Wong's lawyers

[caring citizen]

I was totally amazed about the lawyers for Wong. Where has our society gone wrong? Where is the respect for our law enforcement or any one else for that matter if you can get lawyers who are only there for the money and try to defend murderers and seem to put the blame on the person who pulled them over. So, if we get stopped for any reason, are we supposed to just take a gun and shoot the officer.Something is wrong with this picture. It may be that no one else in our area will want to use Melrose and Seago if this is how they beleive.

[Hang On]

It's amazing just how little folks know about the legal system. If an attorney is on the court appointment list, they have to represent whoever is appointed to them. In capital cases attorneys can be appointed only after they have been co-counsel with another "qualified" attorney in capital cases. Any lawyer is held accountable to provide the best defense possible for any client, if not, the bar association will take care of their license if reported. I wouldn't want a lawyer who didn't do the best job he could if I needed one. What about those who do get falsely accused? It happens, believe me. What's sad is that some lawyers do a sorry job and the innocent go to jail.

If we could have held our tongues in the first place about what we would like to have to happen to Wong, the venue probably never would have been changed.

What's more, when folks make comments such as "fry him", what that translates to in court is "free him". I'm not taking up for Wong, just trying to explain how the judicial system works.

Let these lawyers do their job, if they don't he will get an appeal and could be acquited if they let something slip. You want that? Didn't think so.

[Curious]

Then how come unless it's a high profile case that will receive great scrutiny court appointed lawyers can't wait to plead a client out. Should'nt court appointed hack laywers be rewarded for getting someone off rather than rolling over for the DA and then getting paid via a probation judgment rather than not getting paid for an acquittal?

[Hang On]

Curious wrote:

Then how come unless it's a high profile case that will receive great scrutiny court appointed lawyers can't wait to plead a client out. Should'nt court appointed hack laywers be rewarded for getting someone off rather than rolling over for the DA and then getting paid via a probation judgment rather than not getting paid for an acquittal?

Wong will be entering a plea no doubt. You're right, some are hacks and do roll over for the DA. But they can get into much trouble if the client complains to the bar association and the bar determines they did not do their job to the best of their ability. Not too many defendants know they can report to the bar and it don't happen very much. I know one lawyer (a good one, at that) who has said it's easier to make a deal with the DA if someone is guilty than prove an innocent person innocent.

The lawyer gets paid win or loose. Court appointed hourly rates are very small compared to retained lawyers, they don't make much money so they don't work very hard on some of the low-profile cases. Just get through and bill the state, the state then collects from the client if the client is convicted. The sooner the case is over the sooner the lawyer can bill and get his paycheck and move on to the next client.

In these big cases, the publicity usually makes some lawyers work harder, or make a good showing of it anyway, to keep in the media. It's a shame its like that. But the standard the bar sets is applied to both great and small, its just that someone with more at stake is more likely to complain and the lawyers better do it right to stay in practice.

Actually, Melrose and Seago are just doing what they are supposed to do - whether or not they actually like the client or despise him, they are supposed to pull all the stops. Hope this answers your question.

[Curious]

Agreed. Of all of 'em Mark and Randy would abide by the cannons of ethics of the bar and might even actually take up for an indigent client. But I don't think wong will let them plead him especially if it was an illegal or unsupported by probale cause stop. A judicial system that reqards money above character and duty is doomed to lose public trust and hence the "the first thing we do is kill all the lawyers" mindset amoung us common men.

[Hang On]

Curious wrote:

Agreed. Of all of 'em Mark and Randy would abide by the cannons of ethics of the bar and might even actually take up for an indigent client. But I don't think wong will let them plead him especially if it was an illegal or unsupported by probale cause stop. A judicial system that reqards money above character and duty is doomed to lose public trust and hence the "the first thing we do is kill all the lawyers" mindset amoung us common men.

I understand the mindset and why, but with all the comments that are posted on all these forums representing local mindset, I think that is how the venue got changed. Hopefully it won't give Wong the break he is looking for even outside this area. There's not alot of sympathy for what he did and members of any jury pool anywhere may be reading all this stuff. I just worry that some of us have expressed ourselves a little to much already. Nothing wrong with that, just not on public forums that can be printed and carried into court by defense lawyers, if you know what I'm talking about.