Hillary Defended Rapist against 12 Year old girl?

[KhaOZ]

I received this in an email just now:


----------

Hillary Rodham Clinton often invokes her "35 years of experience making change" on the campaign trail, recounting her work in the 1970s on behalf of battered and neglected children and impoverished legal-aid clients.

But there is a little-known episode Clinton doesn't mention in her standard campaign speech in which those two principles collided. In 1975, a 27-year-old Hillary Rodham, acting as a court-appointed attorney, attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old girl in mounting an aggressive defense for an indigent client accused of rape in Arkansas - using her child development background to help the defendant.

----------

Anyone know how true this is? Sounds crazy. Perhaps a smear?


EDIT:

This part is a bit disturbing. As someone on this thread pointed out. As he said "Using the `Dirty little slut wanted it` defense".

----------

"She implied that the girl often fantasized and sought out "older men" like Taylor, according to a July 1975 affidavit signed "Hillary D. Rodham" in compact cursive."

----------

[KhaOZ]

1. Googled and found this Link

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2934440,print.story

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Dear God - Clinton Used The "Little Slut Wanted It Bad" Defense

"She implied that the girl often fantasized and sought out "older men" like Taylor, according to a July 1975 affidavit signed "Hillary D. Rodham" in compact cursive."

Shocking, but not surprising.

[Occam Bandage]

12. Questioning the character of the accuser is a common tactic in rape trials.

Spurious accusations of rape are not uncommon, after all. She had to provide a defense for a rapist. Believe it or not, in our justice system, what she did was the only moral thing to do.

[KhaOZ]

25. Imagine if she was your daughter. Would you want that defense lawyer as your President?

[Occam Bandage]

29. Speaking as an American, if I learned that she had

torpedoed several defendants that she thought were guilty, I would not want her as my President.

[ekwhite]

30. Of course not.

But Mr. Taylor got a great defense lawyer. As a public defender, Senator Clinton had to defend a man accused of a heinous crime. From what I can tell, she did her job as well as she could. End of story.

[MannyGoldstein]

26. Are You Sure That's The Standard Defense? [nt]

[CoffeeCat]

34. Are you that cold and callous?

Yes, everyone understands that anyone accused of a crime has the right to a defense.

However, accusing a little 6th-grade girl of asking to be raped, is just a bit on the
disgusting side, don't you think????

I don't think that there is an attorney alive today, who would actually suggest that
a sixth-grade girl wanted to be raped by a grown, adult man.

A man having sex with a child is child molestation. PERIOD.

Hillary Clinton was suggesting that he should be found not guilty, because this little
sixth-grade girl wanted sex with this man---thus, making sex with a child fine and dandy--
as long as the man said that the girl wanted it.

Defending a rapist is one thing. You can suggest he had an alibi. Fine character witnesses
for him. Put him on the stand and deny it.

You don't fucking accuse a sixth-grade girl of wanting sex with a grown man--as a defense!!

What about this little girl? What about her? Did you read the entire article? She has
suffered from depression and other personal problems her entire life. Being told by
the criminal-justice system and all of the adults that it was HER FAULT, no doubt left
its scars.

Pay no mind though...Hillary was just doing her job.

You people who rationalize this evil bullshit, are really selling your souls!

[CoffeeCat]

35. Are you that cold and callous?

Yes, everyone understands that anyone accused of a crime has the right to a defense.

However, accusing a little 6th-grade girl of asking to be raped, is just a bit on the
disgusting side, don't you think????

I don't think that there is an attorney alive today, who would actually suggest that
a sixth-grade girl wanted to be raped by a grown, adult man.

A man having sex with a child is child molestation. PERIOD.

Hillary Clinton was suggesting that he should be found not guilty, because this little
sixth-grade girl wanted sex with this man---thus, making sex with a child fine and dandy--
as long as the man said that the girl wanted it.

Defending a rapist is one thing. You can suggest he had an alibi. Fine character witnesses
for him. Put him on the stand and deny it.

You don't fucking accuse a sixth-grade girl of wanting sex with a grown man--as a defense!!

What about this little girl? What about her? Did you read the entire article? She has
suffered from depression and other personal problems her entire life. Being told by
the criminal-justice system and all of the adults that it was HER FAULT, no doubt left
its scars.

Pay no mind though...Hillary was just doing her job.

You people who rationalize this evil bullshit, are really selling your souls!

[Bluerthanblue]

88. moral? bull-shit. The victim was a 12yr old girl- she was not given

the chance to even know that Hillary claimed she was 'asking for it'-

Bullshit- bullshit- bullshit.

The man supposedly simply drove her back home- neither he nor the 15yr old had sex with her? Then why did the hospital find that she had been raped?

there is nothing 'moral' about this.

There is nothing moral about the fact that even if an attorney KNOWS without doubt that their client is guilty, they have to convince the jury of a lie?

It may be expected. It isn't moral.

:nuke:

[Occam Bandage]

107. "even if an attorney KNOWS without doubt that their client is guilty..."

Immaterial. In the legal system, the highest morality is justice. Justice is only served if both the defense and the prosecution present the strongest possible cases, and an impartial jury decides which case is strongest. If a lawyer believes their client is wrong, and because of that does not present the strongest case they can, they have effectively appointed themselves juror, and in doing so have obstructed the process of justice, and are therefore acting immorally.

[Bluerthanblue]

120. is "justice" served when a guilty person goes free? Is "justice"

served when innocent people are put to death?

If a client confesses to a crime, and it is clear beyond any doubt that the confession is true, is "justice" served when an attorney gets the guilty client aquitted?

I realize this is a tangent from the issue at hand, but the idea that our system is inherently 'moral' is not entirely true.

And I do not believe calling the credibility of this 12yr. old into question, and not even allowing her to know that this had happened, or answer herself is 'moral' It may have been 'legal' but it was not "moral".

peace~

[Occam Bandage]

125. No, which is why guilt and innocence cannot be left up to the judgement of one

defense attorney. In our legal system, we determine guilt through trial by jury, in which both the prosecution and defense provide the strongest possible case for their positions. Lawyers are not allowed to trash that system based only on their personal feelings for their clients.

(If the client confesses to the crime, and the confession was fairly attained, there would not be a trial.)

[papau]

158. 15 yr old said he had sex with her - but 12 yr old denied it as she "liked him"

[OhioChick]

24. Terrible....

For Shame.

[goodgd_yall]

62. That's a great article.

Even more reason to respect Hillary.

[papau]

157. girl told provable lies& Hillary pointing this out was wrong? (older man was 15 yr old lover?)

[Occam Bandage]

2. Yes, it's true. Now tell me,

do you believe court-appointed attorneys should not provide the best defenses they possibly can for their appointed defendents?

[Midlodemocrat]

8. Only if it's Hillary, apparently.

This is the biggest bunch of bullshit I've seen yet on this site. Trashing her for doing her job. Gah.

[KhaOZ]

18. Read

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4750077#4750172

[dorktv]

14. of course not...I should tell my best friend to stop doing that since

one day, he wants to run for president.

[Danger Mouse]

3. What are the facts of the case?

Was the guy actually GUILTY?
Even accused rapists need defense attorneys.

[Occam Bandage]

4. Even if he was guilty, that doesn't change a thing.

Everyone gets a defense, and the best defense that their court-appointed lawyer can provide. The system only works if both the defense and the prosecution make the strongest case that they can make.

[Danger Mouse]

7. That's true. Being a defense attorney, you sometimes have to defend some real dirtbags.

That's part of being a good lawyer, though.

[Zueda]

Is this the only strategy she had?

[Occam Bandage]

23. No. And alternative tactics would have, in her calculation, been less effective,

and therefore choosing to pursue them would have been a failure in her duty.

[Zueda]

44. "...in her calculation"

:rofl:

[John Q. Citizen]

19. I'm with you on this. There are much better reasons to vote for Barack over Hill than the fact

that she defended a person accused of a crime.

[CoffeeCat]

40. Hillary Clinton did not need to rip into this little girl...

...as part of this man's defense.

Clinton could have defended the man by putting him on the stand and letting him tell his story.
Clinton could have called character witnesses for the man, or demonstrated that he had never been
accused of such a crime before.

Hillary Clinton did not have to suggest that this little sixth grader "fantasized about having
sex with older men" as part of this defense. Hillary cooked up that defense.

And hell...how in the world would a public defender know what "fantasies" a little girl had?

I wish I would have represented this little girl. I would clearly have said that for Clinton
to suggest that she knows what this little girl fantasizes about is CONJECTURE and HERESY.

It's such a bullshit defense, that it probably shouldn't even have been admissible in court!

People who do not see that the attacks on this little girl, are way over the top, are deluding
themselves.

What if this was your daughter? Your little sister? Still think it's ok to suggest that
she asked to be raped because she had fantasized about it?

That's sick!

[LisaL]

58. It never got to the point where anyone had to be put on the stand.

The case never went on trial. So, the girl was never "attacked by Hillary" in front of the jury, as some of you keep on claiming for whatever reason.

[NutmegYankee]

61. Emotional people. They lost touch with rational thought.

They then go on to accuse us rational people of "no morals".

[dailykoff]

92. She was prepared to. The affidavit apparently still exists.

Cold-blooded careerism without a moral compass is NOT what we need in the Oval Office.

[LisaL]

95. If she really did have sources telling her these things, what

exactly was she supposed to do with the information?
She obviously had to follow all the leads to defend her client.

[dailykoff]

99. Look, ordering up a psychiatric evaluation of a 12-year old rape victim

is NOT just doing her job. The child had been raped and Hilly was preparing to subject her to further trauma in order to accomplish what? To help a freakin' rapist walk!

Seriously how can you defend this kind of crap? :shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

110. In order to accomplish the Constitutionally-guaranteed right to legal defense.

[dailykoff]

111. Wrong. There are plenty of ethical avenues she could have pursued.

She took the low road and it speaks to character. She has no moral compass and no conscience.

[Occam Bandage]

113. If she believed they would not be as effective, such avenues would not be ethical.

[dailykoff]

115. She was under no legal obligation to destroy a 12-year old rape victim

in pursuit of a defense and if you think she was there's something wrong with you. It was a tactical choice she made and its stinks, period.

[Occam Bandage]

119. She was under the legal obligation to provide the strongest defense possible. If the

strongest defense possible involved questioning the character of the accuser, then questioning the character of the accuser was her duty.

[dailykoff]

126. And she chose a tactic that is unconscionable and WRONG.

There is simply no argument for this. She made an ethically wrong but tactically expedient decision that was WRONG. Period.

[Occam Bandage]

128. If she believed it would be the strongest possible defense, it was the ethically correct decision.

[dailykoff]

132. By the code of lawyer's conduct, possibly. By any humane standard, NO.

Pursuing that tactic is ethically WRONG. Just like torture is ethically WRONG, whatever bullshit excuses Cheney and his flunkies come up with.

[Occam Bandage]

136. There's a reason defense lawyers have a bad reputation.

They have to do things like this to do their job.

[Critters2]

149. They'd do it for any of us if need be,

and I'd be grateful.

[Occam Bandage]

151. Indeed. Everyone hates lawyers until they need one.

[Critters2]

153. I used to do victim-offender mediations. I developed a very deep respect

for defense attorneys. Especially Public Defenders. I'm glad they're out there protecting the system. Too bad so few Americans understand this.

[LisaL]

114. I don't know, maybe you missed it, but in this country,

prosecution has to prove guilt, and the defendant is innocent unless proven guilty.
You have no problems, apparently, assuming otherwise.
Nowhere in the article does it say the man admitted to rape.
Hillary, in fact, was defending her client, and he could very well have been telling her he didn't do it.
WTF would you have her to do?
If she had sources telling her the things about the girl, then she obviously would have to follow up on that, if she was a good defense attorney.
If she ignored her role as a defense attorney, did not provide the guy with a vigorous defense, she would have been negligent.

[dailykoff]

123. Blaming a 12-year old rape victim for her own rape is WRONG.

Period. And I know you know it.

[Occam Bandage]

127. Do persons accused of crimes only possess their

Constitutionally-guaranteed rights when their accusers are not sympathetic 12-year-old girls?

[LisaL]

129. Well, Hillary didn't do anything of the sort.

She was defending her client. As far as I understand it, the client did not admit to rape.
So, she's done nothing of the sort.

[dailykoff]

137. The July 28, 1975, affidavit says otherwise.

But go ahead and defend the indefensible. It beautifully illustrates the moral turpitude of the Clinton candidacy.

[Divernan]

46. An atty. who learns her client is guilty can ask to be recused from the case.

Because of atty. client confidentiality, the atty. cannot tell the court that the reason is because the client is guilty. However, when the atty. offers no other reason or excuse, it is understood by the judge that it is because the attorney knows the client is guilty. That is why criminal defense lawyers are careful never to ask their client, did you do it? In fact the first words out of a crim. defense lawyer's mouth tend to be - don't tell me if you're innocent or guilty.

The other thing is that if an attorney knows their client is guilty (and the attorneys for successful criminals know their fees are coming from criminal activities) the Code of Ethics say that the atty. cannot knowingly allow their clients to lie under oath.

[LisaL]

90. There is no indication whatsoever that she learned her

client was guilty. Nowhere in the article does it say the man admitted to it.
For all you know, he might have told Hillary he didn't do it, and she might have believed him.

[XemaSab]

85. If you rape a 12-year-old

there are no mitigating circumstances.

Period.

[Danger Mouse]

101. he still deserves to have a competent defense attorney.

:shrug:

[XemaSab]

162. There's competent and there's compassionate

You can be both at the same time.

[Occam Bandage]

112. If you are an American,

there are no mitigating circumstances. You are guaranteed a competent defense. No matter what you are accused of.

Period.

[XemaSab]

163. I totally agree

But it sounds like her defense consisted of "Yeah, my client f***ed her, but she was asking for it."

I don't care what other defense you use, but that one's not cool in my book.

[ekwhite]

5. Even if true, that is called being a good lawyer

Part of being a public defender is defending clients who people may see as repugnant - such as an indigent client. With nothing more than an email, we don't know the details of the case. Was the client actually unfairly accused? This is more common than you might think. Were there actual questions about the credibility of the twelve-year old girl? We don't know.

I would assume it is a smear until we have evidence to the contrary.

Edit

Boy this got a lot of posts really fast. The link to the article wasn't up when I first posted. Seeing the details of the case, I have to agree that Senator Clinton was being a good lawyer - the kind of lawyer I would want if I got into trouble. There is no real story here. I would still put it down as an unfair smear.

[MzShellG]

27. Yikes....

My daughter will be 12 soon. I can't have imagined being the mother of that poor little girl. How can an adult question the credibility of a child victim in a rape case. The whole thing sounds morally corrupt.

[FormerDittoHead]

38. Guess what. Little girls can lie about rape. It happens. Check this out...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/09/16/2007-09-16_custodian_falsely_accused_of_child_rape_.html">Custodian falsely accused of child rape sues city for $10M

[goodgd_yall]

87. Read the article

This particular incident is not a clearcut case of an innocent 12-year-old being a victim of rape.

[Der Blaue Engel]

6. Oh, for fuck's sake n/t

[NanceGreggs]

10. What part of "acting as a court-appointed attorney" ...

... is too complex for some people to understand?

Of course she attacked the credibility of the victim; as the attorney for the accused, that was her job.

[ekwhite]

36. She was - gasp - doing her job?

The nerve of some people! Those of you who are attacking Senator Clinton on this, just lay off.

I am far from a Hillary Clinton supporter, but it is just plain unfair to be playing this up. If you look into any criminal lawyer's career, you will find that they at some time defended someone who makes your skin crawl. I personally think we should be thanking Hillary Clinton for her service as a public defender. Without effective public defenders, our system turns into nothing but a series of kangaroo courts.

And Nance - as always, you are a beacon of common sense in the morass of primary season.

[tekisui]

11. Hillary was doing her job, and providing a service guaranteed

in the Constitution.

[JimGinPA]

13. Define "garunteed"

:spray:

[tekisui]

20. Thanks, I fixed it.

:blush:

I should always spell check after:

:beer:

[depakid]

15. This place is getting to be more fun than the National Enquirer!

[ekwhite]

42. Yes - it may even be getting to Weekly World News Standards

I expect to see a "Hillary was Bigfoot's Love Slave" post any day now. :evilgrin: :hide:

[LeftCoast]

16. There is truly no hope for this forum

What an utter waste of electrons.

[goldcanyonaz]

22. It's not so fun to come here that often anymore. I had hoped this would have been a safe place.

[QC]

17. How many times is it necessary to post this?

This is at least the third thread in the past hour.

[LadyVT]

21. Democracy means even people who are guilty need to be defended.

That's democracy, people. Defense lawyers defend despicable people every single day. Can't wait to find out who Obama had to defend early in his career... They do it out of a strong, deeply held conviction that the legal system will ferret out the truth, but only if BOTH sides are fairly represented. What do you want, a theocracy? A dictatorship? Where YOU decide who goes to jail?

This is ridiculous!

[KhaOZ]

28. And it means we dont' have to elect people who would go to such lengths to discredit a Rape Victim

[Occam Bandage]

31. Why do you think she did it?

[Bluerthanblue]

64. do you reconcile this with your admiration of her defense of women and children?

Would your response be the same if it had been Obama that had done this?

Please be honest.

peace~

[NutmegYankee]

32. Court- appointed attorney.

She didn't pick the case and every client has the constitutional right to a vigorous defense. This is not newsworthy and is just a smear.

[KhaOZ]

37. But to play the "Dirty Slut Wanted it" card? Did the court appoint her to do that too?

[NutmegYankee]

43. You defend your client to the best of your ability. THAT IS A DUTY!

If you don't like it, move to Iran. I don't support lynch mobs.

[Bluerthanblue]

79. win at any cost? - sounds familiar.

Too bad Hillary hasn't taken on the cause of any of the people targeted by bush, and rotting in Gitmo-

:shrug:

No one has to move to Iran- it is right here, in the country that is supposed to be far better than Iran.

peace~

[NutmegYankee]

96. I'm not a Hillary supporter, but I do believe in upholding the Consitution.

As for Iran, they have many cases of people being executed on false charges because they pissed off a judge. Look up atefah Rajabi Sahaaleh

[Bluerthanblue]

108. I'm not arguing the "Obama/Hillary" issue- I am responding to the

tactic of claiming a child 'asks' for sex, as a 'defense'.
And the way a 'good' lawyer can get off even known guilty clients- and that is supposed to be ok.

As for the Constitution- It would be nice if our judicial system actually did uphold ours.
I don't deny the fact that judges in Iran abuse their power. It is important to note, that our courts leave much to be desired as well.

peace~

[NutmegYankee]

117. read the article.

[Bluerthanblue]

121. I did-

did you?

:shrug:


peace~

[NutmegYankee]

124. Yep.

[Bluebear]

71. .

[JDPriestly]

33. That is the work of an attorney.

You REPRESENT your client. Our legal system is adversarial. The theory in our judicial system is that the truth is most likely to be accurately determined through a process in which each party to a case presents the evidence most favorable to its point of view. The lawyer's job is to fight hard for his or her client. The lawyer is not the jury, not the judge. The lawyer pulls out all the stops to win for his or her client.

A lawyer breaches his or her ethical duty if he or she does not do everything within the permissible procedures to win for his or her client. That duty includes doing everything you can to destroy the credibility of the witnesses against your client.

If you are ever charged with a crime, you will want a lawyer who does not judge you, who believes in you and who does everything to get the best outcome for you.

[CoffeeCat]

49. But the man raped a little girl!

I think many people on this board are forgetting that a grown man had
sex with this sixth-grade girl.

It appears, from Hillary's defense, that the man admitted to having sex
with this six-grader.

Hillary's defense is that the girl wanted it. Hillary invoked her special
mind-reading powers--as part of her defense of this admitted pedophile rapist,
and suggested that the little girl "had fantasies about older men" and therefore
was a willing participant.

The man obviously admitted to having sex with this little girl.

You think it's ok to defend a grown man raping a sixth-grader by suggesting
that the little girl brought this on herself?

Excuse me, but an adult male having sex with an eleven-year-old girl is always
wrong and it's always a crime. For an attorney to suggest that the little girl
fantasized is heresy and conjecture--and if I had been this child's attorney, I
would have ripped Hillary Rodham Clinton a new one!

Why was her horrid conjecture even allowed to stand in that courtroom? Clinton
couldn't have possibly known for a fact that this child spent her days "fantasizing
about sex with older men".

This child grew into an adult who said that she, of course, did not fantasize about
having sex with men or with this rapist. She says she was raped. So Hillary concocted
this bullshit defense (conjecture) out of thin air.

It's revolting that this over-the-top, unprofessional defense was even allowed.

[NutmegYankee]

50. Forgot the "Innocent until proven guilty part" huh? n/t

[CoffeeCat]

52. What in the hell are you talking about????????

The man ADMITTED to HAVING SEX with a SIXTH-GRADE GIRL.

What part of that don't you understand???

Hillary's defense was that the little girl "was asking for it"
wanted it.

A grown, adult man had sex with this little girl. He admitted it.

it was Hillary's job to get him a lenient sentence. She got it by
blaming that little girl.

You're not following the facts of this case!

[LisaL]

53. Nowhere in the article does it say the man admitted

to having sex with the girl.

[PeaceNikki]

57. She never claimed that the girl "wanted it" at all.

She questioned the victim's honesty. Again, probably pretty standard in rape cases.

[Bluerthanblue]

70. she may not have used those words, but the intent is clear, and was not

missed by anyone-
Except perhaps you.

:shrug:

this case is a sad testament as to what rape victims should never have to go through.


aaaaahhhhhh!


may you never understand this first hand.





peace~

[PeaceNikki]

77. The victim in this case does not harbor the ill-will that you seem to.

And, you have no concept of what I understand "first hand". Nor is it any of your business.

Peace indeed.

[Bluerthanblue]

97. as a survivor myself- I DO have a concept- and I

do not harbor "ill- will" towards anyone.

I am outraged that this tactic is allowed.

I don't presume to know anything about you, other than the fact that you make plenty of assumptions for others.


yes, peace~

It is what I work towards and desire.
If you don't, I hope you find whatever it is you do seek.

[NutmegYankee]

54. Everyone has a right to a vigorous defense.

EVERYONE. More power to Clinton for doing the task and upholding her duty as a lawyer.

BTW, I voted for Obama in the Primary. I just know a lawyer has to do their duty, whether some like it or not.

[LisaL]

55. I don't know what it is you were reading.

The article doesn't say the man admitted he had sex with the girl.
A boy, 15 year old, appears to have admitted to have sex with the girl on the night in question.

[JDPriestly]

169. You are correct in finding the man's conduct abhorrent.

Here are my random thoughts on this. I'm sorry that you have so little understanding of our legal system. You may need a lawyer some day and you will think about things differently.

You do not, however, understand the duty of a lawyer. A lawyer may not present a frivolous argument or violate the law or procedures in representing a client, but outside of that the lawyer's highest obligation is to present the client's case as competently as possible. I do not know ALL THE FACTS of the case in question, and I do not think that you do either. I doubt that proving that the child consented would really be an effective defense for this kind of child abuse today in my state, however, it might have been a reasonable defense at the time that case was tried. Public awareness of the problem of child abuse has improved over time. Please remember that, incredible as it seems, there have been cases in which people were wrongly convicted of child abuse based on the false testimony of a child. Also, the testimony of the child might influence the court's sentencing for the crime.

I have no idea why Hillary used that defense, but her job was to present as strong a case for her client as possible, It is up to the jury to decide whether the defendant is guilty or not. It is extremely unfair to criticize an attorney for arguments used to defend a client.

In our country, under our law, people accused of heinous crimes have the same right to question their accuser as those who are accused of minor infractions.

I believe that today children are better protected from the emotional stress of appearing in court in such a case than they were at the time of the case in question.

It is very difficult to be a lawyer. You don't have to represent everyone, but even the worst criminal deserves and needs good legal representation.

Google the ethical rules for attorneys in your state. You will see that Hillary's duty was to her client, not to the little girl. Sorry but you are way off on this. It is the duty of the jury to determine who is telling the truth as well as guilt or innocence.

[Divernan]

39. Here's the analysis I posted in an earlier thread-Clinton was out of control on this case

Read a 4 page article with many facts of the case at:

www.newsday.com/news/nationworld
There are many things ethically wrong and questionable with how she handled this case.
I'm a retired atty. who did civil trial work, taught at a law school where I was co-director of a legal aid clinic for the poor, & then went on to work for state govt. I read the entire original article (and had read Clinton's book) and here's my view of what happened.


The rape occurred no earlier than 2 a.m. The accused rapist (Clinton plea bargained him down to 10 months for unlawful fondling ) was described as a hard drinking man who, on the advice of his jailhouse friends, demanded a female lawyer - thinking it would get him points with a jury.

"At 4:50 a.m., the girl walked into a local emergency room, badly shaken. The doctor's report noted that she had injuries consistent with rape. Sgt. Dale Gibson, the department's lead investigator in the case, interviewed her as she huddled with her mother. She offered a chilling detail - a threat from Taylor and his friends. "If I did say anything about it, they would catch me out later," she told the investigator."

Read the entire article, please. It is chock full of details to show you how revolting Clinton's handling of this case was. At that time Clinton was director of the Legal Aid Clinic. This is significant for a number of reasons.

1. She could have handed the case off to someone else.

2. She had no legal trial experience and was required by the code of professional conduct to either refuse to take the case, or get co-counsel with adequate criminal/rape trial experience.

3. Legal aid clinics (based at the law school) have quite limited budgets. As Director, she had to
parcel out her limited resources so that the maximum number of indigents could be represented. She invested time and funds into this case as though it were a capital murder trial.

This 12 year old received a hospital examination at 4:30 a.m., a few hours after she was raped.It provided evidence of rape. At that point, an accused rapist & his attorney can CHOOSE from 2 mutually exclusive defenses. Either he can argue it was concensual sex, or deny he was the perpetrator.

Clinton, acting like a bulldog, according to other lawyers there at the time, pursued BOTH defenses, and mounted such an aggressive defense, local lawyers commented it would have been appropriate for a capital murder trial. She hired a New York based forensic expert to "cast doubt on the evidence" - imagine that. How many Arkansas indigent defendants had an expert brought all the way from New York? That must have cost thousands of dollars of the clinic's limited budget. That kind of money would have and should have been spent on behalf of things like pursuing deadbeats for child support, or helping indigents with landlord tenant or health care issues, or paying LOCAL psychologists in child abuse cases. And any trial lawyer will tell you that when it comes to selecting an expert/hired gun for the battle of the experts, you are much better off to go with someone as local as possible - at least from the same state. This is because the judges and juries are suspicious of outsiders and partial to locals.Note all her hired gun expert could do was "cast doubt". Even with this expensive expert witness, Clinton couldn't get the evidence thrown out. She also went after the victim and argued that the girl "was attracted to older men" and had a history of claiming personal attacks and lying. The evidence of record does not offer any proof of those arguments.

During her first few months on the case, Rodham fired off no fewer than 19 subpoenas, affidavits and motions - almost as much paper as was typical for a capital murder case that year, according to case files on microfilm. She successfully petitioned to obtain Taylor's underwear for independent testing after the state medical examiner found traces of semen and blood. (Again, more fees to be paid for by the law clinic.) She also secured Taylor's release on $5,000 bond after getting his boss at the factory to vouch for him. (If he had run off, the Clinic would have had to pay off that bond.)
But the record shows that Rodham was also intent on questioning the girl's credibility. That line of defense crystallized in a July 28, 1975, affidavit requesting the girl undergo a psychiatric examination at the university's clinic.

"I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing," wrote Rodham, without referring to the source of that allegation. "I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body."

(Strange choice of language, "I have been informed", hearsay, even with a named source and she didn't identify her source -could have been her own client!)rather than my psychiatric expert will testify".
Dale Gibson, the investigator, doesn't recall seeing evidence that the girl had fabricated previous attacks. The assistant prosecutor who handled much of the case for Mahlon Gibson died several years ago. The prosecutor's files on the case, which would have included such details, were destroyed more than decade ago when a flood swept through the county archives, Mahlon Gibson said. Those files also would have included the forensics evidence referenced in "Living History."

Prior to this, in the early '70's, Clinton studied at Yale's renowned child study center to identify physical and behavioral clues of child abuse. Her fluency on the topic is evident in the Arkansas court filings: "I have . . . been told by an expert in child psychology that children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experience and that adolescents with disorganized families, such as the complainant's, are even much more prone to such behavior. . . .she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way."
###############################
So here we see Clinton substituting Clinton's own evaluation of the child's behavior as though Clinton were an independent court appointed psychologist. This whole case just stinks!

And any of us who have suffered through the terrible 12's with an adolescent daughter know that nearly all 12 year old girls are prone to exaggeration, romanticization, stubbornness and temper. Does that mean that if they are raped, they are not to be believed, even in the presence of medical evidence of rape?

I think Clinton included the self-flattering account of this case in her book because it was a time bomb in her history and she wanted to defuse it. There is no logical connection between having gotten this man off with 10 months in jail, and being inspired to start a rape hotline. This young girl didn't need and would not have benefitted from a rape hotline. Her mother got her to the hospital within hours of the rape. I think Rape Hotlines are very important - I just fail to see how this particular case would have inspired Clinton to instigate one.

Having read the entire account of this convoluted case, I think the 40 something "heavy drinker" was guilty as sin, and that Clinton knew it. So it could have been her attempt to neutralize any damage to her future reputation to be able to say, "But I started a rape hotline."

One final comment. We see Clinton exhibit poor strategy decisions, failing to take into account the local situation, and squandering money on hotshot experts. Fast forward to her current campaign consultants and failure to control her campaign funds.

One law professor commented that criminal was lucky to have Clinton for an attorney. "In terms of what's good for the little girl? It would have been hell on the victim. But that wasn't Hilary's problem." The victim says it was her mother, who had recently been abandoned by her husband, who pushed for a quick plea deal to avoid the humiliation of having her daughter testify in open court. The mother, who died several years ago, was so eager to end the ordeal she coached her daughter's statements and interrupted interviews with police, Dale Gibson recalls.

"We both wanted it to be over with," the victim told Newsday. "They kept asking me the same questions over and over. I was crying all the time."

[QC]

45. Out of control? I believe that the Word of the Day is "unhinged."

Did the politburo fail to send you the new talking points?

[LisaL]

47. OMG? She hired a forensic expert to examine the evidence?

What's the world coming to?
:eyes:
By the way, what were the results?
The article doesn't say.
Honestly, I don't think I've ever read anything more ludicrous. She was a defense lawyer in a rape case, and you are blaming her for hiring a forensic expert to examine the DNA evidence?
WTF do you think any good defense lawyer should do with forensic evidence in a rape case?

[Divernan]

56. Sorry I didn't make it simple enough for you to understand the nuances.

Public defenders do not fly forensic experts in from New York to Arkansas. They use in state experts. It blows the budget all to hell to fly someone across country. But blowing the budget all to hell is something Hillary does quite well.

And by blowing her budget on this one case, she was unable to provide legal assistance, and train her law students for many other indigent people.

[LisaL]

59. Oh boo-hoo.

Usually poor people can't get forensic experts. Some of them end up falsely convicted. Then everybody cries how un-fair that is.
But when Hillary did get an expert for her client, apparently that was a bad thing? O'key.

[Divernan]

75. Out of state experts cost much, much more money.

She squandered money on this case, just like she did on her campaign.

[NutmegYankee]

63. Yeah. Money should be saved for the wealthy...

And the poor can just get tried by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunking">Cheaper Means.


:sarcasm:

[LisaL]

65. Exactly.

By the way, I really do wonder as to why that wonderful article never mentioned as to what exactly the results of the tests were.

[FormerDittoHead]

74. Deleted because I was wrong and I admit it. n/t

[Divernan]

78. The court paid her $250; the clinic had to eat the rest of the costs.

nt

[FormerDittoHead]

81. Got it. You have a point about her being wasteful. n/t

[LisaL]

93. There might have been a good reason as to why she

hired an out of state experts. They might have been the only ones doing specific tests.
By the way, why doesn't the article say what the results were?

[ekwhite]

51. As a non-lawyer, I didn't glean what you did out of the article

Thanks for the analysis in language us laymen can understand. From your analysis, it would seem that Senator Clinton exercised extremely poor judgment in the case, especially in not handing it off to an experienced trial lawyer or in getting an experienced trial lawyer to assist in the case.

One comment though, is it legally ethical not to vigorously defend a client you think is "guilty as sin"? I am not questioning your judgement, but I am asking for your opinion on legal ethics. What would have been the proper way to defend this client?

[Divernan]

66. Good question. And if there was sex & she's 12, it's statutory rape.

If a client admitted guilt to me, I would do my best to get him to accept a plea bargain, and to negotiate the best plea I could for him - get him into the least violent prison for the time he had to serve; get him therapy, etc. Clinton did plea bargain the guy. However, I would not have squandered the law clinic's money and my time as if a man's life was at stake, and thereby deprived other clients, such as kids not receiving child support, or kids being abused, or elderly people being ripped off by shady businesses, etc. (the kind of cases I saw in the law school clinic I worked with).

Ya know, when you find not just semen, but blood in the vagina of a 12 year old girl within 2 hours of these men admitting they were with her and giving her alcohol, there is no question that at the very least it was - ready for this - STATUTORY RAPE! This older guy tried to claim that only the 15 year old boy raped the girl, but this older guy supplied the truck and the liquor, and there was a witness that the older guy raped her.

[LisaL]

68. Considering this was over 30 years ago,

what was the age of consent in the state back then?
By the way, no where in the article does it say Hillary's client admitted to having sex with the girl.

[Divernan]

82. No, he only admitted to illegally fondling her - that was the plea bargain.

Of course, he never testified under oath or subject to cross examination.

[rug]

83. Thank God you're retired.

The man was facing 30 years so his life was at stake.

I doubt you've ever handled a single criminal case, let alone one as serious as this. You realize a defense attorney has nothing to do with what prison the defendant goes to?

You would try to plead him guilty. And if he refused, would you simply go through the motions of defending him? I hope you could find an attorney who would vigorously defend you at your disbarment.

[Midlodemocrat]

98. rug, why let the facts get in the way of hyperbole?

:rofl:

[rug]

102. No wonder there are so many dead lawyer jokes.

:hi:

[Bluebear]

67. Sorry, today's words are "hysterical, wifey & unhinged", not "out of control"

Please check your talking points.

[dorktv]

118. the article I saw says she pushed hard to get the legal clinic expanded.

am I missing something?

[dorktv]

134. I read the link that someone posted above.

The article explains that Senator Clinton put her entire self into it.

She obviously thought that was her job-to give her client 100%. And since she was pushing in another article to expand the clinic, apparently this was what she thought was best to help with that.

I can see if another PD thinks the same though.

[Fredda Weinberg]

146. she bears Hillary Rodham Clinton no ill will ... the victim, that is

And she was there. Yes, it sounds like HRC made lots of mistakes, but "out of control"? I think that's your bias showing. The court didn't intervene and the victim doesn't feel ill treated.

[jgraz]

41. Can you imagine the wails from the Hillary Brigade if Obama had done this?

It boggles the mind. :crazy:

[LeftCoast]

60. You are all adults. Be responsible for your own behavior.

[dailykoff]

80. There would be at least twenty threads burning up the tubes

per HOUR and oh the indignation, the self-righteous hatred, the horror! It would go on for weeks if not days.

But Hillary? She was only carrying out orders. Good freakin' grief!!

:crazy:

[jgraz]

89. And any male who defended him would be instantly branded a woman-hating proto-rapist.

Of course, that part's not much different from how it is now.

[dailykoff]

94. Oh hell yes. There would be torch-lit marches at every Hilly headquarters

complete with 700-dollar donuts.

[NutmegYankee]

103. No offense, but I'm defending her on Constitutional duty grounds.

I voted for Obama and still support him.

[dailykoff]

105. There is no Constitutional duty to traumatize 12-year old rape victims.

Sorry.

[NutmegYankee]

106. You confuse the issue. A lawyer must provide the most vigorous defense possible.

So Yeah, There is. Move out of the country if you don't like it.

[dailykoff]

109. A defense attorney is not compelled to destroy a 12-year old rape victim

in pursuit of her defense. That was a gigantic lapse of ethics, conscience and good judgment that should disqualify Hilly from holding ANY public or appointed office.

[NutmegYankee]

116. I pity you.

[rug]

48. Read the whole article. Her work on that case was outstanding.

[elleng]

69. I'm HAPPY TO SEE

so many recognizing duty of hrc as court-appointed attorney.

Folks, LIFE IS NOT SIMPLE!

[RememberWellstone]

72. The bar gets lower?

Obama is above the foray? Nice....really how low can you stepford children go?

[Bluebear]

73. "I received this in an email just now. Anyone know how true this is? Perhaps a smear?" Sure, uh-huh.

Holy trolly.

[Maddy McCall]

86. Sock it to me, baby.

:rofl:

[MeDeMax]

76. people need to get a life, 32 years ago for cryin out loud n/t

[dailykoff]

84. Chappaquidick was 45 years ago.

Has ANYBODY forgotten it? And that was a freakin' accident!!

[Critters2]

155. Who here has mentioned Chappaquiddick? nt

[Catherine Vincent]

91. How far down the way back crapper did you dig this shit up?

[dailykoff]

100. 35 years is the number Hillly keeps suggesting.

That still leaves three years.

[Bluerthanblue]

104. I need to say I do NOT think this is any reason not to support Hillary- I

am outraged not by Hillary's defense of this man, but by the tactic of painting the victim, particularly a child, as having 'asked for it'.

It does illustrate her tenacity- sometimes to a 'fault'- but despite my strong emotional response, I cannot 'fault' Hillary for being a defense attorney.
(for what its worth)
peace~

[Midlodemocrat]

122. I wonder how many of these posters crying 'foul' would actually

want an attorney as tenacious as HRC defending them?

And, she certainly isn't the first attorney to cast aspersions on the accuser. Decades of rape victims not reporting their crime for fear of 'being put on trial' led to an overhaul in what the court will allow an attorney to present regarding the victim's past.

[dailykoff]

130. Doesn't make it right, just like hypothetical scenarios don't make torture right.

Hilly had a little trouble with that question, too.

[Midlodemocrat]

131. That's ridiculous. She had to do her job to the best of her ability.

Her job was to defend her client to the best of her ability. Anything else could have cost her her license. That's common knowledge. Well, I thought it was. I guess I was wrong.

[dailykoff]

133. There are many tactics available. She chose an ethcially WRONG one.

Go ahead and defend her but what she did was wrong.

[Midlodemocrat]

135. No she wasn't. And, I'm not even a supporter.

She did what she had to do for her client. Court appointed lawyers get the dregs all the time. It's par for the course.

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rasputin1952]

139. I am not a lawyer...I am merely a citizen in a nation that has,

within it's basic document, the Constitution, that everyone accused of a crime is entitled to representation, whether of not they can afford it. If they cannot afford counsel, one will appointed by the court. Precisely this happened in that case.

I do not know how this case panned out, not do I know whether the individual was innocent of guilty, I can say that there are few others that find the abuse of a child as abhorrent as I. At the same time, I also believe adamantly that every one charged with a crime has access to an attorney, and it is the atty's job to bring forth what they see fit as a defense. None of us were in that courtroom, none of us know what went through the minds of either the victim or the accused.

What I see here is someone trying desperately, (not necessarily you), you smear someone for doing what they were charged to do. There was a lot of animosity when John Adams defended the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre...he was doing his job. Are the RW shit goblins going to bring that up? After all...he went on to some pretty important things...including being PotUS.

[dailykoff]

141. The standards of legal behavior are lower than the standards of humane behavior.

Sometimes torture is legal, sometimes it isn't, but I expect or at least would like a US President to have a moral compass independent of this year's statutes.

[rasputin1952]

147. I just read the story as described in Newsday, post #1 above...

and while I can say that yes, there are times when legal standards are lower than human standards...I stand by my statement that everyone that has been accused in this nation of a crime, is due representation...that is a human standard.

[sendero]

140. I can't stand HRC..

... but folks need to get a grip. This is how our legal system works. HRC was merely doing her job, and she'd suck even more than she clearly does if she didn't take it seriously enough to explore every avenue of defense.

Rape trials suck. Any trial involving passion, betrayal, relationships, SUCKS. This is the way it is done. Deal with it, because it's been that way FOREVER and it's not going to change.

[dailykoff]

142. There are many tactics. She chose an unconscionable one.

Legal maybe but still unconscionable. It goes to character and it shows one that is perhaps not criminal, but is in no way exceptional or commendable.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

144. This un-American sentiment would be more at home at Free Republic

Your ignorant comment is nothing more than Republican-style hatred of American civilization... total contempt for the concept of a nation of laws.

I realize that a lot of people get their Internet-chat law degrees from watching a few episodes of Perry Mason, but ignorance is no excuse here. There are a few basic things that Americans are supposed to know about our Constitution and our legal system.

Being a public defender is honorable and necessary work. PDs are assigned cases and a lot of them are nasty cases. A PD is not supposed to opt out of nasty cases, anymore than Pharmacists are supposed to decide whether they think your birth control prescription should be filled.

A defender is required to conduct a total defense aimed solely at getting the best outcome for the accused. If "putting the victim on trial" offers the best defense and an attorney does not do that it is an extraordinary violation of all legal ethics... it is the least ethical thing a lawyer can do. Any lawyer who holds back in a defense out of sympathy for someone other than his client will, and should be disbarred.

Failure to go all out as a defender, limited by some abstract personal sense of decency, is a violation of the most basic oaths a lawyer takes... equivalent to a physician removing a retarded woman's healthy uterus without consent during a cesarean because he just happens to feel it's for the best she be sterile.

This is basic stuff... If Barack Obama had defended Timothy McVeigh and gotten him off free I would applaud him for a job well done.

The closest thing to this latest flap I can think of was when George Allen took passages from Jim Webb's books to claim Webb is a pornographer. George Allen's attack was aimed at ignorant people who don't read many books. This Hillary business is aimed at ignorant people with no more than a Rush Limbaugh, comic book level of appreciation of our form of government.

[dailykoff]

145. Look, there are good tactics and bad tactics. Torture is bad, so is this.

Please spare me the outrage because it's just not that complicated.

[bluerum]

143. Wow. Compact cursive.

[Critters2]

148. Defense attorneys are what makes the system work,

whether we like it or not. I used to work in criminal justice, working most closely with Public Defenders. It's a thankless job, done by people completely committed to a balanced justice system. But I always remind myself that if I were accused of a crime, I'd want a defense attorney to mount as zealous a defense as possible. We need this.

[rodeodance]

150. This is the 3rd post on this today.

[Raejeanowl]

152. Where Did The Email Originate And Who Are You? n/t

[rodeodance]

156. prob. gleamed it off the 3 other side threads here on DU

[WorseBeforeBetter]

166. A "28 year old in the Military who normally goes for the Republican".

Fresh meat! Actually, not so fresh... quite possibly a tombstoned sockpuppet come back to life.

[Redstone]

154. Great job, shithead. Proud of yourself?

Redstone

[KhaOZ]

164. ok? thanks for your input

[pintobean]

159. She learned the value

of unsubstantiated attacks early in her career.

[Zueda]

160. I just now got this email too! n/t

[BadgerLaw2010]

161. Jesus. Hope none of you guys ever need a defense attorney.

[anonymous171]

165. She was a defense attorney. She was doing her job.

I'm an Obama supporter and I think that this is ridiculous. This is like the Obama kindergarten essay shit.

[defendandprotect]

167. How can this be? Totally irrelevant--!! The girls age provides that this is RAPE --- !!!

How could anyone argue otherwise . . .?
WTF?

[peacebaby3]

168. Guess I'll have to post this in all of these threads.

As an Obama supporter and someone who works in indigent defense, I fully support Hillary on
this issue. It is her ethical duty to defend her client and yes, she should fully question the accuser and if she has reason to believe the accuser is lying, she is required to question her on the stand as needed. She did exactly what she was supposed to do and if she didn't, she should have lost her license.

Ever heard of the McMartin trial? Sometimes children lie.

<http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/mc... >

There's more, but that is by far one of the best known and most expensive trials in history.

Oh and before you blast me, I'm a female who was raped at age 16 so don't bother with those attacks.

[anigbrowl]

170. Court Appointed Attorney...doing her job. We should not

make a campaign issue out of this. Obama is doing fine without any especial need to go negative on Clinton.

So, I am asking other Obama supporters to just let the thread die.