blank'/> Liberally Lean From The Land Of Dairy Queen: Oh, My

2.20.2009

Oh, My

I just got my copy of Voice For The Defense which is a magazine for Texas criminal defense lawyers. A few months back they started a feature called "Kudos" which provides blurbs about lawyers receiving awards, winning appellate cases on unique legal issues, or doing great things like working successfully on the Innocence Project. Oh, yeah, and occasionally they will throw in a "not guilty" trial win. Which brings me to the above blurb. It's self explanatory but, if not, it says a guy was found not guilty of sexual assault while he was on probation (the result of a plea bargain) for a different crime that had originally been indicted as sexual assault of a child. I understand the kudo (since I assume the guy was not guilty or the evidence was insufficient to convict), but the magazine might want to tap the brakes on the way they word these things. If it made me cringe, I bet it will drive you insane.

11 comments:

The Donald said...

Bart's parents must be so proud!

Anonymous said...

I feel for the children victims of this piece of crap both past and future, the man is obviously a danger to society. I am just happy that the douchebag defense attorney got his pat on the back. Oh by the way, do you think that Bart will let his children be anywhere near his client. I know, I know Bart is just doing his job ,right BG.

Anonymous said...

I don't think the magazine needs to worry about it. The intended audience is people who would understand the context just as you would, and did.

Anonymous said...

Now now. Bart was just doing his job and he apparently does it very well. If people are going to be indigent about anything how about focusing on prosecution that lost the case. It was their job to convict...

On a side note, this doesn't drive me nearly as insane as the Friday morning pick-me-up's leg tattoo.

Anonymous said...

Nice!!!!!! Must make a person proud to be a snake!

Lawrence in Lawrence said...

It's about what I would expect.

Jenn said...

Ummm 10:59 - I'm pretty sure Barry ended the comment by saying "it made me cringe".

Anonymous said...

I always get all "indigent" when this lawyer talk starts up!

Anonymous said...

10:52 - who would really want to defend a child molester anyway?

Some folks just enjoy the court experience and hearing the gory details of such perversion whether the person is guilty or not.

Sickos.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm, maybe Bart's client didn't sexually assault the child but took the deferred on the lesser offense to avoid a conviction and certain pen time.

In any event, why blame just defense attorney Bart? How about the first prosecutor who offered the deferred AND the reduction to the indecency charge and the judge who accepted the plea (since he didn't have to)?

Maybe they just squeezed a guilty plea out of an innocent person wracked with a realistic fear of just what could happen in front of 12 people with a hang 'em high mentality. Kudos!

It could happen.

Anonymous said...

Maybe this boy had sex with his girlfriend and her parents just got pissed off and filed charges on him. You dang right, KUDOS to the lawyer that got the charge knocked down. People should not comment on a subject that they know nothing about. CF from Parker county txvoices.com check it out. My husband is 6 years older than I am and we have been married 32 years and he is not a pedophile. Most men are sex offenders, they just never got caught. Sex with an underage girlfriend, intenet chat with someone they believe to be of age, hah. YOu could be chatting with anyone. Taking a second look at your daughters friends. Stop being so self righteous, most men are sexual deviants, but they will never admit it. Learn the truth before you judge. We should discuss how prosecutors withhold evidence just to get a conviction. NOw those are your slimeballs for sure.