Funny how every man being entitled to a vigorous defence gets thrown under the bus the moment it becomes inconvenient to some.
Really? Think real hard the next time you want to call someone else a fascist or whatnot please, EiMitch.
The whole fething point of the system is that the attorneys try any and every damn trick in the book (and really, diverting blame isn’t even close to creative) - and then the judge (and or panel of 12 frelling idiots - you silly Americans…) throw out anything that didn’t make (enough) sense altogether.
If a judge uses that argument - feel free to rail against his judgment, and perhaps (and in this case, likely) his competence to sit at all.
If, however, an attorney does take a case, and then even hesitates in providing as vigorous a defence as he can - *that’s* the one to disbar.
And put behind bars, if I had it my way.
Sorry, but even to this boring contract law specialist (I’d be surprised if I ever did a minute of criminal defence, except perhaps some white collar stuff if it came up and I had to assist), you’re gnawing away right at the foundation of all that’s good and holy (and what little of it, for what I know of criminal justice in the US at times…) to satisfy your own gut. Blegh.