The confirmation hearing for Debo Adegbile to head the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division has many of the standard elements and witnesses on Adegbile’s career as a lawyer and an advocate. One witness however is not like the other: Maureen Faulkner, the widow of a Philadelphia police officer gunned down in 1981. Now, Adegbile is not accused of gunning down Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner or even being an accomplice before or after the act. No, the witness is being called to suggest that Abegbile should not be confirmed because he represented the man convicted of the murder. Faulkner is being joined by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and the Fraternal Order of Police in saying that such representation is relevant in determining if he should be confirmed. It is move that strikes at the heart of the notion of the right to counsel and due process. Many law students become prosecutors because they fear that representing criminal defendants or controversial clients will bar or hinder their professional advancement while the presidents and members of Congress continue to favor prosecutors for judicial appointments (making the federal bench a sometime hostile place for criminal defense counsel).
Adegbile has been denounced as “radical,” “dangerous” and “outside the mainstream.” However, the main proof of these allegations is the simple fact that he agreed to serve as counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal. Abu-Jamal was a member of the Black Panther Party. He later became a radio journalist and president of the Philadelphia Association of Black Journalists. On December 9, 1981, Officer Faulkner was shot dead while conducting a traffic stop on a car driven by Abu-Jamal’s brother, William Cook. Faulkner shot Abu-Jamal in the encounter. The case became a national focus not only because of the death of a police officer but the later errors claimed in association with Abu-Jamal, who initially represented himself with disastrous results.
I can understand Maureen Faulkner’s anger at the loss of her husband. That anger is likely magnified by the international movement behind Abu-Jamal. She is quoted as saying that there is digest when she and others are forced to “witness Adgebile, a man proud to have chosen to aid the murderer of their friend, singled out for honors and high office by the government of the United States. It is an abomination to now reward Mr. Adgebile as if he had done something wonderful.” The problem is that critics seem to view the representation of a killer as a celebration or endorsement of the crime. If Adegbile has extreme views, we should hear them. That is a relevant concern and has been raised with regard to positions taken as legal counsel to NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund. However, the attention on his confirmation seems largely to focus on the fact that he dared to represent a hated individual. Criminal defense, particularly for indigent clients, is often a thankless job despite the legacy of such work found in the likes of John Adams. However, this hearing creates a clear chilling message for young lawyers and law students that they should turn down such cases if they do not want to bar any hope for professional advancement.
I am equally disturbed by the comment of Chuck Canterbury, president of the Fraternal Order of Police that “This nomination can be interpreted in only one way: it is a thumb in the eye of our nation’s law enforcement officers.” The impression was that the insult was nominating a lawyer who represented an accused cop killer. It that is the intention, it is a careless and thoughtless position. I have represented law enforcement personnel and I have sued police officers. I even represented officers of the Fraternal Order of Police. I will remind Canterbury that many denounce lawyers who represent officer accused of abuse or wrongful shootings.
I have the luxury of a job with lifetime tenure at a wonderful law school. I consider that position to come with the added responsibility to represent people who might not be able to secure counsel because of unpopularity or alleged crime. Other lawyers do not have such protection or support. The message being sent from this hearing is this lawyer should be judged by what his client did — a notion that is anathema to anyone who values the rule of law.
I know little about Adebdile and I have no objection of witnesses discussing his prior conduct or legal views. However, that is not the focus of the coverage thus far in this controversy. The message seems to be that no one will stop a lawyer from representing an unpopular client but you do so at your own risk. There are relevant issues and irrelevant issue. The fact that he was a child actor on Sesame Street, for example, does not mean that he was responsible for the content of the show. Being counsel to a criminal defendant and even believing in his innocence does not make him sympathetic to cop killers or facilitating murder.
I am very discomforted by the thrust of coverage on the nomination and the use of the murder case to undermine such a nominee.
mespo,
Thank you but, again, I must reiterate – since everyone broadens it – that my concern is only when those attorneys’ previous actions and shown or implied biases are directly relevant to the position they want.
The sad part is that if it’s been Zimmerman’s attorney’s instead of Adegbile , everyone here in the comments that has been strongly – sometime rather rudely – against considering barring Adegbile’s appointment would be on the other side of the fence. Most likely, even our host’s position would have been different. certainly differently presented.
Mike A:
“Mike Appleton
I don’t give anybody a pass on this, including grieving widows. Any person who opposes a nominee simply because the nominee has represented an unpopular criminal defendant needs to retake Civics I. This isn’t even debatable in my opinion.”
*******************
Well, the issue I’m addressing is should she be able to testify. I have no problem with her espousing her view that Adegbile’s representation of her husband’s killer should be considered. There is no right to government office and no attorney taking on unpopular causes has a right to immunity from criticism. John Adams lost his law practice over his representation and didn’t take retribution on the citizens of Boston.
Do you think her views are so pernicious as to be censored? After all, all she’s asking to do is state her view to the members of Congress.
Jonolan brings up an interesting point. Should mob lawyers or those representing the Westboro Baptist Church have nominations to high government posts be more scrutinized for their choice of clients? How about those lawyers representing the Aryan Nation or notorious race haters like Tom Metzger as jonolan asks?
No one said our job was going to be easy or popular. Do we have a right to demand that it be?
Mike Appleton,
I only advocate for keeping them out of sensitive authority positions that they already shown by their past efforts and associations to have a strong bias about. No significantly active member of the NAACP has any more business being the head of the DoJ’s Civil Rights Division than a Klansman or the pet attorneys of the Aryan nation.
I’m with Dan on this.
If a lawyer has not worked on both sides of the courtroom, they probably don’t qualify for the bench.
Even if representing ‘bad guys’ is a bar to advancement, all is not lost.
Listen up lawyers! This guy you gotta see and emulate! 🙂
Jamie Casino FTW! He says that he “once was a notorious defence lawyer employed by the most cold-hearted villians”
His brother was killed in circumstances yet to be resolved. This was on a weekend in which the local Police Chief said that “there were no innocent victims”.
Following that, he switched to personal injury work – AND now: – bought his own two-minute “Batsh*t Amazing” local advertising slot during Super Bowl.
http://deadspin.com/georgia-lawyers-local-super-bowl-ad-is-batshit-amazing-1514869904
This is way more fun than heading the Civil Rights Division.
.
Incidentally, I looked up the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. There is a bad smell about the evidence.
It might be that *anyone* defending him is going to be targetted. The defence involves asserting that police in the case were at best very sloppy with the crime scene forensics, and at worst involved in a frame-up.
Added to that, Abu-Jamal has acquired way more profile than your average ‘cop-killer’. He’s just way too ‘uppity’.
So I see that we are to eliminate attorneys who represent criminals (Darrel Carlson) and attorneys who have been active in the NAACP (jonolan) from consideration for responsible government posts. Anyone want to eliminate any other categories? How about attorneys who represent tenants? Or lawyers who sue doctors? Or, alternatively, how about some intelligent comments on the topic?
Jonolan: “one of them”…really? In 2014 you have the tone deafness to utter “one of them”? Some white guy or gal is going to have a better perspective on the still insidious presence of racial and economic discrimination in this country than “one of them”? Do you hear yourself?
Reminds me very much of the Leonard Peltier case.
rafflaw,
I’ve no problems with lawyers choosing to represent unpopular defendants, though do care about why they chose to do so and what tactics they used in those criminals’ defense. Additionally, choice bear consequences and perfectly proper to consider an attorney’s cases and how he handled them when considering him for a high post, especially a sensitive one such as the head of the DoJ’s Civil Rights Division.
Frankly, I personally find Adegbile disqualified for reason of being active in the NAACP since I would no more want one of them heading the DoJ’s Civil Rights Division than I would a Klansman. In other positions I might not have a problem with either.
Turley just wants lawyers to be able to do whatever they want without it affecting the path of their career advancement. That’s natural. It’s both self-interest and professional solidarity…and, laudably, wanting the best for his students.
So you don’t like the Idea that the dishonesty of all Criminal Lawyers in preventing the truth from being known by the jury is revolting and disgusting to the law abiding citizenry who are cheated their by recycling these mad dogs back into society to repeat their crimes. Their ability as lying con men who foist confusing fairy tales on the jury and conceal evidence by suppression, tampering with juries is unpunished criminality. Quarter and draw them all for my money.
Could Atticus Finch get nominated?
Of course a Klansman would not be fit to serve as a public prosecutor or judge. Lets see….. who would have been disqualified? Some guy who turned out to be a great libertarian. I think his name was Hugo Black. Anyone out there under 30 know who he was?
Any lawyer who has worked as a defense attorney and has _not_ represented odious clients clearly does not have sufficient experience for any important post.
Wouldn’t that be a more important point?
I don’t give anybody a pass on this, including grieving widows. Any person who opposes a nominee simply because the nominee has represented an unpopular criminal defendant needs to retake Civics I. This isn’t even debatable in my opinion.
“I am very discomforted by the thrust of coverage on the nomination and the use of the murder case to undermine such a nominee.” – JT
Me too.
Well, Senator Grassley. It has come to our attention that you are the Senator from Iowa. That is the state where the tall corn grows. As Senator you represent all of your constituents, whether they voted for you and agreed with you or not. You have some Klansmen in Iowa. Since you are their representative you are not fit to sit on the Judiciary Committee. You must resign, Also you have reached the Senility Stage of Government Service or what the psychiatrists for the DSM 5 call SSGS. At age 80 everyone is an SSGS suspect. You must take a test this week or resign from the Senate. We have demanded that old lady Feinstein take the test too. This is a memory test. Part of it is you will be asked to recite without notes the oath of office which you took to be admitted into the Senate. There is something in there about upholding the Constitution of the United States.
jonolan, Without attorneys representing unpopular defendants, we would all be in trouble. Just another example of the degradation of the Republican Party. And I will listen to the FOP official when the FOP comes out and denounces what happened in New Mexico.
Jonolan: Whats good for General Motors! Is good for the USA!
Is Chuck Grassley your guy? Do you hail from Iowa?
The issue is that Debo chose to represent the unrepentant and convicted cop-killer due to his own radical, anti-White agenda, tying it in with direct relevance to his colored stint at the NAACP. This makes him unsuitable to many as the head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, which has always little more than stormtroopers for the Democrat party.
Simply put, it would be wrong NOT to judge an attorney by the clients that he chose to represent, under what circumstances he represented them, and how he went about doing so. Those facts are the content of his character in the professional realm.
But, as is always the case when there’s a conflict between what’s “good” for the lawyers and what’s good for the nation as a whole, Mr. Turley sides with his professional colleagues.
When does the veil of the grieving widow fade away. Maureen Faulkner remarried and moved on. She was not a witness to anything. However she has continually made herself available as a tool to the racist Fraternal Order of Police (FOP).
The case of Mumia Abu Jamal clearly exemplifies thelie of the City of Brotherly Love. It is, was and always has been about race. Senate Republicans continue to reveal their true colors.
Thank you Jonathan for your work.
“I can understand Maureen Faulkner’s anger at the loss of her husband. That anger is likely magnified by the international movement behind Abu-Jamal. She is quoted as saying that there is digest when she and others are forced to “witness Adgebile, a man proud to have chosen to aid the murderer of their friend, singled out for honors and high office by the government of the United States. It is an abomination to now reward Mr. Adgebile as if he had done something wonderful.”
***********************
I always give heart-broken widows a pass.