An ASA wrote:
Are you trying to get all of the ASAs to leave the blog, Rump? I really don't know when you changed the name of the Justice Building Blog to the Justice Building Defense Blog, but I, for one, am really tired of the SAO and ASAs being egged on by you and your brethren based upon half truths, suppositions (and you're supposed to be the sentry between the accused and the accusers, yet you don't even give the benefit of the doubt before you start accusing and convicting) and outright lies that you post (like the "facts" of the oxycodone case in your last thread that turned out to be nothing more than a bunch of crap). If you want us to not feel welcome to blog, you're doing a pretty good job of it. Hah--what if the defense gave a blog and there was nobody to respond to the attacks? You'd just be mentally masturbating with yourselves. Go ahead, have a ball. I think all ASAs should just give you what you want--a moratorium on this blog.
Rumpole replies: guilty as charged with an explanation. I run this blog and I am a defense attorney, so yes I look at things based on the agenda I have. That being said, I think I can state that I have shown a real effort to be fair to prosecutors' points of view, as well as the ability to admit an error when I am wrong. Any prosecutor is invited to post their comments on the front page. Send me an email, it can be from an email address that does not identify you, and presto, you will be able to post just like the Captain does. It is your call. I do not want you to feel unwelcome on the blog. I welcome comments of prosecutors and I do not think there has ever been one comment from an individual who identified themselves as a prosecutor that has not been posted. Prosecutors have free reign to complain about defense attorneys here. Lord knows we cause enough problems, and in many cases we should do things in a different and more professional manner. To facilitate a discussion between prosecutors and defense attorneys is one of the main reasons I started this blog. I may not always like what you say, but I respect your right to say it, and I respect your position as someone who helps protect my community.
I do object to one thing you said: I do not and never have personally written anything I know to be "an outright lie". Maybe my readers have written comments that are not true, but it is not my responsibility to fact check every comment I get about a case. I do not vouch for the accuracy of a readers comment, and nothing I have ever said or done should make anyone think otherwise.A defense attorney wrote:
Rump:Why should it be an exception in sex batt cases? Are you saying that someone accused, even falsely, in a sexual battery case should have less rights than someone accused in another type of case? is the trauma so much greater for a sex battery victim then for a grandmother who is robbed with a gun to her face? What if the sexual battery deposition is necessary to show that a victim is lying or that there are major holes in the state's case. Disappointed in you Rumpole. Thought you were above playing games of political correctness...
Rumpole replies: Because I think that we need to be sensitive to certain factors in a case. As my post points out, there are sexual battery cases where after taking other depositions the prosecution saw the problems in the case and had no problem with me deposing the victim. But in some cases, lets say a DNA case where the victim is a child, so consent is not an issue, there better be a damn good reason for putting a child through a deposition and in that limited circumstance, I believe the state is well within their rights to withdraw a plea.
But the real point of the post was that the SAO narcotics division has a policy of withdrawing plea offers when a defendant takes depositions. And I fail to see the sensitive nature of narcotics detectives in the same light as children (although their propensity to lie, is in my personal opinion, equal.
OK- cheap shot, but it has been a long day and I’m surly. )
Mr. Laeser also weighed in on our allegation that a plea offer was withdrawn in the drug trafficking trial we are all talking about. He cited to the complicated and rather obscure legal doctrine of “BULLSHIT”. Our response is in the comments section.
Anyway, we try our best. “Sometimes wrong, never in doubt”
as our law school professor used to say.
See You In Court, dodging flack.