Question for my lawyerz peoplez...

Being on the side of the fence, that needs to know about corporate law, I seem to recall there is a significant penalty attached to pretending to be a corporation that does not exist. How is this guy excluded from those laws?

"Oh, I was trying to attain evidence." Doesn't allow a person to create a false corporate entity. I can't recall reading anywhere that it is legal to portray yourself as a false corporate entity, no matter the purpose behind it.

Thermetric Inc. is an actual company but based out of WI not IL.

So, is Thermetric Inc. in the business of giving out new laptops to students? Have they been represented accurately? Were they aware they were being represented for this purpose? Do they list "snaking laptops to use as evidence" in their corporate bylaws? (oyaji you can stop laughing at me now)

One hardly needs to be Oliver Wendell Holmes to win an appeal if the panel of judges is doing your job for you. It says more about the incompetence of the attorney that lost such an apparently weak case to begin with, that it was overturned so quickly.

I wonder who that might be ...

Not that I care about repelling you, I am sorta scared of you. So let me clarify said opinion: If I thought there was a possibility of obtaining exculpatory evidence from someone's computer, I would engage in the conduct at issue without feeling like I had transgressed the rules of professional conduct. Depending on the facts of a particular case, due dilligence might at least require looking into it. And yes, I would of course consider the propriety of whether I was looking to obtain this information just to blame the victim or bolster a pathetically thin alternative theory of the crime. Not only because that might be inappropriate, but also because that shit doesn't play too well in front of a jury anyway.

And I don't recall reading that the defendant's child pornography was on the defendant's computer. Just that he was busted for posession. Did the images the defendant allegedly show the victim come from the defendant's computer? From the defendant's stash of VHS tapes? What images did the victim claim to have viewed? Were those images in the defendant's posession? Is there any possibility those images were only on the victim's computer? If this guy was my client, this is stuff I'd want to know.

As far as defrauding a minor into an exchange that he cannot legally engage in, law enforcement stings do it every day with the blessings of the district attorney's office. And that kind of fraud lands kids in juvenile detention, jail, prison.

Well, assuming that I was accused of a crime that I didn't commit, especially something like fiddling with kids, I would want my lawyer to do whatever he had to do to keep me out of prison. But only if I were actually innocent. I don't think I would be cool with my lawyer doing something like that to get me acquitted of a crime that I did commit. Then again, maybe I wouldn't mind. I really don't ever want to go to prison. Ask me again if I ever get caught breaking the law.

Seriously. Did Hurley kick your dog or something? I know you haven't watched this saga of a case unfold and I know you have no idea what went on at the trial level. So why this crap about incompetence?

I've only met Hurley long enough to shake his hand at bar functions and so forth. I just know the guy wins cases. Lots of them. And his partners win cases. Lots of them.

I'm repelled by poor logic. Let's play, spot the fallacy!

I'm sorry, I have nothing against the guy. In fact I'd never heard of him before reading this thread. I have no personal knowledge of his competence, or lack thereof.

That (admittedly snarky) comment was simply to point out that the illustration you chose to show his apparent brilliance as a defense attorney did not actually do so. Perhaps if the panel of judges in the appeal had started out biased against him, and he changed their minds with his arguments. But really, it isn't hard to win if the judges are making your case for you.

I am going to go out on a limb and guess that there is some type of ex-parte hearing in WI which would allow criminal defence counsel to get an injunction allowing the seizure of the computer. Using such a method would not only be following the rules, but would be more effective because it wouldn't allow for time to wipe anything off the hard drive. The defence didn't use such a method (assuming, as I have, that it exists), because it knew that it would be considered a fishing expedition and permission to seize the computer wouldn't be granted. Therefore if I were the judge I would not let anything from the hard drive into evidence, even in the unlikely event I would otherwise find it relevant.

Huh. A closing on a double wide trailer. All I can say is I'm speachless at that one. Wow. Reading this stuff is like being back on the playground. In, like, middle school.

When the fuck did I ever say what I do is lofty and worthwhile? You're the one parading around as a pillar of rightousness and condemning others who, unfortunately for you apparently, share your profession; not me. Who knows, I might work with obsure blah blah blah. And I might hate it and wish to god I was working with crack whores.

If you really, really need to know what I do/did/have done, send me a personal message. Rest assured, you'll think I'm keen. But, sir, I am willing to admit to you and cyberspace that I. Am. No. Weanie.

Weanie.

I love this thread. I thought it would get like 4 comments.

Thank God for lawyers.

I think you've touched on something important here. As a 1L (first year law studet, that is) I'm busy getting it drilled into my head that everyone is entitled to the best legal council they can get. From child molesters who diddle little boys to multinational financial institutions who diddle entire nations, it is every client's right to expect their lawyer to do everything legally and ethically available to win their case. That's how the rule of law (as we inherited it from Britain) works. I make my strongest case, you make your strongest case, and we let a judge and jury decide what the truth of the matter is. It is a denunciation of the rule of law to claim that someone is less worthy because they defend the lowest common denominator. If this guy's a dick, he's a dick because he behaved unethically, not because he is defending someone accused of child molestation.

1. We're not talking about some unstated hypo with radically different facts, we're talking about this case.
2. The defendant was convicted of possession of child pornography. I don't really give a rats ass what format it was or whether it was specifically the porn the kid claimed to have seen. I'm actually not one for the whole meme of the child molester is the new boogyman, but I think that people who actively seek out close and unsupervised relationships with kids and also collect kiddie porn do not get the benefit of the doubt. res ipsa loquitor. Zealous defense, sure, but this shit is pure sleaze.
3. Civil authorities engaging in this behavior is called "entrapment".

1. I disagree. The question posed:

"So maybe it's better if I humbly defer to you, gentle reader. Pretend you're an attorney. Your client, for whom you have undertaken the solemn duty of representing to the best of your ability, vehemently maintains his innocence. You think that there may be evidence that keeps him out of jail, but the only way to get it involves serious douchebaggery, but not (necessarily) illegal activity. What would you do?"

2. Sleazy? Absolutely. My point was I would want certain questions answered had I been representing such a client. Especially in this area. The consequences, regardless of stiff penalties, can be dire. Can you imagine being wrongfully convicted and having that spicy meatball hanging over your head?

3. Having a sibling who filed cert., briefed, and argued in the U.S. Sup. Ct. one of the seminal cases changing United States law regarding entrapment, I do happen to be familiar with the term.