Defense Lawyers
* Re “Defense Lawyers and Truth: Just Where Do They Meet?” Opinion, Aug. 7:
I want to take Susan Estrich’s column a step further. As a lawyer, she addresses, as a final question, the defendant’s rights. As a private citizen, I must add, where are the victim’s rights and the rights of the public in general? If O.J. Simpson is not guilty, so be it. But if he did commit these heinous murders, he (as any criminal) should be held accountable.
The realization that a clever defense could get him off, no matter what the truth, has done more to undermine my personal sense of safety than the riots, earthquake, and living adjacent to gang warfare ever has.
If a murderer (no matter who) can gain freedom because the defense deliberately creates doubt when that doubt is not substantiated, what does that say about the value of Nicole Simpson’s and Ronald Goldman’s lives? As a mother and member of this community, the lack of regard for truth in the justice system absolutely terrifies me.
JODY A. FORRESTER
Venice
* Estrich misses the point in arguing that defense attorneys face an ethical dilemma because they cloud the “truth” when defending their clients. The penal system, as its name suggests, is not about “truth,” but about “penalties.” A finding of guilt does not unrape the victim, it puts the rapist in jail. Our penal system is premised on the concept that the state cannot penalize a person unless it can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty. It matters not whether the person is actually guilty or innocent; if the state cannot meet its burden, it cannot punish. The defense lawyer’s role in this system is to check the power of the state to penalize.
A good defense attorney, therefore, is rightly unconcerned with what he or she believes is the “truth”; his or her concern is whether the state can prove its case. As Estrich well knows, there are often larger issues at stake than the guilt or innocence of a single defendant. If we deny a defense to defendants when a confession is beaten out of them by the police, or when, as in the Simpson case, the police illegally enter a person’s home to obtain evidence, then we deprive ourselves of the protections against abuse of power by the state that our Constitution rightly guarantees and that people in less fortunate countries so desire.
E. RANDOL SCHOENBERG
Westwood
* I applaud Utah’s controversial public defender Elliott Levine for respecting his client’s wishes to seek the death penalty (July 31 and Aug. 1). It is reassuring to learn that there are lawyers today who are more concerned with justice than with being blindly adversarial.
Our legal system is out of control when high-profile defense attorneys are recognized more for their abilities as public relations directors than seekers of truth. At least Levine has a vision and some gumption.
ANNE DE VENZIO
Hollywood
* The Simpson case has spawned an incredible pile of lawyer-speak. Courtroom hucksters, some identified as scholars, fill the airways with legal junk. What we are being shown is that the legal process, as now practiced in high-powered criminal cases, has little to do with justice, i.e., establishing true guilt or innocence. It’s primarily about psychological manipulation and deception practiced on prepackaged, low-resistant juries.
Society pays a terrible price when a significant element of the legal profession turns into just another form of high-priced entertainment.
JOSEPH COSTA
Murrieta