Was anyone else disgusted by Rep. Fagan's outburst in the senate the other day? Here is a state rep telling how, if he were the defense attorney in a child rape case, he would "rip the child apart" on the stand. His tirade went on to say that he would in effect ruin this child AGAIN just to defend his client, who would be a "suspected" child rapist.
This POS went on to say that this was done to show what the atmosphere in the court would be like. What it also does is show ME what our legal system has truely become: a refuge for failed politicians that want to try their hand at the law, even though they have no knowledge on the subject at all.

I understand in other court matters the defense may be able to find reason to treat a witness as "hostile" to get to the truth, but in cases where a child is involved, HE INTENDS ON TREATING THE VICTIM WORSE THAT THE CRIMINAL!
I don't know if it's common across the country or just here in M*assachusetts, but we see more of the victim being guity until proved innocent... THE VICTIM!

Sure, Mr. Fagan can spin a tune of how he was just stressing his point of how the courts can be, but you can't tell me that this is how he, himself would act if he were a lawyer today. It scares me at the number of state reps we have that are evidently unbalanced.

Tim, His point was, a defense attorney's job (EVERYWHERE) is to destroy the credibility of the accuser.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

I for one would rather there be one court case, the guy gets max life no parole than go through appeal after appeal with a kid being dragged into a courtroom and interrogated/harassed again and again. And I believe that was his point.

I understand that, but this rep went on to say that he in effect would destroy this child's life from that point on.
I may not have all the comments right, but these are close:
"I want to rip them apart, when they're 5, I want them to cry, whenthey are 8, I want them to have nightmares, and when they are 18, I want them to not be able to have any kind of relationship."
This is what was so uspetting to hear.

If you were a defense lawyer tearing into a 5 or 6 year old with this kind of mindset, you would have lost the jury and your case before you finished.

I still brings me back to the adverse legal approach that the victims are being put on trial, not the accused. The defense legal system doesn't really care if their client is innocent or guilty, but whether they can sway the jury in their favor, even at the expense of a young child's life. (It becomes a matter of the child being raped twice, once by the accused, and again by the system that's supposed to protect them.)

Keep in mind that when dealing with OLDER victims, it is more plausible to define the victims involvement: Did they get into something over their head and change their mind at the last second? Did they have a "plan" in mind to falsely accuse the accused? Was there money involved?
But I'm talking about LITTLE KIDS that have no motive, were raped/abused by an older person, and are about to subjected to the second worse thing in their life. How can that be good for anyone else but the accused?

Now this rep is saying, in essence, that he's willing to destroy a child's life to defend someone who's already destroyed their innocense. ruined?

This is what was so uspetting to hear.

I completely agree 100%
But thats exactly what they do.

If you were a defense lawyer tearing into a 5 or 6 year old with this kind of mindset, you would have lost the jury and your case before you finished.

But a good defense lawyer is gonna do the above, and make the point that kids lie, kids are scared and say whoever, and keep thrashing away at this point trying to get the kid to say something else, then the jury is split and you have a mistrial. Defense attorney gets paid.

The defense legal system doesn't really care if their client is innocent or guilty, but whether they can sway the jury in their favor, even at the expense of a young child's life.

One in a million its the wrong person and that defense attorney just saved someone's life. It really does go both ways.

Now this rep is saying, in essence, that he's willing to destroy a child's life to defend someone who's already destroyed their innocense. ruined?

As a defense attorney? Yes.
Its the death penalty.
Not life in prison w/o parole.
Death, the end, its all over. The kid gets therapy and it hopefully works, the other guy? A pine box.
At that point, you want the meanest most ruthless defense attorney you can find.

Its how the system works.

I can't tell if you're angry at both the ruling and the Rep or angry that the rep was willing to explain what a defense attorney will do to the victim in a death penalty case?

I would say that based on the example used by the Mr. Fagan, it would seem more likely to backfire on you if you unleash/unload on a 5-6 year old with that type of mentality. I do understand that when fending for your life, you'd definitely want the biggest and baddest pitbull in your corner. But to attack an innocent child to destroy their testimony seems ridiculous. Exactly what does a child have in the way of life experience (except for the negative one that brought the case to trial)? How do you cross-examin a child that can barely read and write? Any aggressive defense action would be akin to verbal abuse. Most of the people responding to the rep's comments stated that although it is a given that the defense will try to get the accused to show a crack in their defenses, they agreed that using these tactics on a child would most certainly weigh heavily against the defendent and his attorney.

I would say that I'm more upset with the rep's explaination regarding a CHILD in this type of case. That's really all.

Thanks for the expanding my POV, Likwid.

I hope that no one ever has to go through this kind of experience, since it will not be easy.

I sail with a couple lawyers who've been in the system for quite a while, and they agreed, what he said was exactly on point for how a defense lawyer most likely would handle a death sentence case like this.

It really isn't that you're trying to destroy the kid, but get them double guessing their own words and thinking its their fault and they're lying, and if necessary make the kid less willing to show up to testify AGAIN at the NEXT appeal.

Sick system. :conf:

Just another example of how Massachusetts is still the laughing stock of the rest of the nation, but continues to hold itself up to be better than the rest of the country....

Just another example of how Massachusetts is still the laughing stock of the rest of the nation, but continues to hold itself up to be better than the rest of the country....

Please explain to me how the rep explaining what a defense attorney would do in ANY state makes Mass the "laughing stock" again?

Oh right, you can't, you're just looking for something to complain about.

An attorney should only be able to attack an accusers credibilty if there is a past history of problems.

Much the same as a prosecutor cannot introducemany times the past history of the accused.

Fagan is a defense attorney who derives income from these trials and therefore should not be allowed to to campaign for or against or even vote on the issue. It should be an ethics violation. But .....................this is Massachusetts where everthing goes out the window even victims rights. Victims rights, in Massachusetts thats an oxymoron.

Please explain to me how the rep explaining what a defense attorney would do in ANY state makes Mass the "laughing stock" again?

Oh right, you can't, you're just looking for something to complain about.

Please cite one incident where a defense attorney brought fire and brimstone down upon a molested 6 year old girl on the witness stand... This Rep was looking for face time.

But .....................this is Massachusetts where everthing goes out the window even victims rights. Victims rights, in Massachusetts thats an oxymoron.

Are we the only state with ruthless defense attorneys?

Please cite one incident where a defense attorney brought fire and brimstone down upon a molested 6 year old girl on the witness stand... This Rep was looking for face time.

Every rape case that involved a child with a defense attorney who knows his job that the death penalty was on the table.
This isn't some unique to only Massachusetts thing where lawyers are allowed assault the victim.

A defense attorney's job is to defend his client he/she doesn't care if he's guilty or innocent.

I really DO wonder sometimes if this is such an evil heathen state why do you all even live here? Its not like we live in some communist country where you have to ask for the state's permission to leave. Its not like this state will ever vote right, nor will gun ownership get more lax, and animals will be protected in national parks before you are.

[quote=likwid;601053]
A defense attorney's job is to defend his client he/she doesn't care if he's guilty or innocent.

Then why do attorneys get paid up front, and return unused funds only after the case is disposed of. In the halls of justice the only justice is in the halls.

Every rape case that involved a child with a defense attorney who knows his job that the death penalty was on the table.
This isn't some unique to only Massachusetts thing where lawyers are allowed assault the victim.

A defense attorney's job is to defend his client he/she doesn't care if he's guilty or innocent.

I really DO wonder sometimes if this is such an evil heathen state why do you all even live here? Its not like we live in some communist country where you have to ask for the state's permission to leave. Its not like this state will ever vote right, nor will gun ownership get more lax, and animals will be protected in national parks before you are.

Ok, but what about this. If you were on a jury, and the defense lays into an eight year old child on the witness stand during cross, how do you think that jury would view the defense team? Like a bunch of thugs?

If a defense attorney were to verbally barrage a child like that in front of a jury or any normal human being, he/she will have lost the jury, don't you think...?

And as far as Massachusetts goes, I would love to try living elsewhere, but, I'm 14 years into a career that requires me to work 32, so.... I've made my bed, have to lie in it. I might be wrong, and I'm sure you'll let me know if I am, but wasn't this state losing population as of the most recent census?

Ok, but what about this. If you were on a jury, and the defense lays into an eight year old child on the witness stand during cross, how do you think that jury would view the defense team? Like a bunch of thugs?

And what happens when the kid admits it wasn't dad/uncle bob/the teacher and it was someone else because they had threatened to kill the kid if they ever told?

Don't get the wrong, I don't think its nice or fair or anything else, but AS PART OF THE JURY I want to be absolutely 100% sure of the decision I'm going to make. Sorry, I'm not going to say guilty unless everything points to yes.

But hey, where were people trying to do right thing 40 years ago when RAPE WAS IGNORED or OBVIOUSLY the woman/child was lying?

but wasn't this state losing population as of the most recent census?

j-o-b-s
Where are the giants like Texas Instruments? Oh right, China. :wall:

You're not supposed to go onto a jury and vote with your feelings. If you do you failed as a juror. "Oh well that defense attorney was mean, that means the defendant must be guilty".

Thanks Likwid, I got it now.

Fagan sounds like he was just explaining how he'd do his best to defend on a touchy subject.Probably not the best subject for him to be talking about publicly.Very easily can be twisted by the media to make him look bad.Obviously.

It was not unconscionable what he said about the victim cross examination, distasteful yes, but nevertheless legal. What Fagan should realize and didn't is that if the penalties are more severe that means he'll be able to charge more as a defense attorney. In that regard he was cutting off his nose to spite his face. Which may give everyone some insight about whether they want to hire him in the future.
He should not be able to discuss on the floor of the legislature any penalty for any crime because he is in conflict as a defense attorney.