tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post9039410790934591019..comments2024-01-25T14:51:13.377-05:00Comments on Gamso - For the Defense: On Pissing Off the Powers That BeJeff Gamsohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09869425697771419546noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-28630371376884422902014-11-02T21:37:44.205-05:002014-11-02T21:37:44.205-05:00He has no clothes! He has no clothes!
Speak trut...He has no clothes! He has no clothes!<br /><br />Speak truth to power.<br /><br />In your words, Squawk, "injustice, to be done, must not be seen to be done."Jeff Gamsohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869425697771419546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-61287871185932710062014-11-02T20:53:56.416-05:002014-11-02T20:53:56.416-05:00We agree with everything everybody said. We want t...We agree with everything everybody said. We want to defend every client and not pull our punches out of fear of pissing off the judge and the DA. But on the other hand we can't help noticing that ingratiation (sometimes) works. On the other (third) hand, the reason so much bullsh*it goes on is that people don't stand up to it. Unfortunately, it's not an intellectual choice for Squawk because we can't help flipping our lid most of the time. But since in criminal cases, the affirmance is routinely drafted before the argument, you might as well yell at the judges. Why make it comfortable for them to screw your client? - Appellate SquawkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-3938020512570111712014-10-26T20:26:36.312-04:002014-10-26T20:26:36.312-04:00I'm not suggesting, I'd never suggest, mak...I'm not suggesting, I'd never suggest, making a bad argument for the sake of making a bad argument. But you always make the arguments that are the right thing to do for this client. Damn the future consequences. Because you go all out for every client.<br /><br />That example from my experience. I cut the guy's sentence in half in the court of appeals. I tried, futilely as it happens, to defend the result in the supreme court where the folks who get to decide those things not only reversed the court of appeals - which wasn't surprising - but took the opportunity to make bad law. It was never my plan to lose, never my plan to make an outre argument that would hurt others. it was my plan to do what I could for that client. Had the high court not taken the state's appeal from when I won . . . .Jeff Gamsohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869425697771419546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-29775332334349818092014-10-26T20:21:44.522-04:002014-10-26T20:21:44.522-04:00No, I don't endorse pissing off the judge (or ...No, I don't endorse pissing off the judge (or the prosecutor) for no reason, just because you can. There are lawyers who do that. They think it makes them look tough. There are clients (or at least prospective clients) who like it because they think they've got a fighter. But as you say, it's not generally the most effective way of doing things. <br /><br />Sometimes, though, it really is what has to be done.Jeff Gamsohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869425697771419546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-3172223971725833852014-10-26T19:11:40.079-04:002014-10-26T19:11:40.079-04:00Jeff:
Ahh, the old days in the criminal defense b...Jeff:<br /><br />Ahh, the old days in the criminal defense blogosphere when we had lots of people debating the same issues and disagreeing with each other….<br /><br />I take your point about worrying about the client who is standing next to you without regard for how what you say will affect future clients. Your real and present duty to the current client trumps any duty you might possibly owe to some future client. But I disagree that you should ever talk over a judge or disagree for the sake of being disagreeable. In that case, you are failing both future AND present clients.<br /><br />There are some criminal defense lawyers who love the fight so much that they fight even when it is not necessary. It is almost as if they have this martyr complex – this need to sacrifice themselves in the interests of serving the client’s interests even when an alternative approach might be more effective. But it seems to me that this phenomenon has far more to do with the lawyer than the client. <br />Jamisonhttp://www.koehlerlaw.net/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-91149427254158271632014-10-26T13:23:24.945-04:002014-10-26T13:23:24.945-04:00Jeff, if your thesis is that very weak, or even pe...Jeff, if your thesis is that very weak, or even perverse and almost certainly losing arguments must be made for a client no matter how much damage that might do to other clients or the system as a whole - 'because the client' - I'd have to say that is a highly questionable assertion and that I personally do not agree. We are not 'helpless' in that sense. We have professional judgment (well, at least many of us do) and are entitled - indeed bound - to use it. <br /><br />More specifically, if I'm reading your account correctly, I think in the same situation I would have gone the other way. And what's interesting to me about this post is that you use an example that poses the question quite clearly.<br /><br />So while I disagree with you I appreciate the cogency with which you present the problem.<br /><br />John Reganhttp://strikelawyer.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com