creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
diane dimond
Diane Dimond
12 May 2012
Happy Mother's Day -- If You Aren't Locked Up

Happy Mother's Day to all the other moms out there! Your children have likely bought you a nice card and a gift,… Read More.

5 May 2012
Faith in America Redux

Sometimes a columnist writes something that grabs people by the throat. I guess I accomplished that last week … Read More.

28 Apr 2012
A Crisis of Justice

"With liberty and justice for all ..." are the last six words of our Pledge of Allegiance. I'm just … Read More.

Why We Dislike Lawyers

Share Comment

Question: What's the difference between a lawyer and a shark? Answer: Nothing.

OK, look, right off the bat I want to say: I work with a lot of lawyers, and I count many of them as good friends. But we've all heard the old jokes, and let's face it — the public's general perception of lawyers' honesty and integrity is pretty rotten. The latest Harris poll on the subject puts attorneys way down at the bottom of the list with members of Congress, car salesmen — and, yes, journalists.

But since lawyers are the crux of our justice system, I think it is important that we take a closer look at the way some of them operate. Why is it so many of us curl our upper lip at the very mention of dealing with a lawyer?

Maybe it's the sheer number of them these days. Maybe because we believe they make so much money on other people's misery. Or maybe it is that so many of us are forced to turn to lawyers these days to handle things that used to be settled with a handshake and someone's good word.

Despite what we see on TV in dramas like "Law and Order" and "The Good Wife," most lawyering goes on in a stealthy way. It is done out of plain sight — in boardrooms and depositions, in front of secret grand juries or in the confines of a prosecutor's office. When engaged in their profession, lawyers speak a different language than we do, and they follow a set of rules most of us will never understand. It is human nature not to trust what we don't know or what we can't see or hold in our hands.

For the last six weeks, I've been closely covering a capitol murder trial taking place in Orlando, Fla. And it struck me as I watched the defense lay out its presentation in the case of Florida vs. Casey Marie Anthony that there is another more basic reason why we think the way we do about lawyers.

The often destroy innocent people in the name of defending their clients.

To watch defense attorneys Jose Baez and Cheney Mason conduct their case on behalf of Anthony has been painful. Of course, they have every right (and a duty) to do what they can to ensure their client gets a fair trial, especially since she is facing a possible death sentence. But they do not have the right to vilify and destroy bystanders to the murder of 2-year-old Caylee Anthony. The scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners behavior should not be allowed.

During the defense's opening statement, Baez promised the jury it would hear evidence that there was no murder and that the little girl had drowned in the family's backyard pool.

He blamed Grandfather George Anthony for discarding her body. There has been no evidence presented to back up that claim.

Baez told the jurors that repeated sexual molestation of his client by both her father, George, and her brother, Lee, had turned her into a trained liar who naturally kept secrets. He promised evidence to explain why his client let 31 days go by before finally admitting her daughter was gone. So far, the jurors have heard exactly the opposite — clear denials that any sort of sexual abuse ever took place.

What the jury has actually heard is testimony from more than a dozen of Casey Anthony's friends and co-workers that showed she was a known liar and thief long before her daughter went missing.

Baez's opening statement also smeared the reputation of a man named Roy Kronk, a county meter reader who found Caylee's skeletonized remains in the woods six months after she was last seen. He reported the tiny child's skull was still wrapped in duct tape, which had snarled in her long hair.

The defense lawyer called Kronk a "morally corrupt individual" and promised evidence that would show he had stolen Caylee's remains after she drowned in the Anthonys' backyard pool and waited for the reward money to grow. Kronk has come and gone from the witness box, and no such evidence was presented against him.

I've highlighted the Casey Anthony case here, but it is far from the only trial in which lawyers have made reckless claims on behalf of their clients, leaving human despair in their wake. Believe me, it happens all the time in courthouses across the country.

The question for all of us — including honorable lawyers who read this now — is what do we as a society do with attorneys who deliberately demolish the reputation of others in their quest for their client's acquittal? If they make promises to a jury at the expense of others and don't follow through, shouldn't there be some sort of penalty? If you or I repeatedly lied about important issues at our job, wouldn't we face consequences?

Most other professions have a code of behavior. I submit that criminal defense attorneys should be held to one, as well.

Diane Dimond's book, "Cirque Du Salahi — Be Careful Who You Trust," can be ordered at Amazon.com. Visit Diane Dimond's official website at www.dianedimond.com for investigative reporting, polls and more. To find out more about Diane Dimond and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
Who failed Caylee Anthony?

First, the prosecution team for failing to explain to the jury the difference between "reasonable doubt" and "circumstantial evidence".

The jury bought the defense argument that not knowing where and how someone died meant they were required to infer reasonable doubt.

The prosecution was so certain (like most of the country who watched the trial gavel-to-gavel) that Casey was guilty, they failed to adequately inform the jury on circumstantial evidence.

And to present some of the many cases where accuseds have been found guilty of murder even without a body. (Google: guilty murder "no body")

An accidental drowning? The prosecution played a jailhouse conversation where Casey said, "now they're saying Caylee drowned in the pool. Can you believe that?" Thus Casey's own words prove Caylee did not drown in the pool and it was highly unlikely there was some other horrible accident.

During the 31 days Casey did not live with her parents she told them (1) Caylee was in the care of an imaginary nanny, (2) Caylee and Casey and the nanny were spending time in Tampa and other places with another imaginary friend, (3) all were staying another week in Tampa because the nanny was in an auto accident and they were keeping the nanny company. All lies.

Which is the most likely explanation? Casey lied to her parents because her father and brother molested her so she always lied? Or Casey was already dead?

Why did Casey borrow a shovel from a neighbor? She didn't take the stand to answer that question (her right not to do so), but still, why did Casey need a shovel?

Why did Casey abandon her parents' car in a parking garage?

Unanswered questions do not add up to acquittal. There was plenty of circumstantial evidence to convict.

Second, grandma perjuring herself about chloroform searches.

Third, last and perhaps the most guilty of Caylee not receiving justice, the Pinellas County Sheriff's Dept. for not finding the remains when the meter reader first reported finding them. If half a year hadn't passed, perhaps DNA or fingerprints would have been found on the duct tape.

Barbados Dagny
attorney-at-law (Ret.)
Comment: #1
Posted by: Barbados Dagny
Fri Jul 8, 2011 6:48 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Diane Dimond
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Oliver North
Oliver NorthUpdated 25 May 2012
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 25 May 2012
David Limbaugh
David LimbaughUpdated 25 May 2012

24 Mar 2012 In Defense of the US Military

2 Jan 2010 The Wrong Reaction to Terror

19 Feb 2011 Saving Billions Will Hurt