Harley Breite - Appreciation thread

[OB1]

lol, everyone in jail says they are innocent, how can they get stats for that?

LOL.
I don't know.

Anyway...
Everyone knows there are more people in there "than neccessary".

[Simple Simon]

LOL.
I don't know.

Anyway...
Everyone knows there are more people in there "than neccessary".

Nope, always room for one more
http://nj1015.com/lawyer-knockout-video-teen-suffers-from-mental-issues/

“He’s an 18-year old kid with mental and psychological difficulties and he’s scared. He needed to know how to do this correctly and he needed the right person to do it,” said Breite of the delay.
Brite said Gonzalez knows the 16-year-old but does not know their relationship.
Breite said that many questions remain about the video. “Before we make a rush to judgement we should know whether that is the entire video, what precipitated that video , has that video been edited or tampered with.”

[SF1900]

lol, everyone in jail says they are innocent, how can they get stats for that?

Its relatively a small number:

Since 1989, 333 people in 37 states have been exonerated through post-conviction DNA testing. The Innocence Project was involved in 177 of the 333 DNA exonerations. Others were helped by Innocence Network organizations, private attorneys and by pro se defendants in a few instances.

DNA testing is pretty much solid proof.

[Simple Simon]

Its relatively a small number:

Since 1989, 333 people in 37 states have been exonerated through post-conviction DNA testing. The Innocence Project was involved in 177 of the 333 DNA exonerations. Others were helped by Innocence Network organizations, private attorneys and by pro se defendants in a few instances.

DNA testing is pretty much solid proof.

Really?
I leave a cigarette butt at the scene of a crime I took from your ash tray
You were fishing all day and have no alibi.
That cigarette puts you at the scene of the crime.
Is it solid proof?

[OB1]

Really?
I leave a cigarette butt at the scene of a crime I took from your ash tray
You were fishing all day and have no alibi.
That cigarette puts you at the scene of the crime.
Is it solid proof?

Good point.
And that's also a way to get into court/jail without doing anything.
 

[TuHolmes]

Its relatively a small number:

Since 1989, 333 people in 37 states have been exonerated through post-conviction DNA testing. The Innocence Project was involved in 177 of the 333 DNA exonerations. Others were helped by Innocence Network organizations, private attorneys and by pro se defendants in a few instances.

DNA testing is pretty much solid proof.

Not anymore actually.

You can fake DNA.

This has been an issue for many years now and can be exploited.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html?_r=0

[Las Vegas]

I meant to post an interesting update in the Paterson story, to say that the guy who went down is in his 30s.  Not sure who first said he was elderly, but it would be good to know how something like that happens (the news ran with that description, too).

Posted as an FYI, only.  That's it.

[chaos]

I meant to post an interesting update in the Paterson story, to say that the guy who went down is in his 30s.  Not sure who first said he was elderly, but it would be good to know how something like that happens (the news ran with that description, too).

Posted as an FYI, only.  That's it.

Does his age really matter? Lol

[Las Vegas]

Does his age really matter? Lol

The fact that he was described as that, and that the media ran with it, is what's interesting.

Only saying that.

[pellius]

So, no more Harley?

Huge loss for the board.

[Las Vegas]

So, no more Harley?

Huge loss for the board.

I think he'll be back.  He probably wanted to allow everything to calm down since last time, and I probably didn't help by updating that.  But I thought it was an interesting example on how the "news" can't be trusted.

[SF1900]

I think he'll be back.  He probably wanted to allow everything to calm down since last time, and I probably didn't help by updating that.  But I thought it was an interesting example on how the "news" can't be trusted.

This is a pretty harsh statement about criminal defense lawyers:

http://www.chattanoogan.com/2009/7/8/154498/Why-Most-Civil-And-Criminal-Defense.aspx

The point is that lawyers really aren't concerned with doing what's right. They are concerned with making money by advocating for their clients. It is of no consequence to them whether their position is frivolous. Society has indeed broken down, and lawyers have led the way. It is not law enforcement that "runs roughshod" over us, but attorneys who need to generate billable hours to support a lavish lifestyle.

[Las Vegas]

It is not law enforcement that "runs roughshod" over us

Have you ever been to the Police State thread?

And I've seen your posts on this site, so I know you don't believe that part.

But I know you didn't claim to believe it, either.    Just saying...

[SF1900]

Have you ever been to the Police State thread?

And I've seen your posts on this site, so I know you don't believe that part.

But I know you didn't claim to believe it, either.    Just saying...

lol.

Well, the statement was a more general perspective. I never said I agreed, nor disagreed with some parts or the whole paragraph (but you already recognized that). 

I actually stumbled upon that paragraph because I was trying to find any peer reviewed studies about the personality constellation of criminal defense lawyers, but came up with zilch.

You know what would be a really good study? A qualitative investigation (using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis) into the lived experiences of criminal defense lawyers, i.e., how they make sense of their profession, how they cope with the moral obligation of society vs. their job. I think that would reveal some interesting findings.

[Las Vegas]

lol.

Well, the statement was a more general perspective. I never said I agreed, nor disagreed with some parts or the whole paragraph (but you already recognized that). 

I actually stumbled upon that paragraph because I was trying to find any peer reviewed studies about the personality constellation of criminal defense lawyers, but came up with zilch.

You know what would be a really good study? A qualitative investigation (using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis) into the lived experiences of criminal defense lawyers, i.e., how they make sense of their profession, how they cope with the moral obligation of society vs. their job. I think that would reveal some interesting findings.

I bet they'd run the whole field.  Some wouldn't give a piss less about anyone, and others can't refuse when they feel someone needs their help (actually to the point of generously giving away their services -- which costs them money, time and effort).

Harley has done that many times, btw.  That's why I think he fits into the second extreme and not the first.

[SF1900]

I bet they'd run the whole field.  Some wouldn't give a piss less about anyone, and others can't refuse when they feel someone needs their help (actually to the point of generously giving away their services -- which costs them money, time and effort).

Harley has done that many times, btw.  That's why I think he fits into the second extreme and not the first.

Well, there would be a difference in terms of what propelled them into the career and what keeps them going.

Think about it: there are many ways that a lawyer can help defend people, without necessarily defending child molesters. Thus, the question then becomes: why did they choose to defend criminals? To uphold the law, for money, etc?

[Las Vegas]

Well, there would be a difference in terms of what propelled them into the career and what keeps them going.

Think about it: there are many ways that a lawyer can help defend people, without necessarily defending child molesters. Thus, the question then becomes: why did they choose to defend criminals? To uphold the law, for money, etc?

I think with certain individuals, they find themselves being asked for help by desperate people, and they just can't walk away.  They move through time this way, from the first day of their career until the last.

Maybe they thought it would be different when they started, and maybe they thought they'd be dealing with different types of people than what's come to be true, but they just go with it because that's what they've found.

[pellius]

I think with certain individuals, they find themselves being asked for help by desperate people, and they just can't walk away.  They move through time this way, from the first day of their career until the last.

Maybe they thought it would be different when they started, and maybe they thought they'd be dealing with different types of people than what's come to be true, but they just go with it because that's what they've found.

Really?

"Please sir, you got to help me out. I raped my five year old niece. This can ruin my life!"

"I just knocked out a stranger on the street for fun and now everybody want to lynch me. Can't a brotha get a break?"

[SF1900]

I think with certain individuals, they find themselves being asked for help by desperate people, and they just can't walk away.  They move through time this way, from the first day of their career until the last.

Maybe they thought it would be different when they started, and maybe they thought they'd be dealing with different types of people than what's come to be true, but they just go with it because that's what they've found.

No, I doubt it. I just briefly read an article where they interviewed a few criminal defense lawyers and each one stated that their clients are almost always guilty--they were either directly or indirectly involved. So, I don't think these criminal defense lawyers are taking these cases because they feel bad for these criminals. I can only think of two reason: 1) innocent until proven guilty--everyone deserves a fair trial or 2) for the money. I cannot conceive of any other reason.

These lawyers that know their clients are guilty, but defend them anyway, must be rationalizing it somehow.

[TuHolmes]

No, I doubt it. I just briefly read an article where they interviewed a few criminal defense lawyers and each one stated that their clients are almost always guilty--they were either directly or indirectly involved. So, I don't think these criminal defense lawyers are taking these cases because they feel bad for these criminals. I can only think of two reason: 1) innocent until proven guilty--everyone deserves a fair trial or 2) for the money. I cannot conceive of any other reason.

These lawyers that know their clients are guilty, but defend them anyway, must be rationalizing it somehow.

Personally, were it me, it would be number 1.

That doesn't make me better than anyone else, but I do believe in this country, it's system of law is one of the most fundamental things we have.

If we don't try to promote the right thing in regards to law, we have failed ourselves as a society.

We must always try our best to maintain that you are innocent until proven guilty by a reasonable doubt. It's part of what makes the United States a beacon of light in the world.

[Las Vegas]

Maybe with a crying mother in front of you, it's not so easy to have that opinion.  That might have something to do with it, at least sometimes.

[TuHolmes]

Maybe with a crying mother in front of you, it's not so easy to have that opinion.  That might have something to do with it, at least sometimes.

I understand how we can be emotional as people.

Still, we must try our best to maintain our decency and how we treat or accused is a big part of that.

[Las Vegas]

I understand how we can be emotional as people.

Still, we must try our best to maintain our decency and how we treat or accused is a big part of that.

Sorry, Tu... I meant to quote pellius.

[Simple Simon]

So, no more Harley?

Huge loss for the board.

So, has the attention whore finally had enough ,hundreds of pages of lickspittles blowing smoke up his ass and hes happy, a couple people see him for what he is and call him out on it and "poof, hes gone" like Kayser Soze.

[pellius]

No, I doubt it. I just briefly read an article where they interviewed a few criminal defense lawyers and each one stated that their clients are almost always guilty--they were either directly or indirectly involved. So, I don't think these criminal defense lawyers are taking these cases because they feel bad for these criminals. I can only think of two reason: 1) innocent until proven guilty--everyone deserves a fair trial or 2) for the money. I cannot conceive of any other reason.

These lawyers that know their clients are guilty, but defend them anyway, must be rationalizing it somehow.

Fame, or maybe more accurately, infamy. If your an attorney in a case that's making the news your name gets out there.