More Defense Lawyers Behaving Badly
Do Elliot Weinstein type defense lawyers sleep well at night? His murder-suicide defense for Neil Entwistle is just shameful, but any harbor in a storm I guess:
If Weinstein can suggest that Rachel Entwistle fired a bullet into her 9-month-old baby’s heart, a bullet that also lodged in her own breast, then incredibly had the strength and presence of mind to hold the .22-caliber pistol above her head before squeezing the trigger, then a jury is also allowed to use its common sense.
And common sense would suggest that no one takes her own life with a pistol by holding it above her head, not after she’s already killed her baby and critically wounded herself.
And after shooting herself in the head, she wraps herself and the baby in a blanket, right Elliot? Deep down inside, even though I’m sure he’ll tell us it’s his duty to do everything he can for his client, Weinstein has to know he’s just throwing anything against the wall to see if it sticks.
The only people buying that theory are the deluded parents:
“We know that our son Neil is innocent and we are devastated to learn that the evidence points to Rachel murdering our grandchild and then (committing) suicide,” Entwistle’s mother, Yvonne Entwistle, said in a rare public statement. “I knew Rachel was depressed. Our son will now go to jail for loving, honoring and protecting his wife’s memory.”
Evidence? The defense called no witnesses and presented no evidence to back its absurd assertions. None. Nada. Zero. Zippo. The big donut hole. If Rachel was depressed, why didn’t the Entwistles take the stand and say so? Wakeup and smell the coffee, mom and dad. Your daughter-in-law didn’t kill your granddaughter, and the right guy is going to jail.
Archived in: defense, Elliot Weinstein, Entwistel case, lawyersJune 25, 2008 at 7:17 pm | Trackback
13 comments
With all due respect, Weinstien probably did the best he could do with what he had to work with. It’s not about sleeping well at night, it’s about defending the constitution. Everyone hates defense counsel in every high profile case - and hates them even more when they win. In this case, the right result was reached, and we can all rest easily. If you had defense counsel not defending his client, we would never feel confident that the right result was reached.
At any rate I suspect but don’t know the following: Entwistle will appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel, for putting on no defense - while defense counsel probably put on no defense because he knew Entwistle was guilty.
Lawyers do have an obligation to provide a defense that will get their client off if possible.
Lawyers may suspect their client is guilty, but cannot know that; they never ask, for that puts them is the position as an officer of the court of lying to the court. Big no-no.
One wonders how they go through life with out chemical help, or maybe they don’t.
Yes, lawyers have a duty to vigorously defend their clients. However, that duty shouldn’t include telling the biggest whoppers they can to muddy the waters. Martians might have come down and killed Rachel and Lillian too, but it isn’t likely.
If the defense had taken any steps to substantiate those claims, it’d be a different story. But to throw it out there without any evidence at all is wrong. And if that’s a lawyers duty, then they shouldn’t be surprised that the public holds them in such low esteem.
As I recall, Entwhistle left the country in haste at about the time of the “murder/suicide”.
Yes, if memory serves, he wasn’t even present at their funerals. But we’re suppose to believe he put the gun back in his father-in-law’s house to protect the honor of his “homicidal” wife. That makes sense–NOT!
However, that duty shouldn’t include telling the biggest whoppers they can to muddy the waters.
That is exactly what it includes.
The jury doesn’t have to believe it, and in this case they didn’t.
You guys need to go watch a few trials if this strikes you as out of the norm. Start with a few DUI cases. In reality most cases boil down to what the jury wants to believe.
Oh and altho the worst nightmare for defense counsel is a confession from his client, the only thing that does is tie the lawyer’s hands as he cannot put anyone on the witness stand who he knows will lie.
Jane has a point. Jury selection normally ends with a jury unable to lie themselves out of serving. Most of the members hate it, but I still don’t think there’s a better system.
Juries are usually comprised of brain dead persons; lawyers do not want people who can think rationally instead of emotionally.
One sleeper on a jury can get elected foreman (who wants it) where if the case balances on bad law, may elect jury nullification. I leave this to the readers for what this does, but one hint; it circumvents the legislature and the courts.
lawyers do not want people who can think rationally instead of emotionally.
That depends on what side of the case you are on. If you should win, based on the evidence you want thinking juries. If you should lose based on the evidence, you want sleepers.
Painting the jury system with a frustrated broad brush may be satisfying, but it’s far from accurate. Juries are tough - because it requires the lawyer read minds. And in MA with no voir dire, they are tougher. Don’t mistake it for a walk in the park, particularly when lives and livelihoods are at stake.
Without voir dire, how does one get rejected or accepted? By questionaire? Statement? An advocacy process?
Probably check the voter rolls to see how you registered for the last election. That should give some idea of how you will approach the decision making process.
About one year ago, I sat in the jury pool for the petit jury for three months. I watched people get off by all manner of manipulation. Since I work for a local paper, I have the pox as far as the lawyers are concerned. Those left were the dullards whose mental synapses couldn’t or didn’t fire fast enough to get off. (Cases were both civil and criminal)
The real problem today is people cannot afford to take the time off. Rectify that and maybe the pool of jurors will expand to include the living.
Hotspur,
There is jury questionaire which asks about you and your spouse, criminal record and involvement with litigation.
I once assisted at a trial involving medical damages, which we lost. A few years later I was a spectator at the very famous Christian science case and sat down next to one of the juries in the case we lost. She was a Christian scientist who did not believe in medical treatment. There was no way in MA I could have found that out without at my trial. And several years later was too late to do anything about it.
Ultimately, if you have a case, you want a trial by judge. No case, a trial by jury is the only hope for winning.