The Hillary Tapes...don't forget in November

[98valk]

http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-tapes/
(has some great pics of her also, and u wonder why she defends billy so well for his rapes)

In 1975, the same year she married Bill, Hillary Clinton agreed to serve as the court-appointed attorney for Thomas Alfred Taylor, a 41-year-old accused of raping the child after luring her into a car.

The recordings, which date from 1983-1987 and have never before been reported, include Clinton’s suggestion that she knew Taylor was guilty at the time. She says she used a legal technicality to plead her client, who faced 30 years to life in prison, down to a lesser charge. The recording and transcript, along with court documents pertaining to the case, are embedded below.

The full story of the Taylor defense calls into question Clinton’s narrative of her early years as a devoted women and children’s advocate in Arkansas—a narrative the 2016 presidential frontrunner continues to promote on her current book tour.

Her comments on the rape trial are part of more than five hours of unpublished interviews conducted by Arkansas reporter Roy Reed with then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton and his wife in the mid-1980s.

[Jess from VA]

Some of her comments (back then) show a poor understanding of attorney client privilege and good judgment, and crass comments about the minor victim.  Some other things do not add up or sound exactly true (he only got time served as a sentence?)

But once she took the case, she was duty bound to do her best for the man, guilty or not.  It sounds like the state forensic people screwed up and she took advantage of it.  Nothing wrong with that.  Indeed to not do your best for criminal defense clients (within the legal limits), however horrible they may be, is unethical behavior. 

I don't like this lady one bit, and I'm not defending her.  Just pointing out what criminal defense work is.  Back in the day, I carried a .45 without license to protect myself from my own clients.  It is not a glamorous business.  I am happy to hear she no longer has a license (just like the Zero).

[The emperor has no clothes]

I don't like this lady one bit, and I'm not defending her.  Just pointing out what criminal defense work is.  Back in the day, I carried a .45 without license to protect myself from my own clients.  It is not a glamorous business. 

And that right there is a good reason for the amount of pay for lawyers. Anybody that has to defend themselves from their clients deserves $'s. I'm just not sure if the guy at the Chicago 7/11 should get more or less than a lawyer.   

[Jess from VA]

I don't like this lady one bit, and I'm not defending her.  Just pointing out what criminal defense work is.  Back in the day, I carried a .45 without license to protect myself from my own clients.  It is not a glamorous business. 

And that right there is a good reason for the amount of pay for lawyers. Anybody that has to defend themselves from their clients deserves $'s. I'm just not sure if the guy at the Chicago 7/11 should get more or less than a lawyer.   

Well Rob, just remember that your average criminal is indigent and that a high percentage of criminal defendants get court appointed counsel (Public Defender's office, or like me.. private volunteers), and that pay generally sucks the big one.  The pay was take it or leave it, and if you complained about it, you never got another case assigned.  I didn't do it for the money (though I really did need it), I did it for the experience.  Most of my guys were just regular fellows who screwed up, but a number of them were extremely bad (with rap sheets that showed the police liked them for several murders, just had no evidence to proceed). 

And something else, most violent criminals never seek revenge against judges and prosecutors.... but they do against their own defense counsel.  You may recall from Helter Skelter, that Manson family members (very likely) chopped up a defense counsel named Hughes during their trial.  Nothing could be proved and no charges were ever brought. 

[Lyonardo]

I don't feel any need to defend Hillary Clinton. Or any other politician, for that matter. They can all speak for themselves.
But I have to defend the concept of a "vigorous defense". That's something that all of us should believe in strongly. Thomas Jefferson was especially outspoken about it. He was well aware of the horror stories from the British courts. It didn't take more than a word from the wrong person and anyone could find themselves hung, disemboweled, or cut into 4 pieces (quartered). The "lucky" ones could be thrown into debtors prison, or shipped off to a colony and all their land and possessions given to their accuser.

All with no chance to defend themselves or even say one word. Lots of evil bastards made their fortunes that way.
But the founding fathers were determined that crap wouldn't be allowed in America. At least they tried their best.
Do you know how many so-called monsters that everyone "knew" was guilty at the time turned out to be innocent once DNA evidence found the real killer or rapist? Hundreds. Imagine how many good Americans died before DNA tests were invented.
Even if a lawyer "knows" their client is guilty, they have to try everything in their power to show they're innocent. If not, they can be disbarred.

It's a good thing too. We'd all be screwed otherwise. Look up Robert Dillen sometime.
L

[Patrick]

Even if a lawyer "knows" their client is guilty, they have to try everything in their power to show they're innocent. If not, they can be disbarred.
 end quote




I thought the defense lawyers job was to make sure a guilty client got a fair trial and that the glory seekers did anything in their power to prove that client not guilty.  The name John Cochran [sp] comes to mind.

PS. I know someone that spent decades in prison for a murder he didn't commit.

[Jess from VA]

Even if a lawyer "knows" their client is guilty, they have to try everything in their power to show they're innocent. If not, they can be disbarred.

Defense counsel may often believe their client is guilty but they rarely KNOW he is guilty.  Clients rarely admit guilt of serious crimes to their lawyer (I'm not talking DUI, simple assault, shoplifting, small theft, most misdemeanors.... which clients do often admit).  You tell them about the attorney-client privilege, but you also tell them you cannot knowingly allow and help them to perjure themselves on the stand (or their friends or family either).  IE, if you tell me you are guilty, I cannot help you to lie under oath in court.  Many criminal lawyers ignore this rule, but I didn't.

After this speech, they often provide a story that is patently at odds with existing evidence or otherwise full of holes.  Again, you don't absolutely know it's fabrication, but you point out all the inconsistencies and ask them to tell you a more believable story.  This is where they can get angry and unpredictable**.  

So if you KNOW your client is guilty, you do not try to prove them innocent; instead you challenge the prosecution's evidence, make them jump through all the hoops, prove an unbroken chain of custody of evidence, prove the validity and competency of forensic or laboratory evidence, challenge the basis of search warrants, prove they went beyond the scope of the search warrant, challenge the validity of confessions, challenge the memory, knowledge, eyesight, hearing and reliability of witnesses against your client, move to exclude any evidence obtained in violation of constitutional criminal procedure, and in general try to create (or show) as much reasonable doubt in the case against your client as you can.

You try to secure an acquittal by showing a prosecution failure to prove guilt beyond any reasonable doubt...... all of which is not the same thing as trying to prove them innocent.  And although it is the clients choice to testify in his own defense, you usually try to talk them out of taking the stand.  If they insist, and you know they will lie, then you cannot help them lie by leading them through their testimony; instead you ask them to tell their side of the story and sit down (which is a pure signal to the judge and prosecutor that you think they are lying).  This is where the prosecution goes to work on cross examination and where defense cases are often lost.  Juries and judges often forget reasonable doubt after hearing obviously perjured testimony that has been shredded on cross examination.

**In 1986 at Rhien Main AFB GE, a defense counsel challenging his active duty client about his obvious lies was stabbed nearly to death before my boss (ex jolly green pilot in RVN, wounded too badly to keep his flying credentials, who then went back to school and got a law degree and license, and transferred to JAG), trying a case in the adjoining courtroom, charged through a locked door and pulled the guy off his defense counsel before he stabbed him again (and rendered him unconscious with a punch).  

[Lyonardo]

Yeah, that's why I put quotes around "knows". Just like everyone "knew" that the Earth was flat, until it was proven otherwise. Until then it was just common sense, only a fool would believe otherwise.

Also thanks for clarifying how ethical lawyers handle such situations. It's cool to know we have a retired JAG officer here. Did anyone ever tell you that "you can't handle the truth"?

Even if a lawyer "knows" their client is guilty, they have to try everything in their power to show they're innocent. If not, they can be disbarred.

Defense counsel may often believe their client is guilty but they rarely KNOW he is guilty.  Clients rarely admit guilt of serious crimes to their lawyer (I'm not talking DUI, simple assault, shoplifting, small theft, most misdemeanors.... which clients do often admit).  You tell them about the attorney-client privilege, but you also tell them you cannot knowingly allow and help them to perjure themselves on the stand (or their friends or family either).  IE, if you tell me you are guilty, I cannot help you to lie under oath in court.  Many criminal lawyers ignore this rule, but I didn't.

After this speech, they often provide a story that is patently at odds with existing evidence or otherwise full of holes.  Again, you don't absolutely know it's fabrication, but you point out all the inconsistencies and ask them to tell you a more believable story.  This is where they can get angry and unpredictable**.  

So if you KNOW your client is guilty, you do not try to prove them innocent; instead you challenge the prosecution's evidence, make them jump through all the hoops, prove an unbroken chain of custody of evidence, prove the validity and competency of forensic or laboratory evidence, challenge the basis of search warrants, prove they went beyond the scope of the search warrant, challenge the validity of confessions, challenge the memory, knowledge, eyesight, hearing and reliability of witnesses against your client, move to exclude any evidence obtained in violation of constitutional criminal procedure, and in general try to create (or show) as much reasonable doubt in the case against your client as you can.

You try to secure an acquittal by showing a prosecution failure to prove guilt beyond any reasonable doubt...... all of which is not the same thing as trying to prove them innocent.  And although it is the clients choice to testify in his own defense, you usually try to talk them out of taking the stand.  If they insist, and you know they will lie, then you cannot help them lie by leading them through their testimony; instead you ask them to tell their side of the story and sit down (which is a pure signal to the judge and prosecutor that you think they are lying).  This is where the prosecution goes to work on cross examination and where defense cases are often lost.  Juries and judges often forget reasonable doubt after hearing obviously perjured testimony that has been shredded on cross examination.

**In 1986 at Rhien Main AFB GE, a defense counsel challenging his active duty client about his obvious lies was stabbed nearly to death before my boss (ex jolly green pilot in RVN, wounded too badly to keep his flying credentials, who then went back to school and got a law degree and license, and transferred to JAG), trying a case in the adjoining courtroom, charged through a locked door and pulled the guy off his defense counsel before he stabbed him again (and rendered him unconscious with a punch).  

[Jess from VA]

Did anyone ever tell you that "you can't handle the truth"?

Only as a lame excuse to not tell the truth.  

I did not retire, I was invited to leave after 9 years in '92 when the USAF and USA were each cut by 1/3 (200K each).  I was not happy about it, but captains don't get much of a vote in the grand scheme of things.  We were fungible units.  In or out of the military, this is not an uncommon scenario.

I once had an airman charged with disrespect to his squadron commander (superior commissioned officer) by farting at him (Art 15/NJP).  The truth was that he did fart, but he did not know his commander was present (probably as a result of voluntary intoxication).  We won that one.  LOL

I once had to defend a fellow (female) JAG for fornication with the enlisted men.  The truth was she fornicated a lot (and was apparently better at this than being an officer), and her belief that it was OK as long as it was off base was sadly mistaken.  I saved her from a General Court/punitive discharge/jail time, but she had to instantly become a civilian and return to CONUS.  That was a 2/3 win.

Most criminal defense work is about limiting damages, complete victories are hard to come by.  

[The emperor has no clothes]

Very interesting stuff Jess. Thanks for sharing some of your stories. I especially liked the one of the guy farting. Luckily for me the officers always stayed away from us riff raff when we were drinking and farting.