April 21, 2007
Now that's lawyering
Richard "Racehorse" Haynes is a famed Texas trial attorney, whose courtroom skills and flamboyant ways have made him amongst the most successfull of modern American litigators.
Here's just one example of how he strategizes for trial.
Racehorse's philosophy toward the defense was simple. He planned on diverting as much attention from Cullen as possible to allow for reasonable doubt to be introduced. Still, his tried-and-true approach was not limited to putting all of his eggs in one basket.
Haynes explained his philosophy years later before a speech to the American Bar Association:
"Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you. Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit. And fourth, I don't have a dog."
Said one Houston prosecutor who faced him in court, "He develops several scenarios simultaneously, and when it gets to final arguments, he picks the one he thinks will work."
You've got to admire a man who's not afraid to think outside the box.
I guess you could say he was anything but dogmatic.
Ahem.
Posted by Mike Lief at April 21, 2007 10:04 AM
| TrackBack
Comments
If prostitution is ever legalized, whores should be forced into the same red light districts to sell their filth as criminal defense lawyers.
Imagine making your living by accepting blood money to spin lies and deception at the behest of drug dealers and murderers?
I'm betting that the Devil himself as reserved the hottest part of his kingdom for these pigs.
A murderer may only kill once - a defense attorney sins against society over and over and over again for the length of his career.
Posted by: Paul at April 22, 2007 10:25 AM
Paul,
I once asked a defense attorney I knew if the thought of a guilty killer or rapist walking free thanks to his efforts ever kept him awake at night, and his answer was interesting.
He said that he always assumed his clients were guilty; his job was to force the Government to prove its case, to make it meet its burden of proving to a jury that his client was guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt.
If the guilty man walked free, it wasn't because he -- the defense attorney -- had lied or done anything unethical; if the accused killer walked, it was because the district attorney had failed -- FAILED -- in his task to convince a jury of people from the community that the defendant was guilty.
Therefore, he said, if anyone ought to lay awake at night, staring at the ceiling, wrestling with his conscience, it ought to be the D.A.
And that's how a very successful criminal defense attorney rationalizes his career.
Posted by: Mike Lief at April 22, 2007 10:34 AM
Do you believe that your high brow explanation offered by your defense attorney friend is consistent with your original post? Your original post shows actual conduct by a high profile defense attorney. You explanation to Paul is mere academic spin and transparently deceitful given the original post you put up in celebration of Racehorse.
Posted by: Ben at April 22, 2007 09:33 PM
Ben,
I'm often taken aback by the hubris, the sheer bloody nerve of defense attorneys, the way they throw a bunch of theories up, hoping that one or two jurors will latch on to any that'll help acquit the defendant.
And don't think I haven't argued to the jury that the defense was trying to pull the wool over their eyes, offering wholly inconsistent theories in an effort to fool them into letting a guilty man walk.
Racehorse Haynes is a famous, wily attorney, and I appreciate his frank admission that he'll try anything -- within the ethical limits allowed by his state Bar -- to serve his client.
Because I prefer to avoid the needing to make the same logical leaps and contortions to get a good night's sleep, I've chosen to remain a prosecutor, where my clients are the People of the State of California, and know that I will never be forced to proceed unless I think the defendant is guilty of the crime.
Every time I sign a criminal complaint, I'm stating that I believe -- under penalty of perjury -- that the named defendant committed the charged offenses.
Which is another way of saying that, while I don't have to engage in shady courtroom shenanigans to do my job, I can still appreciate the kind of lawyer who openly discusses the creative arguments he'll make on behalf of the defendant.
"[A]cademic spin and transparently deceitful"?
Well, I'm not an academician, and haven't told any lies, so I'll have to disagree with your characterization.
Posted by: Mike Lief at April 22, 2007 10:18 PM