prevent the State from abusing his client to the absolute best of his ability, regardless of his own personal feelings.

If you're really interested, read Jeff Gamso - Gamso, for the defense, an egalitarian attorney who specializes in windmills and the falling property values of same.

As for Danny Brown, he got railroaded and he's still being railroaded by a corrupt legal system and a Lucas County Persecutor who likely belongs in prison herself. The testimony of young children is worthless, as a child will say whatever it is they think an adult wants to hear. The best example I can think of is the McMartin preschool trial - the entire transcript should be required reading for any persecutor who wants testimony from a child, and after that the persecutor should speak to a handful of experienced mothers about the veracity of children. Adults are bad enough, but a child? That's insanity.

Danny Brown is innocent of that crime; was always innocent, and if Danny had followed the good advice I got from my own attorney, he might never have been charged or convicted.

1. Don't talk to the police.
2. If the police want to talk to you, tell the police you want your attorney present during questioning. Then ask if you're free to leave, and if you are - do so.
3. Any question, see item 1 above.

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get me. Just ask AC.

Dumb question: how can the defense say this guy is "innocent" because the sex was "consensual"? I thought consent didn't matter if a girl was underage (she's 14...I thought Ohio law was 16). And that is before you even take into account the girl was mentally developmentally slow.

Zealously defend your client...yes, I agree. But hell, saying he's innocent because he committed another heinous crime seems like a strange way to be "zealous"...

It would appear she is trying to mitigate the facts surrounding the rape charge. She is not arguing outright innocence, just that he is not guilty of the rape.

Thank God..we are back on subject! My thesis (before the thread meandered off to vigilante land) was that this was a poor defense on the part of his attorney.

Thanks, MTR.

Well, it appears that the "she wanted it" defense did not work.

Because of the costs involved, I'd rather see that scum put to death for his crimes, but 40 years behind bars is an acceptable substitute.

As I said..the attorney knew what she was doing and presented "his" defense, perhaps knowing it wouldn't work. That was his story and he stuck to it. Now the other inmates will take charge and deal out real justice on the guy. Johnnymac, thats no joke, maybe next time I see you in the courthouse Ill explain it to you.