We have recently discussed attacks on lawyers for simply doing their jobs in representing accused individuals. It is truly vile and McCarthyist trend that seeks to punish professional working within our criminal justice system. It is particularly offensive therefore when a large, presumably respectable organization unleashed such an attack. However, that is precisely what the Republican Governors Association has done in the attack ad below against State Senator Vincent Sheheen (left) who is being opposed because he represented people accused of crimes. To its credit, the South Carolina Bar Association has stepped forward to denounce the ad as containing “uncivil, misleading political rhetoric.” It is a shameful and shocking ad that attacks the very notion of due process guaranteed by our Constitution. The ad is designed to help Gov. Nikki Haley in her reelection campaign.
The ad proclaims that “Sheheen defended violent criminals who abused women and went to work setting them free.”
Eager to join the mob in attacking these due process values has been the South Carolina Republican party which issued a press release entitled “New Research Shows Vince Sheheen Defended Sex Offenders, Child Molesters, and Spouse Abusers for Pay.” Even Eugene McCarthy would blush at the premise of the campaign: Sheheen should be opposed simply because he agreed to represent those accused of crimes. It states:
Candidate-Vince wants to be governor and wants South Carolinians to entrust him with the oversight of our pardons and parole system, yet lawyer-Vince has proven he will sell out South Carolinas children, women, and victims if it means he can personally cash a paycheck.
But there is a lot more to Vince’s profiting from defending hardened criminals than The State’s recent report indicates.
And South Carolinians deserve to know exactly who Vince Sheheen is and what that means before casting a vote in this year’s general election. Let me walk you through new information that court records has revealed about the kind of work Vince Sheheen does for money.
They then detail with breathless rhetoric how Sheenen was . . . wait for it . . . a criminal defense attorney.
Attacks on this kind are used to deter young lawyers from defending criminal defendants. The message is clear: if you accept an appointment or a client in a criminal case, you will be making yourself ineligible for any public office. Already, the federal and state courts are heavily populated by former prosecutors while few former criminal defense attorneys are even considered for the bench.
The South Carolina Republicans ignore the possibility that some people might actually be innocent and that being accused by the government does not make you guilty. Yet, GOP chairman Matt Moore dismisses any notion that the attack ads raise any issues of “due process or the right to have counsel, . . . It’s about someone who wants to represent South Carolina not standing up for our citizens. He could have stood with abuse victims and exploited children and instead took a paycheck. Vincent Sheheen made a choice that was wrong.” That wrong choice was simply being a criminal defense attorney. Yet, Moore does not think that that has anything to do with the right of counsel.
Of course, those criminal defense attorneys that defended such Republican politicians like Tom DeLay, Ted Stevens, David Vitter, and others presumably are not bottom feeding, corruption loving lawyers.
The RGA Communications Director Gail Gitcho is fueling the anti-lawyer and anti-due process theme: “Actions speak louder than words . . . As he attempts to court voters with ‘tough on crime’ and ‘defender of women’ rhetoric, they should remember Vincent Sheheen has fought for the very same criminals he now decries, not for South Carolina.” Gitcho’s comments are being made (as is this campaign) in the name of all GOP governors from Chris Christie to Bobby Jindal and others. They should all be asked why they have not denounced this campaign and held accountable those who would seek to demonize candidates for simply being defense lawyers. Notably prior and current Republican candidates have represented criminal defendants. Ironically, when Arlen Specter switches parties in 2009, conservatives demanded that his representation of the notorious Ira Einhorn be raised in the campaign.
The South Carolina Bar has taken an apparently unprecedented step and condemned an attack ad. It includes a simple fact sheet with such obvious points that “Lawyers have a professional duty to ensure that justice is not rationed but is available to everyone, a right guaranteed to each of us by the Constitution. It is the job of a criminal defense lawyer to ensure his or her client has a fair trial, not to defend the crime.”
The absence of a national condemnation of this campaign from Republicans is equally astonishing. I realize that politics in this country has become a blind rage from both parties, but there has to be limits. When we start to demonize people for fulfilling constitutional functions, we have descended to a new level of self-destructive, hateful debate. The campaign by the RGA and the South Carolina GOP truly shocks the conscience. The same campaign could have been used against John Adams for representing the British soldiers accused in the Boston massacre. It follows the principle that all is far in love and politics. However, when you start to effectively campaign against core American values of due process and the right to counsel, you have reached lost all sense of propriety and proportion. I am most shocked that GOP lawyers must have played some role in this attack on our profession in the development of the campaign.
The Republican party has strived to convince the public that it is not an extremist or radical organization after being painted by a series of embarrassing candidates in the last election. Yet, many independents are likely to recoil at this crude and thoughtless campaign.
I will leave you with the words of Joseph Welsh who faced Joe McCarthy on June 9, 1954, the 30th day of the Army–McCarthy hearings. Until that day, politicians thought that the public would continue to rally around the attacks on filmmakers and others who were paraded before Congress. However, the public saw for the first time the hatred and ignorance behind these attacks in the televised hearing and they were as repulsed as Welch.
As I watched this disgraceful ad, Welch’s final words seemed all to prophetic and poignant:
“Guest”, where did I say it was alright to vilify the defense attorney (another straw man)? The defense itself may be subject to criticism.
While I agree this case is an unprecedented attack on the right to counsel, I have a query: does the public have a right to assess attorneys standing for political office based on their clientele? If I’m a “mob lawyer” should that matter? What if I represent only insurers and try to beat people out of their legitimate benefits? How about guys like me who handle only plaintiff’s personal injury cases with all the ambulance chasing overlays that involves? Should guys representing the Wall Street banking crowd be compelled to make that fact known to the public? How about folks who represent the interests of our international enemies?
mespo – I do know the Feds got Cutler (think that is his name) off defending the Teflon Don because he was associated with too many mob cases.
No attorney should be just discredited for representing any criminal defendant provided that they maintain their professional ethics. However, I do believe that certain advocacy, for example, public interest law, should be given more credit.
Jeffrey Silberman:
“Given the Professor ‘s moral outrage over such despicable scapegoating of criminal defense attorneys, one can’t help but wonder why he would accept the invitation to appear on Faux News, much less Hannity’s program, …”
***************************
I would think you’d praise Professor Turley for trying to bring civilization to the savages.
Persons like Hannity are not interested in being educated. They pander to their demographic in an effort to boost their ratings. I presume Prof. Turley would not appear on Alex Jones’ program. I put Hannity in the same category.
Annie-huh? It’s ok to vilify defense attorneys as long as they are not running for office?
Who says the GOP is [still] not the “Party of Stupid”?
Did they vilify Zimmerman’s defense attorneys or the ‘defense’ itself? Is Zimmerman’s defense attorney running for a political office?
Jeffrey – you will notice that Bill Clinton signed the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act of 1995 letting oil companies drill royalty free in federal waters. Why should Bundy be any different. His is a renewable resource, oil is not.
Jeffrey-Great point. But I guess the Professor should not go on MSNBC either…you know, with how they vilified Zimmerman’s defense attorneys.
1995 President Bill Clinton signs the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act, letting oil companies drill in federal waters without paying any royalties. More than 1,000 leases omit a promised price trigger, costing billions.
2007 Illinois Sen. Barack Obama introduces the Oil sense (Subsidy Elimination for New Strategies on Energy) Act, which would repeal the depletion allowance and suspend royalty-free leases in the Gulf of Mexico. The bill dies in the Democratic-controlled Senate Finance Committee. A House bill that would have expanded tax credits for renewable energy and energy conservation also dies.
Given the Professor ‘s moral outrage over such despicable scapegoating of criminal defense attorneys, one can’t help but wonder why he would accept the invitation to appear on Faux News, much less Hannity’s program, given that Hannity, et al., routinely engage in such demonizing. Has Turley ever accounted for legitimating the likes of Hannity, who Jon Stewart has recently ridiculed for his support of the freeloading rancher and his refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of the federal government?
Paul Schulte
Dredd – you really have to stop linking to yourself without warning us.
…
================
No I don’t.
BTW how many are in that Romper Room class where “us” is?
Mr Keebler
Not just dems dislike the Koch brothers. So please don’t label them as a target. There are plenty of folks that dislike them.
=================
Yep.
It is just that it is difficult to prosecute one’s drug dealer.
Koch Mafia is but one terrorist cell of Oil-Qaeda, which supplies the drug they imposed on society (The Peak of Sanity).
The drug that kills millions is the camel in the proverbial “you hypocrites strain at a gnat but swallow a camel” (where marijuana is the gnat).
A conundrum was developed in our society when fundamental religion implanted the doctrine or dogma of Armageddon on Western Civilization which eventually corrupted the minds of Oilah Akbar worshipers into fanatical zealots.
You mean Joe McCarthy.
M Hollearn – what are you responding to with your Joe McCarthy response?
Keebler-Your thoughts on George Soros? He’s ok, right?
Not just dems dislike the Koch brothers. So please don’t label them as a target. There are plenty of folks that dislike them.
keebler – you would have to prove to me that blind squirrels find acorns.
Nick,
Please take a time out. No reason to make this personal, you are aware, even a blind squirrel finds acorns.
Lying in an ad is as American as apple pie:
(US v Alvarez, 9th Cir., affirmed by S.Ct.). And as Mike A said, what the ad does is expose the animosity the right-wing has with the U.S. Constitution, especially the 14th Amendment.
This ad was an appeal to the anti-constitutional cultural amygdala which the south has created within their subconscious group-mind over the years.
The ad is an appeal to the base fears, angers, and hatreds infesting the cognition of the right-wing base.
It is an old hatred which grew out of the economic damage induced by the loss of their institution of slavery.
Dredd – you really have to stop linking to yourself without warning us. It is considered good form to say some like “I continue the argument or discussion or read my blog on this at”
Would you like to talk about the fears raised by the Dems about those horrible Koch Bros? This is an old hatred driven by an over-the-hill Senator. Or would you like to talk about the Dems racist dog whistles anytime someone criticizes Obama or his wife?
Annie said: “I have long held the belief that there are those who profess the utmost respect for the Constitution (libertarians and republicans) until push comes to shove. It’s sort of like living ones faith, it’s most difficult to do when it’s against one’s own inclinations. Campaigning may be a dirty low down undertaking, but having standards and principals and sticking to them under duress will be the measure of a man/woman/candidate/ political party.”
I would completely agree with every word of this if you removed your dig at libertarians and republicans. Of course this ad is offensive and ridiculous. We should not demonize criminal defense attorneys. But the some of the same people crowing about this ad were the same people lambasting Zimmerman’s attorneys. Anyone with an even rudimentary understanding of criminal law realized that case was a joke.
The Federalist Papers warned of us of the dangers of factions. It’s taken us almost 250 years but I think we’ve reached the tipping point on this issue. If a member of your “faction” does something it’s ok. But if a member of another “faction” does it, it’s “different” and it’s denounced from the rooftops. It’s a joke. I admire JT a great deal because he does not engage in this type of nonsense. He calls it like he sees it and holds both R’s and D’s to the same standard.
Paul, no you are mistaken. The larger issue is respecting the right of an accused person to a defense, which would encompass the representative, his defense attorney to make a defense in is behalf and NOT then to be demonized as someone who has questionable morals. If our Consitution provides for a defense, it’s constitutional to give one, no?
Annie – we will have to agree to disagree. I think someone got their feelers hurt and is trying to change the subject. I could care one way or another about the content of the ad. It is protected speech. If you remember the last two Presidential campaigns, anyone who attacked Obama was accused of being racist. In fact they still are. I think the Dems took a big hit on this one and are trying to make a comeback.
There is no law that protects defense attorneys from being demonized in political ads.