The job of a defense attorney is to use all of his or her skill to get their client acquitted. It is NOT to stand in front of a judge and demand that the entire legal structure of Western law — a unanimous verdict by a jury of one’s peers — be trashed because they didn’t like the outcome.
Listen here on Soundcloud:
As a physician, I’m loathe to say that depression and pharmaceutical side effects couldn’t have led this woman to be a child-killer. As a human with critical thinking skills, the probability that her murders were premeditated and calculated was high. While I feel she killed her children, the whole “beyond a shadow of a doubt” would be a high bar for me.
I read a column that stated that 3 of the jurors are nurses and talked about treating mentally incompetent patients to their fellow jurors. How did they even get selected for this jury? Heck, I can remember being excused from selection because I had experience dealing with the subject of the trial. So, those nurses should have been “de-selected” because of their professional experience with mental patients.
I feel as disgusted about the media’s constant attention to this case as the panel. However, like a train wreck, I couldn’t turn away because it was on every channel all the time. But I have one question I expected to hear that I did not. HOW did this attorney even know there was a jury issue that would derail his desired verdict? It is vitally important there be no communication between the jury and either the defense or the prosecution. Otherwise, this brings up the question of jury tampering. There is no excuse for this, and I believe the… Read more »
Yes, Fonda ended up turning the jurors (with help) one by one to acknowledge that there was reasonable doubt. The original is one of my favorite films. Saw an amateur stage production as well.
During the Wakefield Tech case with McDermott, Reddington was less than stellar on the defense.