CREATORS
March 18, 2025
American criminal jurisprudence has been turned on its head. For centuries lawyers have been attacked for advocacy on behalf of despicable criminals. Last week, the tables turned. President Donald Trump attacked prosecutors and government lawyers for advocacy on behalf of the people.
The
American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients was
established more than 250 years ago with John Adams' representation of the
British soldiers charged with murder during the Boston Massacre. Adams' trial
summation set the standard for law and order.
Adams, who
would later serve two terms as president of the United States, said of justice,
"On the one hand it is inexorable to the cries and lamentations of the
prisoners; on the other it is deaf, deaf as an adder to the clamours of the
populace."
Today,
more than ever, the clamor of the populace — through news media and social
media — can almost instantly accuse, try and convict a person in the court of
public opinion. Lawyers are often intentionally, or unintentionally, drug into
the glare of the media and no longer perceived as only representing the
accused, but of siding with the reprehensible conduct. A lawyer faced with the
decision to take on a controversial client must legitimately ask herself,
"Will I ever get any more law business in my community if I take this
case?"
Attorneys
are advocates for others. Many understand that representing the person or issue
does not equate to accepting or endorsing what a particular client does. In
practice, however, many people have difficulty accepting that a pedophile,
terrorist, mass killer or racist hate group is entitled to legal
representation.
At times,
attorneys are demonized for representing defendants charged with heinous crimes
— as if there was something immoral about providing a defense to someone
charged with a crime. Such conduct undermines the fundamental protections of
the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, "to have the
assistance of counsel."
There have
also been times when lawyers have failed to meet the lofty standards of
protecting the United States Constitution. Denise Lieberman, writing for
"Liberties," the newsletter of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri, pointed
out that during the McCarthy era the American Bar Association "declared
that any attorney representing a person associated with the Communist Party was
unworthy of membership in the bar, and even demanded that lawyers take loyalty
oaths."
However,
few were prepared for what we saw last week. President Trump focused his wrath,
not on defense attorneys who represent unpopular clients, or legal
organizations that capitulate to the rhetoric of demagogues — no, Trump
vilified prosecutors.
President
Trump made a speech at the Great Hall of the Department of Justice, where,
according to The New York Times, he lashed out at lawyers and former
prosecutors by name. He also accused the department's previous leadership of
trying to destroy him. He labeled those who opposed him as "scum,"
"corrupt" and "deranged."
"Unfortunately,
in recent years, a corrupt group of hacks and radicals within the ranks of the
American government obliterated the trust and good will built up over
generations," Trump said, in speaking — of the Justice Department — to an
audience at the Justice Department. "They weaponized the vast powers of
our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to try and thwart the will of the
American people."
Trump
called himself the chief law enforcement officer in the country — of course, he
is not. However, it was less than reassuring when the country's actual chief
law enforcement officer — Attorney General Pam Bondi, said, according to
Politico, "We will never stop fighting for (Trump) and for our
country."
Matthew T.
Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book
The Executioner's Toll, 2010 was released by McFarland Publishing. You can
reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino.
To visit Creators CLICK HERE
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment