- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Deputies arrest 4 in LSU student Madison Brooks case
Posted on 1/31/23 at 1:28 am to JudgeHolden
Posted on 1/31/23 at 1:28 am to JudgeHolden
If some zealous and offended member of the public decided to do a LA Bar Complaint on the defense counsel (I think it was Joe Long) who said there'd be no rape complaint unless she died, how would they come down?
There's representing your client. There's insulting a recently deceased victim...
Any sanctions come down for that?
And it was 'rape rape' as the family attorney put it ('rape is rape'). (Whoopi Goldberg famously said about one of the me too guys it wasn't "rape rape.")
There's representing your client. There's insulting a recently deceased victim...
Any sanctions come down for that?
And it was 'rape rape' as the family attorney put it ('rape is rape'). (Whoopi Goldberg famously said about one of the me too guys it wasn't "rape rape.")
2
Posted on 1/31/23 at 1:36 am to HodsonTiger13
People like you deserved to be bitch slapped.
Imagine trying to report someone for actually doing their jobs.
Also, if you think that was bad, I'd advise you don't tune in during trial.
Imagine trying to report someone for actually doing their jobs.
quote:It's OK if you don't understand how these things work, but wanting to write the bar bc you don't understand how a legal process works is about as bitch made as it comes.
There's representing your client. There's insulting a recently deceased victim...
Any sanctions come down for that?
Also, if you think that was bad, I'd advise you don't tune in during trial.
quote:It makes sense now, you got your little feewings hurt and now you're mad and want to take it out on someone. Sound like you'd make great antifa or blm material.
offended member
This post was edited on 1/31/23 at 1:39 am
Posted on 1/31/23 at 1:39 am to HodsonTiger13
I think the issue would be under rule 3.6, trial publicity.
It isn’t for me to judge, but I think they easily fall within section (c) of that and are within the rule.
As for saying there would be no rape complaint if she hadn’t died, well . . .
I would never have worded it that way. But he is within his rights to claim that she consented, which is what that means. Like it or not, if she consented to sex, he’s right, there would have been no rape complaint if she’d lived.
I doubt the bar is going to discipline someone for tactlessness.
ETA: Under rule 4.4, a lawyer cannot use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person.” Joe Long had a substantial purpose in saying what he did, however inartfully he might have said it.
Joe Long took the same oath I did. He is supposed to zealously represent his clients. You don’t like him and his words because his clients are very unpopular here. I’m pretty sure that’s going to be no epidermis off his derrière. He is going to defend his clients.
If they were my clients, I may have made different tactical choices. But I would also have defended them passionately to the very best of my abilities. It’s our oath and obligation.
It isn’t for me to judge, but I think they easily fall within section (c) of that and are within the rule.
As for saying there would be no rape complaint if she hadn’t died, well . . .
I would never have worded it that way. But he is within his rights to claim that she consented, which is what that means. Like it or not, if she consented to sex, he’s right, there would have been no rape complaint if she’d lived.
I doubt the bar is going to discipline someone for tactlessness.
ETA: Under rule 4.4, a lawyer cannot use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person.” Joe Long had a substantial purpose in saying what he did, however inartfully he might have said it.
Joe Long took the same oath I did. He is supposed to zealously represent his clients. You don’t like him and his words because his clients are very unpopular here. I’m pretty sure that’s going to be no epidermis off his derrière. He is going to defend his clients.
If they were my clients, I may have made different tactical choices. But I would also have defended them passionately to the very best of my abilities. It’s our oath and obligation.
This post was edited on 1/31/23 at 1:45 am
Posted on 1/31/23 at 1:45 am to JudgeHolden
Thank you for a well-reasoned response.
(I'll ignore the peanut gallery as some are drinking this late at night.)
My inquiry was if there are any 'legal ethics' (oxymoron) guidelines for a defense attorney speaking about a deceased victim.
They have a family attorney to speak for them and we saw that.
Would the Bar itself be monitoring press coverage to see if any lines are crossed?
I'm sure the Judge on the case will tell both sides to stay within rules as there's also a risk of jury pool tampering.
That video -- full and unedited - may come back to haunt the defendants. I know they had the selective edit but the video, text messages they sent, what they googled when they got home. Lot of evidence to sift through.
(I'll ignore the peanut gallery as some are drinking this late at night.)
My inquiry was if there are any 'legal ethics' (oxymoron) guidelines for a defense attorney speaking about a deceased victim.
They have a family attorney to speak for them and we saw that.
Would the Bar itself be monitoring press coverage to see if any lines are crossed?
I'm sure the Judge on the case will tell both sides to stay within rules as there's also a risk of jury pool tampering.
That video -- full and unedited - may come back to haunt the defendants. I know they had the selective edit but the video, text messages they sent, what they googled when they got home. Lot of evidence to sift through.
Posted on 1/31/23 at 1:46 am to JudgeHolden
quote:And one would be damn glad to have an attorney like that if they were in any situation where they might need an attorney.
Joe Long took the same oath I did. He is supposed to zealously represent his clients. You don’t like him and his words because his clients are very unpopular here. I’m pretty sure that’s going to be no epidermis off his derrière. He is going to defend his clients.
Just because an attorney represents someone doesn't mean they like that person or agree with that person's morals. They're just doing their job. Some People here seem to have issues separating the 2.
Posted on 1/31/23 at 1:48 am to HodsonTiger13
quote:I'm high, not drunk. Don't drink.
I'll ignore the peanut gallery as some are drinking this late at night.
quote:Give it up already.
Would the Bar itself be monitoring press coverage to see if any lines are crossed?
Posted on 1/31/23 at 1:49 am to HodsonTiger13
quote:
My inquiry was if there are any 'legal ethics' (oxymoron) guidelines for a defense attorney speaking about a deceased victim.
See my ETA. Rule 4.4 is as close as you get.
I’m using shorthand here, so let me be clearer. The rules I’m quoting are from the Louisiana Code of Professional Conduct for lawyers. These are the “ethics rules.”
As for bar monitoring, I think Chuck and his staff do keep an eye on high profile cases.
Posted on 1/31/23 at 1:51 am to saint tiger225
quote:
I'm high, not drunk. Don't drink.
I can’t sleep. Never did much. If I wasn’t getting up in four hours, I might get drunk to see if I could nod off!
Posted on 1/31/23 at 1:56 am to JudgeHolden
I understand consent is a defense and they have to represent clients that have hired them.
It was an idiotic question from a 'press member' that Long responded to: "Had she lived would she have even complained of rape the next day?" (paraphrasing)
So it was a tactless answer to a tactless question.
I'm not the family so I just groaned. But a bit insulting to the family of the deceased. Hence the response from the family's lawyer.
Seems most high profile cases the lawyers can't wait to get out and 'try the case in the media' and I suppose this will be no exception.
Is it possible for media (national) to sue to get access to cameras in a Louisiana courtroom?
Might this trial be on national TV live?
Posted on 1/31/23 at 1:59 am to JudgeHolden
Curious question for any involved in law, have you ever heard something that a lawyer said that made you want to report them or did you just accept it as them doing their job?
I understand the point the other poster is making. And I agree, a lot of defense attorneys say some crazy, off the wall shite, but usually there's a method to it. I'd guess that method is to try and create as much doubt as possible. If that was just a random person saying that, I'd think it was too far as well, but take it as their opinion. However, being that it was a defense attorney, I see it as him trying to be the best at his job.
Am I just warped bc of my past experience or do others see it this way as well?
I understand the point the other poster is making. And I agree, a lot of defense attorneys say some crazy, off the wall shite, but usually there's a method to it. I'd guess that method is to try and create as much doubt as possible. If that was just a random person saying that, I'd think it was too far as well, but take it as their opinion. However, being that it was a defense attorney, I see it as him trying to be the best at his job.
Am I just warped bc of my past experience or do others see it this way as well?
Posted on 1/31/23 at 2:01 am to HodsonTiger13
quote:
Is it possible for media (national) to sue to get access to cameras in a Louisiana courtroom? Might this trial be on national TV live?
I’ve never seen cameras in a Louisiana courtroom. I doubt they’ll start now.
Look what cameras did to the OJ trial. To the Depp/Heard trial.
I’d never allow them if I were a judge.
Posted on 1/31/23 at 2:04 am to saint tiger225
quote:
Curious question for any involved in law, have you ever heard something that a lawyer said that made you want to report them or did you just accept it as them doing their job?
Technically, I think I’d have to report something I knew was a violation.
A good lawyer can keep another lawyer out of ethical trouble. And a huge percentage of ethical issues with lawyers relates to financial mismanagement of client funds or substance abuse (or both).
Posted on 1/31/23 at 2:15 am to JudgeHolden
Best I can tell, this is the rule:
A trial judge may authorize:
(a) the use of cameras placed inside the courtroom for security purposes without audio;
(b) the use of electronic or photographic means for the presentation of evidence, for the perpetuation of a record for the court or for counsel, or for other purposes of judicial administration;
(c) the broadcasting, televising, recording or photographing of investitive or ceremonial proceedings;
(d) the photographic or electronic recording and reproduction of appropriate court proceedings under the following conditions:
(i) the means of recording will not distract participants or impair the dignity of the proceedings;
(ii) the parties have consented, and the consent to being depicted or recorded has been obtained from each witness appearing in the recording and reproduction;
(iii) the reproduction will not be exhibited until after the proceeding has been concluded and all direct appeals have been exhausted; and
(iv) the reproduction will be exhibited only for instructional purposes in educational institutions.
So even if the judge allowed it and everyone agreed, it couldn’t be live.
Journalists could argue that they have a First Amendment right. But remember that the US Supreme Court doesn’t allow cameras, and those nine wise people decide what the First Amendment means.
Tl;dr. No cameras in courtroom.
A trial judge may authorize:
(a) the use of cameras placed inside the courtroom for security purposes without audio;
(b) the use of electronic or photographic means for the presentation of evidence, for the perpetuation of a record for the court or for counsel, or for other purposes of judicial administration;
(c) the broadcasting, televising, recording or photographing of investitive or ceremonial proceedings;
(d) the photographic or electronic recording and reproduction of appropriate court proceedings under the following conditions:
(i) the means of recording will not distract participants or impair the dignity of the proceedings;
(ii) the parties have consented, and the consent to being depicted or recorded has been obtained from each witness appearing in the recording and reproduction;
(iii) the reproduction will not be exhibited until after the proceeding has been concluded and all direct appeals have been exhausted; and
(iv) the reproduction will be exhibited only for instructional purposes in educational institutions.
So even if the judge allowed it and everyone agreed, it couldn’t be live.
Journalists could argue that they have a First Amendment right. But remember that the US Supreme Court doesn’t allow cameras, and those nine wise people decide what the First Amendment means.
Tl;dr. No cameras in courtroom.
Posted on 1/31/23 at 2:16 am to JudgeHolden
The Rittenhouse case was live streamed the lawyer commentary youtube channels were interesting to follow. Those guys did well.
Legislation needed to put cameras in courtrooms or could the media sue for access?
It would be O.J. 2.0. "In the wake of that Alton Sterling police killing, a divided city faces a new trial ..."
Legislation needed to put cameras in courtrooms or could the media sue for access?
It would be O.J. 2.0. "In the wake of that Alton Sterling police killing, a divided city faces a new trial ..."
Posted on 1/31/23 at 2:17 am to HodsonTiger13
quote:
Legislation needed to put cameras in courtrooms or could the media sue for access?
See above. They could sue. They’d lose, IMO.
Posted on 1/31/23 at 2:25 am to JudgeHolden
Actually, better for prosecution no cameras in court as family would have to suffer through the evidence live.
The defense lawyers said they were going to 'challenge probable cause' for the arrest. How do you see that playing out?
Any word on the grand jury to 'up' the charges and add new ones?
Posted on 1/31/23 at 2:34 am to HodsonTiger13
quote:
HodsonTiger13
Guess you don’t sleep much either.
Posted on 1/31/23 at 2:41 am to JudgeHolden
quote:Would these include words spoken by a defense attorney about their client?
Technically, I think I’d have to report something I knew was a violation.
I guess why I'm asking is bc of what the one poster (sorry I keep forgetting name) said about calling and reporting to the bar since this defense attorney said something disparaging towards the victim. I know it may not sound right to most of us, but it seems it's a common tactic to do this.
Just curious if you've ever heard them say something in the defense of their client before trial began that made you think "this is terrible, the bar needs to find out" or did you just take it as them defending their client? I've heard some crazy things said by a defense attorney in an attempt to create doubt, so what the attorney said wasn't that crazy to me, especially when you consider it could be true based off the facts we currently know. But, I'm also not in that field, so I just took it as them doing their job, without any thought that there could be any consequences.
quote:I was surprised when I went to rehab about 10 years ago, how many lawyers were in there. I would have never expected there to be that many in rehab, all at once too.
And a huge percentage of ethical issues with lawyers relates to financial mismanagement of client funds or substance abuse (or both).
Anyways, sorry to get off topic. I think it's an interesting perspective. We as the public are usually told lawyers are scum and so I imagine when the defense speaks out, people are listening through a bias. Especially in today's social media age, when, as a society, we've already decided innocence or guilt bc of what we've heard through media. It seems that same bias is applied to attorneys just doing their job.
Eta - Hodson, that's the name!
This post was edited on 1/31/23 at 2:42 am
Posted on 1/31/23 at 2:46 am to JudgeHolden
quote:Same.
can’t sleep. Never did much. If I wasn’t getting up in four hours, I might get drunk to see if I could nod off!
It's a pain in the butt sometimes. I couldn't imagine being a lawyer and having sleeping trouble. Props to you!
Posted on 1/31/23 at 2:48 am to HodsonTiger13
quote:Sorry for saying you deserved to be bitch slapped. That was immature of me.
HodsonTiger13
Page 308 of 419
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News