Of course everyone deserves a fair trial and that one gets the punishment that suits the crime or no punishment if no crime has been committed. If not, then it would be left to mob rule and that fella would be lynched on the spot.
The issue, vis-a-vis Harley, is not that he would represent this person, or any person, that the public has deemed a scumbag. A more interesting question for Harley would be that when he represents a client what takes priority? That his client gets a fair trial or that he wins his case?
Let's say Harley did get this person off on a technicality. How would he view that? Would he feel justice has been done? Would he feel that he has made the world a better place? When he is on his death bed and so many of the things he thought were so important in life start to fade into the background -- will he look back on this victory with a sense of pride? That he did the right thing?
Dear Pellius,
Your first question works on two different planes so I will do my best to explain my honest answer:
It is more important that my client received a fair trial if there were a Guilty Verdict. That would mean, to me, that the system is working
as is designed. I don't ever second guess myself in terms of "Did I do my utmost best in representing this person at trial?" I always give my
best.
However, if my client received an unfair trial yet despite this, there were a verdict of "Not Guilty" then I would be happy. I do all I can to make a judge
give me a fair trial but much of that is out of the attorneys' hands. Winning is important to me. If I have a stupid judge and win despite his ludicrous
rulings, then more power to me and less power to a government that permits politics not merit, to decide who becomes a judge.
I represented a young Jamaican fellow named Ruel Powell who was indicted on First Degree Aggravated Assault charges for both anally and vaginally
penetrating his 5 year old sister. The young girl immediately after the alleged incident told family members and gave a video taped interview and
demonstrated with dolls just what she believed occurred.
At the trial, the Judge, through out the entire case made ridiculous rulings in favor of the State in a clear attempt to crucify my client.
The alleged victim came in and testified.
My client did NOT receive a fair trial.
The verdict came back Not Guilty. Was I happy? Of course, who wouldn't be if they did my job? When the government has a judge assisting them the
whole way and they still lose, you bet I take pride in shoving it down their bureaucratic necks.
Your second question simply seeks my own personal opinion:
If I were to get "someone off on a technicality" I would view that as a win. I found the technicality, I told the State and they still couldn't stop me.
The role of a Defense Attorney is not to "seek justice" but rather, ensure that an INJUSTICE in terms of the legality of the investigation, charge and trial
does not occur. I am making the "world a better place" by keeping the government from jumping to conclusions and not proving their case according to the
rules. To prevent them from cheating and cutting corners is to ensure that racism, corruption and ego do not destroy the integrity of the trial.
As far as being on my death bed, I will be thinking of all the "Perfect Moments" I have experienced (especially lately). I already know I did the right thing in
the courtroom so I won't waste any time on my death bed thinking about my career, but rather, the great family, friends, pets and loves I have experienced.
Harley
