Reading that transcript I'm blown away by how low Lawyers can stoop, but of course the people they're defending are worse here. I wish government employees being immune from standard laws was unusual.
I don't mind defense attorneys or the lengths they go to for their clients most of the time. Defense lawyers have a job to do, and it's an important job. I actually have a lot of respect for lawyers like Jose Baez (who defended Casey Anthony); their role and importance in our legal system shouldn't be undermined, I think. They get a ton of flack and hate for doing a very difficult and necessary job. I mean, it is gross, sometimes, but I respect them too.
Everyone, no matter who they are, and what they are accused of, is entitled to a proper defense and a fair trial. It's a fundamental aspect of our legal system, and arguably the most important one.
Those are very good points, and I agree concerning the importance of a fair trial.
So you respect lawyers who get people off on a technicality when they personally believe/know that they are guilty? Or the lawyer arguing this case? Perhaps you're right to, but I don't think I could stomach doing that for a job.
Specifically I meant "I respect the lawyers who take on the cases where they are likely to be vilified, harassed, or worse for defending their client."
So you respect lawyers who get people off on a technicality when they personally believe/know that they are guilty?
That's a hard thing, because the law is not written in a vacuum. It's meant to have some amount of "common sense" applied to it. For instance, in this particular case, the lawyer for Orange County is arguing that, because there is no statue explicitly forbidding the introduction of false evidence or committing perjury for social workers, they should not be held accountable criminally for those actions. This is why the judge is incredulous about it, because it's obviously not OK, and there's basically no reason to believe that it would be OK.
[The defense]...claim the social workers couldn't have "clearly" known that dishonesty wasn't acceptable in court and, as a back up, even if they did know, they should enjoy immunity for their misdeeds because they were government employees.
And some of the reply from Judge Trott
How in the world could a person in the shoes of your clients possibly believe that it was appropriate to use perjury and false evidence in order to impair somebody's liberty interest in the care, custody and control of that person's children? How could they possibly not be on notice that you can't do this? ... You mean to tell us due process is consistent with a government official submitting perjured testimony and false evidence? How is that consistent? I mean I hate to get pumped up about this but I'm just staggered by the claim that people in the shoes of your clients wouldn't be on notice that you can't use perjury and false evidence to take away somebody's children. That to me is mind boggling.
So I suppose in this instance, I don't respect the defense itself, but he is trying the best he can, and simply from a standpoint of "is this guy a professional" I can say he tried, even if he failed.
Other cases are harder; I mentioned the Casey Anthony case before. I remember watching some of the defense's closing arguments on TV. I thought Mr. Baez made his case very well - his assertion being that the state had failed to adequately prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that she was guilty. And the jury agreed. During the case and in some of the drama surrounding her afterward, I am believe it's more likely she did commit that murder than she didn't. But she was found not guilty, and there was no "bogus defense" like pleading "temporary insanity" or something like that.
And then there are even further hard things. Take the OJ Simpson murder trial. At least one juror has said, filmed for a TV special, that they explicitly voted "not guilty" as payback for the Rodney King result (where he was beaten by several officers and 3 of the four were found not guilty on all charges and 1 found guilty only on assault with a deadly weapon). No doubt Mr. Cochrane did his best as their attorney; turning the matter into a racial issue and handling it well, along with tons of blunders by the prosecution (like the glove fiasco) all contributing. Whether those claims are true, everyone and their mother knows OJ killed those two people. His defense did the best they could, and the prosecution was tactically terrible, and at least one juror was not going to vote him guilty regardless of the evidence.
So it's a really hard thing. I think defense lawyers are critical and important to the legal system. I think they should do the best they can, even if they are defending guilty people. I think you can make a reasonable argument that, by having a strong defense in the corner of someone who's allegedly done a crime, the accusations against him, and the evidence, must be even stronger; a reasonable bar if we are going to deprive someone of their liberty or potentially their life (I live in a death penalty state, for instance). It's important to remember that the deck is stacked against defendants as well; many particular laws and procedures just make things easier for the state and harder for the defense. So having a competent attorney is certainly something that is desired, or even necessary in my eyes.
Important Point: I mis-read the article originally and now see that they workers did NOT hire false witnesses for this incident.
My bad.