Boldfacing Around Tsarnaev (Update)

My pal, Tamar Birckhead, successfully defended shoe bomber Richard Reid.  By successfully, I mean that she kept him alive. When it comes to defending accused terrorists, even ones as ridiculously incompetent at their mission as Reid, success is defined differently.

When the media needed meat to grind out its media sausage, Tamar was an obvious choice.  She knew what she went through, what the experience of defending someone under the microscope of terrorism was like.  And having gone from federal defender to UNC clinical lawprof, she had the opportunity and curriculum vitae to do the job.

In the Boston Herald's initial salvo of handicapping the defense, Tamar led the quote parade with some thoughtful words:

“We know he’s 19 years old, we don’t think he has a criminal record or been in trouble before. There are a lot of people out there that seem to have warm, positive things about him,” said Tamar Birckhead, whose client, Richard Reed, tried to blow an airliner out of the sky but got life by copping a plea. “To predict he’ll get a life sentence is not unreasonable.”

Bereft of hyperbole, the worst that will come of it is the blind hatred of those who can't bear any word, any thought, about Tsarnaev that isn't a cry for blood. Ironically, that's largely the message, that the defense of the most hated man in America, at least this week, will spend an awful lot of time fending off the rage that comes with the job.

Following Tamar is Stephen Jones, who defended Timothy McVeigh.  His defense was less successful, as reflected in McVeigh's execution. Still, he offered a realistic assessment.

... the baby-faced Tsarnaev can pin the Boston Marathon and last week’s deadly final rampage on his slain big brother and seek mercy as a kid who was easily swayed.

“If the younger brother can shed any light on the circumstances of the older brother’s alleged involvement,” said Jones, “that’s valuable information that the government would want.”

While the public will read these words as manipulative, lawyers will read them as pragmatic. This is the job we do, the life we've chosen.  We make the best of the worst situation, and as McVeigh's execution shows, it doesn't always work, so don't get too worked up about it.

But the Boston Herald piece then devolves to where the angry and cynical expect it to go, and where the media is at its worst.  The next two bold face names used to flesh out the piece come from the handful of lawyers always available for comment, no matter what the subject, no matter what they have to offer.  And it shows.

First comes Geoffrey Fieger, who can never be sure which chair to sit in when he enters the well, and whose justification for offering his half cent is that his "clients have included assisted-suicide advocate Dr. Jack Kevorkian."  And Kevorkian has what to do with terrorism or this case?

“Nothing about the outcome is assured.”

Cool story, bro.

“This case is ripe for somebody who’s got the courage to stand up and talk about the system and the railroading of criminal defendants,” Fieger said. “He’s been denied the right to a fair trial. And America’s ...cheering like it was some kind of sporting event. That wasn’t a very flattering image to the rest of the world. Cheering like they won the World Series.”

Huh? What the heck is he talking about. Did anybody tell him the interview was about Tsarnaev? Does he know who this kid is, what this case is about?  The railroading of criminal defendants? Lest we get too down on Feiger, then comes the Big Kahuna of perpetual availability when it comes to a quick and easy quote. none other than the Harvard Lawprof with a home on Sutton Place and a finger in the latest misbegotten lawyer start-up vulture biz, Viewabill:

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, a member of OJ Simpson’s “dream team,” said, “The case will go down one of two ways. Either plea bargain ... or he’ll want to become a martyr and he’ll admit everything, boast about the crime, seek to justify it and demand the death penalty.”

Two ways, Dersh? Really? Not three or seven? So it's impossible that he will follow the sound advice of his counsel and assist in his vigorous defense? It's impossible that the government will not offer a plea to life imprisonment and he will be forced to trial? It's impossible that he won't want to become a martyr?"  Because you know stuff from being the weak link on the OJ team?

Whenever there is a big criminal case that captures the public's imagination, there is a chance to be in the limelight.  There will be some lawyers, like Tamar and Stephen, who are knowledgeable about what the defense is about to go through, and can help enlighten the public.

And then there are those who desperately want to see their names in print despite the utter lack of anything to contribute. They say outrageous things. They say stupid things. They only care if their name is spelled correctly, and don't give a hoot about the silliness they contribute to the story.

At this point, there may very well be a worthwhile trial ahead, where this kid's defense will be that he was a vulnerable youth, manipulated into serving as an acolyte to his adored older, but hateful brother.  It may be the truth, despite the havoc he caused.  I don't know what drove him to do this. You don't know. Clearly, neither does Feiger or Dershowitz, but that won't stop them from spewing nonsense.  And if a reporter calls them for comment, they will answer.

And they won't be the only lawyers or lawprof with nothing to offer who will be readily available for a quote or TV appearance. Not by a long shot.

Update: While there's little doubt that other newspapers, other new reports, will bring out a wealth of media sluts to promote their brand, the damage being done by a couple of scholars by reducing anything remotely resembling thought to its most base instinct may be the nadir.

Via Gideon at A Public Defender, this post has to be read to be believed. 





© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.

Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/04/23/boldfacing-around-tsarnaev.aspx?ref=rss

local solicitors mold attorney need a lawyer patent lawyer personal injury