DEBRA FOSTER'S SEVENTEEN MINUTES AND TWENTY-NINE SECONDS OF FAME
After viewing this breathtaking exhibition, I have some thoughts. Let me begin by stating that I don't know any of the people involved in the tragic accident and don't know Ms. Foster. I have no dog in this fight but here goes:
1. If I were representing a client and a family member started publicly spouted off about facts and theories of the case, that client would be finding himself a new lawyer. I'd be moving for leave to get off the case so fast it would cause everybody involved a nosebleed;
2. Usually plea-bargaining is done by the attorneys through private correspondence and in-person out of court conversations. Occasionally it is done in court under a unique Illinois Supreme Court Rule. This is the first time I have seen it done on television by a CLIENT'S MOTHER;
3. If I had all this good stuff and my client were going to persuasively testify that he heroically swerved to avoid an accident, why would I want to give the prosecutor an early start getting ready for that theory? Why would I want anybody to let any cats out of any bags early? How could such a premature blurt improve the Defendant's chances at trial. I suppose next mother is going to take out his gall bladder with a pen knife, needle-nosed pliers and duct tape.
4. What the Hell difference does it make to Mrs. Foster's son what the State charges the other driver with? None of that is going to be admissible in her son's case so, indeed, what does Mrs. Foster care? (Note: I wouldn't get eyestrain looking for that driver to testify either.). It's just irrational.
5. Why on God's green earth would she talk about her son's medical care? What does that have to do with his behavior as a driver? The fact (if it is fact) that there was no full neuro workup operates to his advantage. He gets to have had a concussion whether he had one or not.
6. Why would she use catchy little phrases like "blame game" and annoy the very people she's trying to influence. Does she think the State's Attorney's Officen is feeling all warm fuzzies toward her remarks and will, consequently, want to find some middle ground with her son.
7. What was the purpose of suggesting that one of the investigating officers would testify contrary to his earlier testimony at a later time. Accusing people of planning to lie at some time in the future is, at best, curious.
8. Finally, Note to self: check the nursing staff roster of any local facility before seeking care there.
Look, I get loving your kids and wanting to help but leave professional services to the professionals.
On the plus side, this was a new experience. I'd never seen anything quite like this before. Toto, what State you think we're in now?
posted by UMRBlog @ 04:45
4 comments
4 Comments:
Just curious .... did you ever file a gag order when you were SA?
0452,
The defense lawyers here were so well behaved when it came to publicity of evidence, I never had to ask for one.
About a million years ago, when I was Public Defender, I was subject to one but it was the judge's own idea and was not sought by the then-S/A.
I have a vague recollection of a couple requested by the defense on Sheriff's department cases in the early and mid-70's.
The rules regarding pretrial publicity are substantially tighter now than they were then, though.
TYFCB
The only possible explanation I can think of here is the one Mr. Barnard cited in his request for sanctions: that the defense attorney is trying to taint the jury pool so that he can get his client off on appeal by claiming a tainted jury pool. Desperate strategy but I saw it used about 20 years ago in Missouri...an accused murderer gave a series of extensive jailhouse interviews, then after conviction appealed on the basis of a tainted jury. Didn't work, although the guy did escape the gas chamber by a stroke of luck when the Pope came to St. Louis and the governor commuted his sentence.
Oh, THAT murderer. Designated Whiner. That was a reverse taint.
TYFCB
Post a Comment
<< Home