I made no pretense of doing balanced reporting about murder. I was appalled by defense attorneys who would do anything to win an acquittal for a guilty person.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Good reporting should have the same standard as in a courtroom - beyond a reasonable doubt.
When I interview people accused of capital offenses, I never even ask if they did it. I would consider that unprofessional.
As a judge, I held people accountable when they did wrong. That's why I cracked down on violent criminals and stopped the big banks when they tried to kick families out of their homes.
I think most defense attorneys know, to some extent, their clients are guilty.
One of the most fundamental questions people have about defense attorneys is, 'How can you do that? How can you go to bat everyday for a person that you may not know is guilty but you have a pretty good idea that he's not so innocent?' It's a question that defense attorneys answer for themselves by not addressing.
I chose to not wear a wire and tape people. I chose to not get immunity until - were accepted, whatever - until the independent counsel's office was comfortable with what I said was the truth.
I have this fringe theory that I've sort of stress-tested a little bit - the more polarising and popular a case is, the more likely an acquittal.
I spent time in, like, criminal courts, and covering murder trials for papers.
I always received much more satisfaction as a defense attorney in obtaining an acquittal for a client than I ever have as a D.A. in obtaining a conviction. All my interests and sympathies tend to be on the side of the individual as opposed to the state.
I think most defense attorneys honestly believe the principle that says, 'Better 10 guilty go free than even one possibly innocent person be convicted.'