"Cheerleaders Do It", Claims Defense

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2005-01-10 10:26pm

I'm not sure what exactly you people are all getting your panties in a bunch over here. What do you expect the defense attorney to do, just throw up his hands in the air and say "uncle, my client is guilty, send his ass to jail?"

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-01-10 10:30pm

My engineering law prof in university was once asked how many of his clients were guilty, because he used to work as a defense lawyer. His answer? "All of them". Seriously. Although he qualified that by saying that they were all guilty of something, just not necessarily what the prosecution accused them of, so he could get them off. One time he got a woman off for driving through a stopsign because the stopsign pole was 6 inches too short for provincial standards, so in his words, "there was no regulation stopsign at that intersection".

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2005-01-10 10:31pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:I'm not sure what exactly you people are all getting your panties in a bunch over here. What do you expect the defense attorney to do, just throw up his hands in the air and say "uncle, my client is guilty, send his ass to jail?"

No, but we at least expect a better case for the defence than such a pathetically lame-ass argument as "cheerleaders do it, so it's not torture".

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2005-01-10 10:33pm

Considering he was stupid enough to brag about what he did AND was photographed doing it, he might as well have either copped a plea or yes, thrown himself on the mercy of the court. His goose is cooked anyway, but for his attorney to say something so stupid almost guarantees he'll get punished even worse.

He might as well have tried the Twinkie Defense or the "Mark Furman Is A Racist!" Defense.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2005-01-10 10:37pm

Well, the Mark Furman is a racist defense probably actually worked.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2005-01-10 10:42pm

Patrick Degan wrote:No, but we at least expect a better case for the defence than such a pathetically lame-ass argument as "cheerleaders do it, so it's not torture".

I'm sure that's not the heart of the defense stragety. Generally speaking what's said to the court is a bit more than the one or two sound bites the media picks up on.

Elfdart wrote:Considering he was stupid enough to brag about what he did AND was photographed doing it, he might as well have either copped a plea or yes, thrown himself on the mercy of the court.

Yeah well he didn't. Clients have the freedom to choose their plea, wisely or not. I'm sure his attorney advised against it, but once a plea of not guilty is entered, it's his job to seek that verdict.

His goose is cooked anyway, but for his attorney to say something so stupid almost guarantees he'll get punished even worse.

He might as well have tried the Twinkie Defense or the "Mark Furman Is A Racist!" Defense.

Well, how about Your Honor and Justice Degan get together and suggest something better. Considering the damning evidence against the accused, I'm sure they could use your help.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-01-10 10:43pm

The lawyer's best course of action would be to use pigment injections to make his client's skin black. Then, he would point out that the person taking the photographs was white. If it smells like shit, you must acquit.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2005-01-10 10:50pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:Well, how about Your Honor and Justice Degan get together and suggest something better. Considering the damning evidence against the accused, I'm sure they could use your help.

It's called a "guilty" plea and allocution in hopes of leniency in sentence. In other words, cut a deal when you're case is on the launchpad to the crapper.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2005-01-10 10:53pm

Patrick Degan wrote:
Wicked Pilot wrote:Well, how about Your Honor and Justice Degan get together and suggest something better. Considering the damning evidence against the accused, I'm sure they could use your help.
It's called a "guilty" plea and allocution in hopes of leniency in sentence. In other words, cut a deal when you're case is on the launchpad to the crapper.

He might be trying to make a point like embarassing the higher ups who should have damn well known what was going on or the other side may not have been willing to deal. The prosecutors may have been told not to deal in order to make an example of this guy.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2005-01-10 10:55pm

Patrick Degan wrote:It's called a "guilty" plea and allocution in hopes of leniency in sentence. In other words, cut a deal when you're case is on the launchpad to the crapper.

Jesus I already went over this, the client obviousily did not want to plead guilty. I'm not sure what's it's like where you come from, but in our legal system the attorney works for the client, not the other way around.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2005-01-10 11:00pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote:It's called a "guilty" plea and allocution in hopes of leniency in sentence. In other words, cut a deal when you're case is on the launchpad to the crapper.
Jesus I already went over this, the client obviousily did not want to plead guilty. I'm not sure what's it's like where you come from, but in our legal system the attorney works for the client, not the other way around.

Well, in that case then, the dumbfuck deserves his fate when he's found guilty. And it's still contingent on defence council to advise the client in his best interests even when the moron's too dumb to take the advice.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2005-01-10 11:02pm

Uh guys...what makes you think a reasonable deal was even offered in the first place?

What are you willing to deal here?

25 years hard labor.

No seriously what do you got?

25 years hard labor.

*sigh* You're breaking my balls here you know that?

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2005-01-10 11:12pm

Patrick Degan wrote:Well, in that case then, the dumbfuck deserves his fate when he's found guilty.

No, he deserves his fate because of what he did to those prisioners, not because of plea miscalculations. He may get what he deserves based on that, and in this case it'll work out all the same, but in principle one should go to jail because they're guilty of the crime, not because they had a lawyer who gave up after their client didn't follow their plea advice.

Stravo wrote:Uh guys...what makes you think a reasonable deal was even offered in the first place?

The fact that a few of the other soldiers took offers. The military, like most organizations, doesn't like to air their dirty laundry. I bet they would have been happy to plea this case away quickly and quietly.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2005-01-10 11:20pm

Wicked Pilot wrote: The fact that a few of the other soldiers took offers. The military, like most organizations, doesn't like to air their dirty laundry. I bet they would have been happy to plea this case away quickly and quietly.

I've also seen instances of several members of a gang getting a plea deal but the ring leader getting none to set an example. I think the military may want to show people that they mean business and by that I mean the general public. Don't underestimate how the administration can twist things to prove that they're 'tough on torture' and will have zero tolerance to Abu Graib like conditions.

He could be an example or he could simply have decided to say "fuck it" and wants to smear everyone else before going down himself.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2005-01-11 12:08am

Wicked Pilot wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote:Well, in that case then, the dumbfuck deserves his fate when he's found guilty.
No, he deserves his fate because of what he did to those prisioners, not because of plea miscalculations. He may get what he deserves based on that, and in this case it'll work out all the same, but in principle one should go to jail because they're guilty of the crime, not because they had a lawyer who gave up after their client didn't follow their plea advice.

I'm not arguing that he doesn't deserve punishment for his action. But anybody who tries to brazen out a trial when the evidence is dead against him should get additional punishment simply for stupidity. I've no sympathy for the defendant on either count. I hope he's still breaking rocks in Leavenworth when my son graduates college.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-01-11 12:20am

The reason the 'cheerleader defense' sounds so bad to me is that I can't imagine the finder of fact (is this a jury trial or what?) not raising their eyebrow at that one ... and if the attorney damages his credibility with the finder of fact with bullshit concepts early in the trial, I don't think he does the client any favors.

Loner · Post by **Loner** » 2005-01-11 01:31am

Uraniun235 wrote:I dunno. How would you attempt to defend these guys? I mean, it's not like they can attempt the Space Moose defense.

It pleases me to know that more people know the greatness that is Space Moose.

Post by **weemadando** » 2005-01-11 04:44am

This is soooo fucking stupid - and this is the same quality of defense lawyer being provided to detainees in Gitmo. No wonder so many of them are still fucking well there.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2005-01-11 08:05pm

Darth Wong wrote:Why didn't he try the Chewbacca defense?

Pull the prosecutions' arms out of their sockets?

J · Post by J » 2005-01-11 08:33pm

Drooling Iguana wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Why didn't he try the Chewbacca defense?
Pull the prosecutions' arms out of their sockets?

The Chewbacca defence, as revealed by the all-knowing google.

Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, Chef's attorney would certainly want you to believe that his client wrote "Stinky Britches" ten years ago. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself!

But ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: This [pointing to a picture of Chewbacca] is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee - an eight foot tall Wookiee - want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

But more important, you have to ask yourself, what does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!

Look at me, I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense!

And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2005-01-11 09:53pm

Chewbacca stayed on Endor after RotJ?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-01-11 11:03pm

Drooling Iguana wrote:Chewbacca stayed on Endor after RotJ?

Imagine that whole passage being spoken by a South Park version of Johnnie Cochrane.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2005-01-12 07:22pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Drooling Iguana wrote:Chewbacca stayed on Endor after RotJ?
Imagine that whole passage being spoken by a South Park version of Johnnie Cochrane.

Ah. South Park. No wonder it wasn't funny.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2005-01-12 09:28pm

Drooling Iguana wrote:Ah. South Park. No wonder it wasn't funny.

No shit. I think South Park would be even more funnier if they invested in more voice talent than just Issac Hayes. I don't think it's gonna happen though, it's just doesn't seem to be their style.

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2005-01-13 08:35am

jmac wrote:*Snip*

That has to be the best goddamn closing statement ever. Stravo should use it!