Defense attorneys....

[lillygator]

John Evander Couey Wants Confession Tossed
Attorneys for John Evander Couey, the convicted sex offender charged with the kidnapping, rape and murder of nine-year-old Jessica Lunsford, have filed motions to suppress his confession because they said he was denied access to a lawyer.
Couey's attorneys said he should have had an attorney prior to telling investigators that he raped Jessica Lunsford and buried her alive. They also claimed Couey was enticed to make incriminating statements to a Sheriff's investigator and a jail guard. They want Judge Ric Howard to throw out all evidence gathered in the case as a result of his confession.

His attorneys also filed a motion to have the public and the media excluded from future pretrial hearings in the case, which is scheduled to go to trial in July.

 

[momx2]

that's even worse, we are paying for it.

Because the system would collapse without this. Without an attorney they would go free.

I explained how I do it. It is very difficult sometimes, but I do help some. Would you want the innocent people to go to jail or be executed? How could you sleep with yourself???? I really do understand what you're saying, but you are now becoming insulting to us in the profession. Honestly, before every trial, I pray to God that the correct result happen, not to win, but the correct result. I think you have heard some bad about a few defense attorneys (and there are some) and lumped us all together. I'm sorry I offend you, but you are beginning to offend me with your attitude.

 

[TDC Nala]

what I find horrific is the defense attorney's in this case are LOOKING for way for Couey's confession to be INADMISSABLE.....

Well, if the police followed the rules, they won't find a way to do that.

We also have an interest in making sure the police don't use methods they're not supposed to use to get confessions.

 

[lillygator]

sorry to offend you, but I guess my main thing in this particular case is - the DA is going above and beyond (trying to dismiss things)when it is pretty damn clear he is at fault. That is what irks me beyond words. I realize you sign up for a job and you are expected to do it...but if he goes free...wel I'm not even gonna go there.

and I don't see how - with no atty...the accused would go free...they would have no representation and the prosecution would prevail correct?


your username implies mother - would you defend the accused if it was your child (ok that woulnd't be allowed I'm sure) or would you see the justice in a college in defending if it was your child? and what would you think?

And I completely respect you - I could (obviously never do it) and its obvious someone has to.

 

[TDC Nala]

In the US criminal legal system, the accused MUST have representation. If he/she can't afford representation the court will appoint representation. In certain cases they can represent themselves if the court allows it. There have been some notable criminal defendants who insisted on representing themselves in court. John Muhammad, the DC sniper, tried it in Maryland recently. The court even gave him appointed co-counsel who were supposed to assist him if he asked for help.

If the victim was the child of the attorney,there's no way on earth that attorney would wind up defending that accused. That's a definite conflict of interest and won't happen.

It's part of the ethics code of attorneys that you defend your client to the best of your ability. If you don't you are liable to be disciplined.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

but there is a HUGE difference in defending an innocent accused and a confessed person, what I find horrific is the defense attorney's in this case are LOOKING for way for Couey's confession to be INADMISSABLE.....


that is just horrible......plain and simple....

It's their job to do that as unfortunate as it is.

It isn't like they are trying to be crooked about it. That would be wrong. Better anything turn up now so that the trial is clean and hopefully he gets convicted anyway.

How dreadful for the family if he was convicted with the confession and then 10 years from now it is revealed that his confession was invalid.

We like to look at the defense as the bad guy.

But sadly there are cases in history where an innocent person was pressured into confession.

Fair is fair--even for the bad criminals.

 

[momx2]

sorry to offend you, but I guess my main thing in this particular case is - the DA is going above and beyond (trying to dismiss things)when it is pretty damn clear he is at fault. That is what irks me beyond words. I realize you sign up for a job and you are expected to do it...but if he goes free...wel I'm not even gonna go there.

and I don't see how - with no atty...the accused would go free...they would have no representation and the prosecution would prevail correct?


your username implies mother - would you defend the accused if it was your child (ok that woulnd't be allowed I'm sure) or would you see the justice in a college in defending if it was your child? and what would you think?

And I completely respect you - I could (obviously never do it) and its obvious someone has to.

First, the only way to suppress a confession is if the cops reealllly screwed up. And if they did, then it should be suppressed. Believe it or not, that is to protect you and me from the government. There was actually a time when there was no privacy and people would be beat for confessions of things they did not do (still happens, with mental games more though).

The defendant would go free because the 6th amend. of the US constitution guarantees the right to counsel, without a waiver or an attorney the defendant can not be prosecuted.

Of course I would never defend someone accused of doing something to my family, nor would anyone in my office, that is a conflict of interest. As a matter of fact 2 guys just broke into my Dad's storage buildings and we have to get conflict counsel for them. Lawyers are sworn to uphold certain ethics and I would not think of ill of anyone representing a defendant for harming my children, because I know how the system works. Now, that isn't to say, the attorney couldn't be a butt and I then hate him, could happen. Also, I'm with you on being in jail myself. I have always felt I could kill someone for harming my kids. But that's what makes me a mother, not a lawyer. Those are 2 different people.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

your username implies mother - would you defend the accused if it was your child (ok that woulnd't be allowed I'm sure) or would you see the justice in a college in defending if it was your child? and what would you think?

And I completely respect you - I could (obviously never do it) and its obvious someone has to.

Some people are born defendors. Some people are not.

I saw a psychologist once and she was quite very good. There are some types of patients that she cannot see. She just cannot treat them b/c the very topics are just topics she doesn't want to go near. It doesn't mean that their particular illnesses shouldn't be treated--they just need to be treated by someone else.

Everyone deserves a defense no matter how guilty they are. But asking someone if they would defend the person if it was their child. Of course they wouldn't.

It sounds like you would not be the type to have the ability to defend someone b/c you cannot see beyond what to you is obvious and you couldn't stomach the fact that your job is to make sure they are defended properly even if they have done something so horrific. Just b/c there are people out there who have that ability, it does not make them bad people.

Yes it sucks that they are doing everything they can...but if they didn't, they don't deserve to be attorneys.

Just like the doctors who treat alleged criminals who have been injured. It is not their place to sentence the alleged criminal. They have to treat them no matter what. A doctor tempted to take the case into his or her own hands (i.e. not treat the patient like a patient) doesn't deserve to be a doctor either.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

that's even worse, we are paying for it.

So if you get wrongly accused of a crime--do you have a bankroll to fund your own attorney? If not, wouldn't you be glad that you have the right to appointed counsel if you could not afford one on your own?

It is nice to say we wouldn't be placed in that position--but it could happen. It is your constitutional right as it is the most heinous of criminals.

 

[lillygator]

thank you momx2!!! hopefully you will never have to defend someone such as Couey - but thanks for posting - gives a great "other" view to us who know nothing about DA's.

 

[lillygator]

So if you get wrongly accused of a crime--do you have a bankroll to fund your own attorney? If not, wouldn't you be glad that you have the right to appointed counsel if you could not afford one on your own?

It is nice to say we wouldn't be placed in that position--but it could happen. It is your constitutional right as it is the most heinous of criminals.

What's ironic LLP - I was just going to go the whole dr route....I work for a hospital although not clinical but even with a "vow" I think it would be hard to save certain individuals.....especially with the judicial system the way it us.

no "bank roll" but between the house and family we could definitely afford to hire someone....but then I choose to abide by the law...and while, yes there are "some" wrongly accused.....well, whatever, its kind of...irrelevant.

 

[momx2]

no "bank roll" but between the house and family we could definitely afford to hire someone....but then I choose to abide by the law...and while, yes there are "some" wrongly accused.....well, whatever, its kind of...irrelevant.

I'm glad you chose not to be a doctor since you have such strong feelings about who should live or die. But "some" wrongly accused.....well, whatever, its kind of...irrelevant. I guess it's "irrelevant" as long as it doesn't happen to you or anyone you know. Believe me, it can happen, been there, done that, gonna do it again. Very sad you feel this way.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

What's ironic LLP - I was just going to go the whole dr route....I work for a hospital although not clinical but even with a "vow" I think it would be hard to save certain individuals.....especially with the judicial system the way it us.

no "bank roll" but between the house and family we could definitely afford to hire someone....but then I choose to abide by the law...and while, yes there are "some" wrongly accused.....well, whatever, its kind of...irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant.

We are all given the SAME constitutional protections. You are neither judge nor jury for this man and you cannot convict him. That is not your right to take his rights away.

I choose to abide by the law as well.

What that man did was awful and I hope all that evidence stays pretty clear that it was him.

But you have already convicted him and that is sad.

 

[PrincessKitty1]

That problem runs rampant through our legal system and prosecutors are just as guilty of it. Their callousness infuriates me more. It's their job to uphold the truth.

Good point! The one time I was on a jury, I watched a video over and over of cops beating the cr@p out of the defendent.I wondered how the DA could live with herself, prosecuting the case against the defendent (possession of cocaine) considering that the cops appeared to be guilty of more horrific acts than the defendent.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Two of the greatest virtues of our country are that we have the ideal that all should be equal under the law and that government has no right to take life, liberty, or property without due process of that law. We haven't always lived up to that, but we're getting closer. As such, we cannot arbitrarily say Oh that guy is accused of something REALLY bad so he doesn't get a defense and isn't entitled to due process. Where does that arbitrary line end up if we allow such? It ends up at tyranny. Because if we draw an arbitrary line there, it can be drawn anywhere with any one of us arbitrarily on the wrong side of it denied due process. And don't think for a moment if we let the government authorities get away with denying one person due process, they won't do it again to someone else when it suits them. Due process must apply to everyone, even those we think are really bad. Because if it doesn't apply to them, it doesn't apply to us. And ultimately in the end it will apply to no one. And defense attorneys are a key component of insuring we all actually get due process in fact rather than merely on paper.

 

[magicmirror]

ok, I was going to post that defense attorneys are in it for the money, because their job is to defend. Then I realized this was too deep for me and my innocent remark!!! So my response is "Who really knows why we do what we do?"

 

[poohandwendy]

What's ironic LLP - I was just going to go the whole dr route....I work for a hospital although not clinical but even with a "vow" I think it would be hard to save certain individuals.....especially with the judicial system the way it us.

no "bank roll" but between the house and family we could definitely afford to hire someone....but then I choose to abide by the law...and while, yes there are "some" wrongly accused.....well, whatever, its kind of...irrelevant.

Wow...

I guess all I can say is that your choosing to abide the law does not guarantee that you will never be accused of a crime and if that ever were to happen to you or anyone you care about, you may be very glad that our legal system is designed to protect the accused (regardless of financial state) from facing the court system without legal representation.


It's alarming that you cannot see the need, not just for poor innocent people, but even for criminals. Everyone deserves the right to a fair trial and there cannot be one without legal representation.

 

[VSL]

What's ironic LLP - I was just going to go the whole dr route....I work for a hospital although not clinical but even with a "vow" I think it would be hard to save certain individuals.....especially with the judicial system the way it us.

no "bank roll" but between the house and family we could definitely afford to hire someone....but then I choose to abide by the law...and while, yes there are "some" wrongly accused.....well, whatever, its kind of...irrelevant.

First of all, I have to say that I hope that I never come across a doctor or surgeon who considers with-holding treatment just because they think I am guilty of something.

Secondly, well, it's all well and good for you if YOU can afford a lawyer, but LLP was asking about if you COULD NOT afford a lawyer (ie, if you didn't have the luxuries that you have now). There are many innocent people who get accused of some pretty nasty things (and it can happen to any of us in a wrong time/place situation) and many cannot afford to hire someone (unlike you). What about them?
It's totally relevent to this topic.

We can't decide who should and should not get a DA just because we think that they are guilty. Someone's got to do it. If they didn't, why bother having a legal system in place at all?

 

[bicker]

Justice is served best when both sides, the prosecution and defense, work hardest to achieve the best result for their side. Anything short of that is injustice.

 

[Ub_Iwerks]

I have two relatives (they are husband and wife) who are public defenders in a big city and I've gotta say that neither of them seem to have consciences--they really do not care about right or wrong, guilt or innocence, but rather it's all about WINNING to them.

I agree that people who have been arrested for crimes deserve to have defense attorneys,but I think you have to be pretty, er....detached! Yeah, that's the word, detached, to be trying to get somebody off when you know they're guilty.

I also have a relative who is a public defender, but in a large suburban county and not an urban area. He has never defended a murder, but I have to say he does indeed have a conscience. I also have gotten to know many of his co-workers inthe public defender office, and there's only a small percentage that only care about "winning." More than 95 percent of the time the case doesn't even go to trial. Of course, when it does, the defenders want to win or at least get the charge reduced. We live in a very conservative county, so often times the defendants are guilty of something but charged with much more serious crimes. Public defenders work for less pay than public school teachers and they have to deal with a much more difficult clientele. They are truly doing a public service so that the justice system works. When criminals don't get fair representation, they are much more likely to get out on appeal.

Bicker--Your last comment seems to show you've had a change of heart.