Mastro sentencing update

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by travrosty

There are just so many, good, decent human traffickers out there, this makes me puke.

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).

[buymycards]

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).

There may not be anything illegal about what Josh does, but yes, there are many things wrong with it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by buymycards

There may not be anything illegal about what Josh does, but yes, there are many things wrong with it.

Tell that to the people who wrote the Bill of Rights.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Tell that to the people who wrote the Bill of Rights.

Peter wins the interwebs today with that one.

[Kenny Cole]

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.

[buymycards]

[QUOTE=Kenny Cole;1440636]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.

Unless they are broke. Then their representation isn't quite so zealous.

Sorry, my faith in the legal system is non-existent. End of story.

[Peter_Spaeth]

[QUOTE=buymycards;1440647]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

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.

Unless they are broke. Then their representation isn't quite so zealous.

Sorry, my faith in the legal system is non-existent. End of story.

Jose Baez who represented Casey Anthony never got paid, or in any event is owed a sheetload of money. Did you think he was less than zealous? J.W. Carney who represented Whitey Bulger was not paid by Bulger or his family, but was appointed by the Court and paid out of public funds. Did you think he was less than zealous? What ARE you talking about?

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by buymycards

Unless they are broke. Then their representation isn't quite so zealous.

Sorry, my faith in the legal system is non-existent. End of story.

I guess that you feel as if you had a bad experience. Lots of people feel that way when that happens. Generally, it is deemed to work pretty well by most statistical measures. Juries are generally right is what most studies show. What if you were broke and had to represent yourself? Would that be better?

Obviously, there are some lawyers who are more adept in their area than are others. That's also true for doctors, accountants, plumbers, electricians, ditch diggers, and just about any other job you can name. You pay for what you can afford, but at least you have the opportunity to get a fair shake in front of the trier of fact if you have even a minimally competent lawyer, which most are.

What legal system, in your experience, is better than ours? The middle east? Mexico? Switzerland? If you have no experience with a better legal system, what would you propose? Please provide specifics, because I am very curious about that.

[bcornell]

I hope Josh won't mind if I repeat his (unused) marketing line: "Reasonable Doubt For a Reasonable Fee!".

Anyone arguing that all clients shouldn't get zealous legal representation should take a quick look at The Innocence Project.

Bill

[travrosty]

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).

I didn't say they can't represent them or defend them, but to put in a good word for a human trafficker and hit the highlights on how great a human being they are, i mean, c'mon.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by travrosty

I didn't say they can't represent them or defend them, but to put in a good word for a human trafficker and hit the highlights on how great a human being they are, i mean, c'mon.

Yes, absolutely. It's Josh's job to put the best possible face on the defendant, not to do a half-ass job because he is repulsed by him. Judges (or juries if it's a death penalty case) can sort it out.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yes, absolutely. It's Josh's job to put the best possible face on the defendant, not to do a half-ass job because he is repulsed by him. Judges (or juries if it's a death penalty case) can sort it out.

Hopefully they can and will sort it out, i never said it shouldnt be illegal to give a glowing testimony to a lowlife, but lying and calling them saints isnt necessarily doing the job right either. if the guy has no redeeming qualities at all and the lawyer says he is an upstanding citizen because it's his 'job' to do so, it's also a lie.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by travrosty

Hopefully they can and will sort it out, i never said it shouldnt be illegal to give a glowing testimony to a lowlife, but lying and calling them saints isnt necessarily doing the job right either. if the guy has no redeeming qualities at all and the lawyer says he is an upstanding citizen because it's his 'job' to do so, it's also a lie.

Is it a lie when people submit letters attesting to their redeeming qualities? No, it's an argument. Just as it is in this case, where various priests, heads of charities, and other community leaders wrote letters attesting to Bill's good deeds and personal attributes. We may see it as all self-serving and bs, but it's fair argument.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Is it a lie when people submit letters attesting to their redeeming qualities? No, it's an argument.

exactly, great lawyer talk. i agree, if you think this way, you got what it takes to be a lawyer.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by travrosty

exactly, great lawyer talk. i agree, if you think this way, you got what it takes to be a lawyer.

And if you ever get charged with a crime and get convicted, rightly or wrongly, you better hope that lawyer is doing his/her job.

[vintagewhitesox]

I don't think any attorney would call these clients "saints." My only point is that everyone has a mother.
you can find at least one redeemable quality in just about everyone.

The judge will also consider risk of recidivism, and the need to protect the public from further harm. The truth of the matter is that Mastro is out of the hobby, will be barred from running, or working in auction houses, and will forever be branded a convicted felon. The risk of him doing this again is significantly diminished.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by vintagewhitesox

The judge will also consider risk of recidivism, and the need to protect the public from further harm. The truth of the matter is that Mastro is out of the hobby, will be barred from running, or working in auction houses, and will forever be branded a convicted felon. The risk of him doing this again is significantly diminished.

Mastro is not out of the hobby -- he tried to buy a baseball card from me that I had listed on eBay -- and he is not barred from any industry, including the sportscard and memorabilia auction field. And being a convicted felon is almost a prerequisite to owning a sports auction house.

[ALR-bishop]

I had a good friend who hated lawyers and was always telling lawyer jokes. He called me one morning at 2am because his son had been arrested after an accident in which his girlfriend was killed and he was suspected of DUI. I was strictly a corporate lawyer but put him I touch with a guy like Josh. Guilty or not, it was his son and he wanted to do the best he could for him. I know a lot of good folks who don't think much of lawyers until they or someone they love needs one.

Do not know about anyone else, but in my 65 years I can not say I have never done anything that did not run afoul of some law and, that but for good luck or devine providence.. ..

[majordanby]

Originally Posted by vintagewhitesox

The judge will also consider risk of recidivism, and the need to protect the public from further harm. The truth of the matter is that Mastro is out of the hobby, will be barred from running, or working in auction houses, and will forever be branded a convicted felon. The risk of him doing this again is significantly diminished.

in terms of considering the need to protect the public from further harm, i would gather that the risk of not simply mastro doing it again, but anyone else doing it again, has some weight in the judge's evaluation.