Counseling Kevin

And Now, A Word From Our Sole Sponsor

Regarding some recent high-profile criminal prosecutions that are being tried on cable and network news shows by every blathering talking head that can inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide: there's a presumption of innocence.

And now, back to Nancy Grace!

That said: my personal opinion, based on over 37 years as a lawyer, and having been a consulting expert to the defense in more than one felony criminal prosecution and civil lawsuit by the government against an individual convicted by the press prior to trial, is that if I were ever indicted, thought that I was guilty, didn't think I could plea-bargain a sentence that was relatively low (considering the nature of the crime), and decided to abandon both the sense of personal responsibility that's been drummed into me since I was a little boy and the faith I've chosen to adopt as an adult (both of which would require me to confess, accept my punishment, make restitution, do penance, and beg forgiveness), then I'd definitely opt to take my chances with a "jury of my peers." I mean, OJ gives every defendant a glimmer of hope. I definitely wouldn't want a trial to the court, decided by a steely-eyed judge who can repel smoke that some trial lawyer's trying to blow up his nether regions, who can rigorously apply logic (and the law) to a set of facts, who can apply the rules of evidence to separate the credible facts from the unbelievable facts, and who is likely to take a dim view during sentencing of some D-bag who wasted the court's valuable time trying to beat a rap he should have manned up and accepted. No, I'd want pie-hole-stuffing, sans-a-belt-trouser-wearing, MTV-saturated "peers" making snap judgments based upon inherent prejudices.

In the Sandusky case, if it doesn't end in a plea-bargain (and that's going to depend on how well the accusers remain "on message" and build a wave of testimony that even the best defense counsel realizes he can't build a levy strong enough to hold back), it's going to a jury. Finding an impartial jury panel is going to be an "interesting exercise." I guess they'll have to pull in some former coma patients and some rug merchants from Kabul.

How Far The Mighty Have Fallen

I wonder how many people watched last night's episode of 60 Minutes on CBS? Steve Kroft did a segment about how members of Congress have exempted themselves from laws that prohibit trading stock on insider information. The full version can be viewed here.

The venality and corruption that Kroft profiles cuts across party lines. The corruption has been exposed by a conservative think tanker and his student apprentices, but he lambastes John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi with equal fervor. What you and I would go to jail for doing (as some high profile hedge fund managers and others have done recently), members of the US House and Senate do all the time without a care. It's why, as Kroft points out, so many members of Congress retire so wealthy.

Here's what we need to do next year: throw all the bums out. if the crop we replace them with turns out to be as seducible as the clowns who are there now, then throw them out, too. The law of averages favors us eventually getting lucky and having a few honest men and women in the place, doesn't it?

Or, you know, we could all move to Belize.