Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
Then change the system. Under ours, a criminal defendant has a right to counsel, and counsel has an ethical obligation to represent the defendant zealously within the bounds of the law. There is nothing at all wrong with what Josh does, or what Mastro's lawyers did in this case (unless they misrepresented something).
|
Peter is absolutely right. Reading what Mastro's attorneys say makes me want to puke too, but that is what their job is. Every criminal defendant has the right to zealous representation, irrespective of how heinous the crime is that they are charged with. Period. End of story. That's the way it works and that's the way it was designed to work by our founders for a multitude of good and sufficient reasons.
Back to the topic at hand, those who are aggrieved by Mastro's actions have the job of writing the judge and informing him why they believe he deserves a harsher penalty than Mastro's attorneys are requesting. I haven't looked at the docket sheet recently, but based on what I've read here, it sure seems like Mastro's lawyers are performing their obligation of zealously representing their client and many of those who feel aggrieved by Mastro's actions are doing, shall I say, a less than stellar job of zealously informing the judge why they think Mastro should get more than the proverbial slap on the wrist. As Jeff has previously indicated, the judge is unlikely to read this web site, so let him know your feelings via letter or quit your bitching.