There is an interesting story that has been raging on conservative sites on the Internet but suddenly popped up on national television in a CNN interview. Conservatives are criticizing CNN host Carol Costello for abruptly ending a segment on Tuesday after a guest raised Hillary Clinton’s 1975 legal defense of an accused child rapist. I recently condemned an attack ad against Judge Jane Kelly (a widely respected former public defender) for representing a criminal defendant. The attack on Clinton is equally low grade and unfair.
The case involved the defense of a man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl in 1975. Clinton was a court-appointed attorney for Thomas Alfred Taylor, a 41-year-old accused of raping the child after luring her into a car. The suggestion of critics is that such people should not have court-appointed counsel or more importantly lawyers should not represent them (or face condemnation decades later).
The story drew life from the release of taped interviews where Clinton discusses the case and says that she used a a legal technicality to plead her client, who faced 30 years to life in prison, down to a lesser charge.
Hillary Rodham was just 27 when she moved to Fayetteville and was running the University of Arkansas’ legal aid clinic. Her work at the clinic is highly commendable and this is a standard request for such legal aid lawyers. Clinton later described it as “a fascinating case . . . a very interesting case.”
I think the thrust of the criticism of Clinton is unfair and inimical to the rule of law. It is impossible to believe in the rule of law without accepting core principles of the right to counsel and due process. This attack seeks to demonize lawyers for simply defending accused persons.
There is one aspect of the interview that does frankly bother me. Clinton says “I had him take a polygraph, which he passed – which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.” She also seems to suggest that Taylor was saved by the fact that the crime lab accidentally destroyed DNA evidence that tied Taylor to the crime. I find that problematic, particularly in suggesting that a polygraph supporting a former client was clearly wrong — and that he was by extension clearly guilty. Clinton could defend these words by noting that Taylor did plead guilty and thus she is not sharing anything confidential.
The former prosecutor has supported Clinton and tried to explain (what should be obvious) that this is a duty of lawyers, particularly when court-appointed. Indeed, the litigation experience of Clinton is a strength in my view to her qualifications as someone who have been exposed (even if on a limited basis) to the criminal justice system.
There is a particularly criticism of a July 28, 1975 court affidavit where Clinton wrote that she had been informed the young girl was “emotionally unstable” and had a “tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing.” However, the job of defense counsel is to challenge opposing witnesses including the accuser. They have a right to make such challenges in asserting their innocence. Clinton did precisely that in objection that the child had “in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body” and that the girl “exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”
She also challenged the “evidentiary value of semen and blood samples collected by the sheriff’s office” by questioning the chain of custody — a standard, if not uniform, attack for defense counsel in such cases.
She told the interviewers that her client “plea bargained. Got him off with time served in the county jail, he’d been in the county jail for about two months.”
In the end, Taylor pleaded to unlawful fondling of a chid and was sentenced to one year in prison,with two months reduced for time served. He died in 1992.
This is a case of a court-appointed attorney performing the most important function of an attorney in representing an accused person in a heinous crime. She clearly do so zealously and effectively as she sworn to do in taking an oath as a lawyer. There are many criticisms of Clinton that have been discussed on this blog. I have often joined in that criticism over such things as the refusal to release the transcripts from Clinton’s speeches. However, this is one criticism that is, in my view, beyond the pale — even in this poisonous political environment.
You can listen to the tape here.
KCF nails it. JT is an attorney and therefore has a hard time differentiating between being an attorney and BEING A FREAKIN’ HUMAN W/ EMPATHY! It is the sheer glee this sociopath expressed in what she did that is telling. I have worked in the justice system for 40 years. I get the right to counsel and I abide it. I don’t abide spiking the football in doing something like this.
Platos Caves,
I watched the videos. Sanders is no different than the rest of them. Since his inception into Congress or politics, per se, Sanders still haven’t made veterans a priority in any major legislative act of Congress. It’s one of the reasons why I have never voted. You have a greater chance of winning the lottery than having caring politicians create legislation to help homeless veterans & children in America.
http://www.newsweek.com/child-homelessness-us-reaches-historic-high-report-says-285052
‘One out of every 30 children in the U.S. experienced homelessness last year. That makes nearly 2.5 million children who, in 2013, lived in shelters, on the streets, in cars, on campgrounds or doubled up with other families in tight quarters, often moving from one temporary solution to another, according to “America’s Youngest Outcasts,” a report published Monday by the the National Center on Family Homelessness at the American Institutes for Research.’
Her error was not in defending a man she knew was guilty, but in her callous discussion and laughter about the case years later, revealing her to be a truly awful person.
She wasn’t taped talking shop with another lawyer; she knew this was a public interview.
No aknowledgement of the victim, except to blame her.
It’s a bit fascinating to see a sociopath when she speaks freely, unaware that her words are reptilian rather than human.
She learned over time to keep that sort of thing in check.
But here it was in full solipsistic display.
That’s why she doesn’t want it discussed, not because she did what lawyers must do, but because it revealed her lack of a conscience.
Voluntarily defended someone she knew was guilty of rape.
Wait til you get charged with some crime.
We want a President who has tried some cases. Not some law prof from Harvard and Yale.
Hillary is a habitual liar, either by commission or omission. This case may have been where Hillary learned to handle all those Bimbo Eruptions.
If she is going to claim she is a defender of women it is only fair that she have to answer for her attacks on women. Particularly the long list of women that have accused her husband to be a Sexual Predator
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/20/exclusive-hillary-clinton-took-me-through-hell-rape-victim-says.html
Full write up here
I vaguely remember hearing the tape. If I’m not mistaken she was bragging and she even laughed over the situation. It’s her character in question. I have to do unpleasant things at my work. I’ve had to make serious decisions that will impact a peoples’ lives. I do not brag, I do not laugh, I do not call it a victory.
She should not be judged by doing her job. I agree.
I just listened to the tape. Hillary was clearly laughing at the incompetence of the overall investigation. She was in no way laughing at the victim. The victim wasn’t even discussed. She joked that her confidence in polygraphs was destroyed when she learned that her clearly guilty client – who plead guilty – was able to pass the lie detector test. She also laughed at the unbelievable incompetence of the crime lab. They took the perp’s underpants, cut out the piece with a blood stain for testing, then threw the piece away and mailed the underwear with a hole in them back to her. Since the crime lab had thrown away the tested piece, there was no evidence against her client. Hence he pled to one-year in jail.
The only ethically questionable part was when she told the prosecutor that she had a blood stain expert in NY ready to testify on behalf of her client. In fact, she did have the expert examine the underwear with the hole, but he told her there was no blood on them. So she bluffed the prosecutor, but he didn’t have much of a case anyway since his crime lab had tossed the evidence.
So all-in-all, Clinton was just recounting the story of a 27 year-old lawyer having an eye-opening experience with the utterly inept legal system in rural Arkansas.
I’ve largely stopped commenting on this blog; the comments have become too stupid and hostile. But I’ll take the bait this time. I remember reading a book in law school by Joseph Wambaugh called “The Blooding”. It was a fascinating true crime story based in the UK and went into great detail about the first forensic use of DNA in a criminal investigation. The year this took place I believe was 1985 or 1986. Any conversation about DNA accidentally being destroyed in the 70’s is pure BS. They weren’t testing for anything at the time other than blood type or the presence of semen. I was fortunate enough to practice at the student legal clinic at Tulane defending criminal cases (albeit in juvenile court) and I consider her work the to be more than admirable. It’s too bad she doesn’t see to. But then Clinton is hopelessly, habitually, full of crap. You don’t apologize for being a zealous advocate for your clients. I wonder if she’s ever held an opinion in her life that she couldn’t be pushed off of after reading the morning polls. You know who had police and prosecutors, the fair haired boys of the legal system? Hitler, Pol Pot, Mussolini, and every other sh## stain dictator to grace the Earth. You know what they didn’t have? Actual defense attorneys for the accused. And the sad thing is I’ll probably vote for her. I understand the attack against her is coming from a bunch of partisan mouth-breathers, but jeez lady, stick to your guns for once.
RWL that vdeo is good, but this Tulsi video is really moving too https://youtu.be/7QEy0mxfFaM
EWL I agree that the treatment of veterans is the worst example of the hypocrisy of politicians who say they care about us and really only care about their wealthy donors. I remember when I was protesting before the Iraq War, the protesters were outraged that even as Congress was trying to drag us into war – they were CUTTING Veteran’s benefits! I Think Trump is an silly egomania, but even he (not owned by Corporate donors) suggested the disgraceful failure of the VA be immediately remedied by putting Veterans on Medicare.
The good new is Sanders Medicare-for-all would solve that problem too. I had given up on politics (I’m 61) but I am now hopeful again. The media wants us to believe he can’t win, but his numbers are rising and Clinton’s falling as people learn more, And superdelgates will have to face, as the FBI revealed today, her investigations will not be wrapped up before the convention. Will Democrats really take that risk? Have you seen Veteran and Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard’s video for Sanders? https://youtu.be/2UM8F4EuUbw
I have no problem with what she did to defend her client. That’s her job it’s how the system works.
BUT LAUGHING AND BRAGGING ABOUT IT, KNOWING THIS YOUNG GIRL WAS SHATTERED?! I know people in these hard jobs sometimes exhibit gallows humor, but Mr. Turley is her attitude common?! It’s appalling she expresses no regret or sympathy for what happened to the victim.
This is exactly my problem with Hillary and her endless scandals, she smiles and says she cares about people, but everything she does is about her own ego and ambition.
Platos Cave,
I have to admit this: she will make a perfect Politician/President of the USA (she will fit right in). Look at how our ‘elected’ (or selected) leaders are currently treating our young men and women in the military:
http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/veterans.html
23% of homeless population are veterans
33% of male homeless population are veterans
47% Vietnam Era
17% post-Vietnam
15% pre-Vietnam
67% served three or more years
33% stationed in war zone
25% have used VA Homeless Services
85% completed high school/GED, compared to 56% of non-veterans
89% received Honorable Discharge
79% reside in central cities
16% reside in suburban areas
5% reside in rural areas
76% experience alcohol, drug, or mental health problems
46% white males compared to 34% non-veterans
46% age 45 or older compared to 20% non-veterans
‘Far too many veterans are homeless in America—between 130,000 and 200,000 on any given night—representing between one fourth and one-fifth of all homeless people. Three times that many veterans are struggling with excessive rent burdens and thus at increased risk of homelessness.
Further, there is concern about the future. Women veterans and those with disabilities including post traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury are more likely to become homeless, and a higher percentage of veterans returning from the current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have these characteristics.’
‘The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs estimates that 131,000 veterans are homeless on any given night [1]. And approximately twice that many experience homelessness over the course of a year. Conservatively, one out of every three homeless men who is sleeping in a doorway, alley or box in our cities and rural communities has put on a uniform and served this country.’
‘Approximately 40% of homeless men are veterans, although veterans comprise only 34% of the general adult male population. The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans estimates that on any given night, 200,000 veterans are homeless, and 400,000 veterans will experience homelessness during the course of a year (National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, 2006). 97% of those homeless veterans will be male (Department of Veterans Affairs, 2008). ‘
Tin,
Mrs. Clinton showed lack of professionalism by commenting on the case, as JT pointed out. Please read the paragraph by JT, starting with ‘There is one aspect of the interview….,,,’
Also, it shows her character: cold hearted. Knowing if that was her daughter,…,….but since she isn’t….let’s get the man off in less than 18 months, making my plea bargaining numbers look good to other potential employers….aka private law firms, etc.
I should also add that I am not happy with the judge and the prosecutor for letting this happen. Was the pervert related to the judge, Clintons, prosecutor or someone well known in the area?
I guess I am more than a little beat down from “Religious Freedom” Laws, for who from whom? Men not medically trained deciding what is best for my body. The legal rights of citizens are to be vigorously advocated for except when it is someone “not worthy” Police Officers referring guilt on those who exercise their right to counsel before being interviewed/interrogated. Those same Officers invoking that same privilege for themselves or loved ones knowing its the right thing to do. The Clintons have some self inflicted wounds but as someone young enough and old enough to have watched their public life, there is nothing either of them can do to change the opinions built upon over the years. SCOTUS says racism is over and no legal protections are needed to safeguard the franchise; the right to vote that so many marched and died for. Its wishful thinking at best at worst we get hundreds of thousands of people unable to participate in the formation of their Government. Defense Attorneys especially those working for the poor try to give some simulance(?) of balance to an unequal therefore unjust system called “The Best in the World” by us!
We are faced with worldwide economic slowdown, The Middle East in flames, Europe is on the brink of collapse and this comes up. Glad to see the CNN host cut things off as she did. We want to live in a Country that Lawyers have the freedom to do justice as best as they can. I want all of you who want to question what Hillary Did to look up the name Nasrin Soutodeh who spent years in prison for simply doing her job–and I was proud to do my small part to help keep her name in the news….I can’t still shake off when her family went to see her in prison and how as she led away she had to be witness to the tears of her young children and the notations from her husband on Facebook. Let’s make sure we keep perspective….
Correction: I was responding to RWL’s comment.
I think the best test of an attorney’s character and professionalism is his or her willingness to defend someone who is reviled. That shows a true commitment to the rule of law – that everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense. It’s easy to represent someone who is popular or sympathetic. It takes mettle to defend someone who is despised.
As for JT’s comment, that if he were the child’s father, that he would have bailed the perv out and taken matters into his own hands, please remember the Hillary was the lawyer, not the parent. Two entirely different roles.
JT,
You are going to catch hell on this post. Please take it down! Less than 18 months in jail for sexually assaulting or statutory rape of a 12 year old girl? Then, Mrs. Clinton makes that statement about the case?!?!?!?!? Are you kidding me?!?!?!? If I was the girl’s father, I would’ve posted his bail, and then gave him a chance to meet his maker much sooner than 1992!