Is Drew unconcerned about the right to trial?

[Cabe]

In his Paulding.com ad Drew Lane states that Donovan spent "31 years keeping criminals off the streets".

 

The right to a fair trial belongs to each and every American. That's the role of a defense attorney, assuring the defendant gets a fair trial. Is Drew disregarding that right? If it's true that Donovan has kept criminals off the streets for 31 years then that means someone on the prosecution side didn't properly to their job.

[NewsJunky]

In his Paulding.com ad Drew Lane states that Donovan spent "31 years keeping criminals off the streets".

 

The right to a fair trial belongs to each and every American. That's the role of a defense attorney, assuring the defendant gets a fair trial. Is Drew disregarding that right? If it's true that Donovan has kept criminals off the streets for 31 years then that means someone on the prosecution side didn't properly to their job.

 

You know where I stand on the issue of the DA's race. I am going to say that they can both do their jobs and they will both win some and lose some. We have already heard from some P.commers about both of these candidates winning and losing. I do not believe for one second that Drew is disregarding anyone's right to a fair trial.

[Cabe]

You know where I stand on the issue of the DA's race. I am going to say that they can both do their jobs and they will both win some and lose some. We have already heard from some P.commers about both of these candidates winning and losing. I do not believe for one second that Drew is disregarding anyone's right to a fair trial.

 

I do know. However, I just read that portion of the ad for the first time today and it struck a chord with me. I just didn't like the implication at all.

[gpatt0n]

Madea:

 

I'm sure Drew doesn't have any problem whatsoever with counselors for the defense and the right to counsel in a trial.

 

When he references Donovan's 31 years as a defense attorney he is basically reminding voters that career defense attorney's have a mindset that is different than prosecutors, personal injury lawyers and the like.

 

When you realize that those who have been, say a defense attorney for 31 years, you realize that over those three decades they've read articles written to and about defense attorneys; they've attended defense attorney conventions and they've adopted 'defense attorney' attitudes.

 

Do you think that notion that the death penalty is too expensive to use is a common discussion at the convention of district attorney's?

 

I wouldn't think so.

 

Now I would think that defense attorneys have been spreading that message for decades - that the death penalty is too expensive. Their assertion of expense as a reason not to demand the death penalty got its 'poster boy' in Brian Nichols. So guess where that exact argument appears? On DD's site.

 

The point is that DD is a 'defense attorney' and like a tiger, is not likely to change his stripes ... and yes, I'm sure that Donovan got acquittals for some 'guilty as sin' perpetrators on whatever technicality he could muster. And if he didn't when he could, then he provided incompetent counsel.

 

While many prosecutors have some defense counsel experience, typically they don't have a 30+ year career.

 

I mean to change sides at this point is kind of like finding religion.

 

You know, it might be believable that DD really really showed he wanted to put criminals behind bars by doing something dramatic like closing his law office. Otherwise, the decision to switch sides at this time is kind of like a wolf deciding to be a sheep dog. I mean, if he had closed his law office because he was so disgusted with being a defense counsel and swore he would never, ever get someone off for a crime, that would be believable.

 

but when, like Dick, chose to keep his law office open, it is not like he swore off being a defense attorney.

 

I just don't think folks can move back and forth from defender to prosecutor on issues of crime and punishment that easily. Maybe I'm wrong on that but I do not think that even great attorneys can make the switch and be good.

 

pubby

[xjudge98]

Madea:

 

I'm sure Drew doesn't have any problem whatsoever with counselors for the defense and the right to counsel in a trial.

 

When he references Donovan's 31 years as a defense attorney he is basically reminding voters that career defense attorney's have a mindset that is different than prosecutors, personal injury lawyers and the like.

 

When you realize that those who have been, say a defense attorney for 31 years, you realize that over those three decades they've read articles written to and about defense attorneys; they've attended defense attorney conventions and they've adopted 'defense attorney' attitudes.

 

Do you think that notion that the death penalty is too expensive to use is a common discussion at the convention of district attorney's?

 

I wouldn't think so.

 

Now I would think that defense attorneys have been spreading that message for decades - that the death penalty is too expensive. Their assertion of expense as a reason not to demand the death penalty got its 'poster boy' in Brian Nichols. So guess where that exact argument appears? On DD's site.

 

The point is that DD is a 'defense attorney' and like a tiger, is not likely to change his stripes ... and yes, I'm sure that Donovan got acquittals for some 'guilty as sin' perpetrators on whatever technicality he could muster. And if he didn't when he could, then he provided incompetent counsel.

 

While many prosecutors have some defense counsel experience, typically they don't have a 30+ year career.

 

I mean to change sides at this point is kind of like finding religion.

 

You know, it might be believable that DD really really showed he wanted to put criminals behind bars. You know, the decision to switch sides at this time is kind of like a wolf deciding to be a sheep dog. I mean, if he had closed his defense attorney law office because he was so disgusted with defense and defense counsel, and then swore he would never, ever get someone off for a crime, I might believe him.

 

but when, like Dick, chosen to keep your law office open, it is not like you swore off being a defense attorney. I just don't think folks can move back and forth from defender to prosecutor on issues of crime and punishment that easily. Maybe I'm wrong on that but I do not think that even great attorneys can make the switch and be good.

 

pubby

 

Pubby,

 

Sorry to interrupt you again --really don't mean to be argumentative. The position which Mr. Donovan takes on his web site (which has been there for months) on the death penalty is basically the same one taken in a Fulton Daily Report article for tomorrow's edition (although it came out online Friday). The author is Bob Barr, former US Congressman, former United States Attorney (read that "Federal Prosecutor") and also former criminal defense attorney. Certainly, he is a card carrying conservative-- a hero to some conservatives. His point is made in support of Preston Smith's Attorney General campaign, but it is instructive just the same because it sets out in large measure the same rationale expressed by Mr. Donovan. I would urge you and other paulding.com members who are interested in this complex issue to read it, and to read the entire article. I have set it out below, because one cannot get it on the Fulton Daily Report without a subscription.

 

Steve

 

 

Monday, August 09, 2010

Barr: AG race has turned ugly over death penalty

By Bob Barr, Special to the Daily Report

 

Politics has reared its ugly head in the Republican primary runoff for attorney general. This certainly is not surprising, but it is disappointing nonetheless that a candidate for attorney general is being chastised for questioning a measure that would have made it markedly easier than at present to impose the death penalty in Georgia ("Lawyer: Smith blocked death penalty change," Aug. 5). The controversy itself is not new; death penalty proponents in recent years have tried in the Georgia General Assembly to pass legislation giving judges the power to impose a death sentence when as few as nine members of a 12-person jury supported it. This would be a dramatic departure from the centuries-old rule in Georgia and most other states that this most serious and irreversible penalty can be imposed only as a result of a unanimous jury decision. Many lawyers—including me and state Sen. Preston Smith, who is one of two Republican attorney general candidates in the runoff—support the death penalty, but believe also that its use must be carefully considered. We therefore have opposed efforts to cavalierly loosen the circumstances under which this ultimate penalty can be imposed. We do this not because we are "soft" on crime, but because we have high regard for the fairness of the process and understand the finality of the death sentence itself. Unfortunately, some political supporters of Sam Olens—Smith's opponent in the runoff—do not permit such niceties as respect for judicial process and jury unanimity to stand in the way of trying to score political points. Former state Rep. Barry Fleming, himself a lawyer and a supporter of the less-than-unanimous death penalty verdict, is now attacking Smith for his reasoned opposition. The fact of the matter is that to change Georgia's death penalty law as Fleming and Olens propose would move our state from the mainstream and place us in the company of only a handful of other states with a "hybrid" death penalty sentencing system; one that permits judges to substitute their judgment for that of the jury's.The adoption of such a hybrid death penalty sentencing system would precipitate costly and protracted litigation challenging the constitutionality of such policies. Such challenges would likely assert, and I believe correctly so, that the policies violate the Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

 

 

 

Such inevitable litigation would tie up Georgia's death penalty system for years and cause executions to grind to a halt, one of the major reasons for Smith's opposition to the legislation. In addition, these constitutional challenges would effectively "break the bank." It would take millions of taxpayer dollars to pay for the court, prosecution and defense costs associated with resolving the constitutionality of these new death penalty laws. If such laws were held unconstitutional, which is likely, Georgia might see reversals of its death sentences for five to 10 years after the laws took effect. Untold sums of money would be wasted at a time when the state can ill afford it.The law would also undermine our traditional American value of providing a trial by a jury of one's peers, effectively making the judge the trier of fact and diminishing the role and value of juries. This is a strange posture for so-called "conservatives," who often decry "judicial activism," to advocate.The death penalty is the ultimate punishment, and when it is applied—as I and Preston Smith believe it should be in appropriate cases—we should be certain we have made the right decision. Unanimous juries help ensure that our system is fair, accurate and effective. Georgians, especially those of us trained and working in the law, should never, as former state Rep. Fleming has done, permit politics or our feelings about case outcomes to take precedence over sound law.

 

Edited August 8, 2010 by PUBBY
Out of respect for the copyright of Mr. Barr ... although I'm not certain this would be adequate to qualify as fair use.

[tbird]

Pubby---I do have to disagree with you.

 

MOST DA's or ADA's either have done criminal defense work prior to going to the DA's office or they do it after.

 

Most criminal defense attorneys that I know have worked in the DA's office as a prosecuter and they then go to private practice.

 

A lot of ADA's are right out of law school.

[mrshoward]

In his Paulding.com ad Drew Lane states that Donovan spent "31 years keeping criminals off the streets".

 

The right to a fair trial belongs to each and every American. That's the role of a defense attorney, assuring the defendant gets a fair trial. Is Drew disregarding that right? If it's true that Donovan has kept criminals off the streets for 31 years then that means someone on the prosecution side didn't properly to their job.

 

Bazinga !!!

 

[hart408]

Pubby---I do have to disagree with you.

 

MOST DA's or ADA's either have done criminal defense work prior to going to the DA's office or they do it after.

 

Most criminal defense attorneys that I know have worked in the DA's office as a prosecuter and they then go to private practice.

 

A lot of ADA's are right out of law school.

 

Right? I mean you can't really hire your own prosecutor. Common sense would dictate they are either criminal defense attorneys or maybe real estate attorneys or civil attorneys. I think I would pick criminal defense attorney since they do the criminal stuff and all. Jeez.

 

How obtuse is that ad? To me, it shows why we need a new DA. If this is the best he can for his own interests, how well will he represent ours? I haven't seen one solid reason for us to keep digging ourselves a hole. I keep hearing he took over a mess, but he won in 2006 as the incumbent, so he "took over a mess" from himself. How many years is too many years to wait for the mess in the DA's office to be cleaned up?

[tbird]

Right? I mean you can't really hire your own prosecutor. Common sense would dictate they are either criminal defense attorneys or maybe real estate attorneys or civil attorneys. I think I would pick criminal defense attorney since they do the criminal stuff and all. Jeez.

 

How obtuse is that ad? To me, it shows why we need a new DA. If this is the best he can for his own interests, how well will he represent ours? I haven't seen one solid reason for us to keep digging ourselves a hole. I keep hearing he took over a mess, but he won in 2006 as the incumbent, so he "took over a mess" from himself. How many years is too many years to wait for the mess in the DA's office to be cleaned up?

 

 

My thought exactly.

 

I don't know what kind of law Mr. Lane practiced before he got into the DA's office--or if he ever worked in private practice. I haven't wasted my time reading any of his stuff.

 

I certainly know that someone with a criminal defense background would know the job, laws, etc. much better than someone that has practiced real estate or family law for years.

Edited August 8, 2010 by tbird

[NewsJunky]

Pubby,

 

Sorry to interrupt you again --really don't mean to be argumentative. The position which Mr. Donovan takes on his web site (which has been there for months) on the death penalty is basically the same one taken in a Fulton Daily Report article for tomorrow's edition (although it came out online Friday). The author is Bob Barr, former US Congressman, former United States Attorney (read that "Federal Prosecutor") and also former criminal defense attorney. Certainly, he is a card carrying conservative-- a hero to some conservatives. His point is made in support of Preston Smith's Attorney General campaign, but it is instructive just the same because it sets out in large measure the same rationale expressed by Mr. Donovan. I would urge you and other paulding.com members who are interested in this complex issue to read it, and to read the entire article. I have set it out below, because one cannot get it on the Fulton Daily Report without a subscription.

 

Steve

 

 

Monday, August 09, 2010

Barr: AG race has turned ugly over death penalty

By Bob Barr, Special to the Daily Report

 

Politics has reared its ugly head in the Republican primary runoff for attorney general. This certainly is not surprising, but it is disappointing nonetheless that a candidate for attorney general is being chastised for questioning a measure that would have made it markedly easier than at present to impose the death penalty in Georgia ("Lawyer: Smith blocked death penalty change," Aug. 5).

 

 

The controversy itself is not new; death penalty proponents in recent years have tried in the Georgia General Assembly to pass legislation giving judges the power to impose a death sentence when as few as nine members of a 12-person jury supported it. This would be a dramatic departure from the centuries-old rule in Georgia and most other states that this most serious and irreversible penalty can be imposed only as a result of a unanimous jury decision. Many lawyers—including me and state Sen. Preston Smith, who is one of two Republican attorney general candidates in the runoff—support the death penalty, but believe also that its use must be carefully considered. We therefore have opposed efforts to cavalierly loosen the circumstances under which this ultimate penalty can be imposed. We do this not because we are "soft" on crime, but because we have high regard for the fairness of the process and understand the finality of the death sentence itself. Unfortunately, some political supporters of Sam Olens—Smith's opponent in the runoff—do not permit such niceties as respect for judicial process and jury unanimity to stand in the way of trying to score political points. Former state Rep. Barry Fleming, himself a lawyer and a supporter of the less-than-unanimous death penalty verdict, is now attacking Smith for his reasoned opposition. The fact of the matter is that to change Georgia's death penalty law as Fleming and Olens propose would move our state from the mainstream and place us in the company of only a handful of other states with a "hybrid" death penalty sentencing system; one that permits judges to substitute their judgment for that of the jury's.The adoption of such a hybrid death penalty sentencing system would precipitate costly and protracted litigation challenging the constitutionality of such policies. Such challenges would likely assert, and I believe correctly so, that the policies violate the Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Such inevitable litigation would tie up Georgia's death penalty system for years and cause executions to grind to a halt, one of the major reasons for Smith's opposition to the legislation. In addition, these constitutional challenges would effectively "break the bank." It would take millions of taxpayer dollars to pay for the court, prosecution and defense costs associated with resolving the constitutionality of these new death penalty laws. If such laws were held unconstitutional, which is likely, Georgia might see reversals of its death sentences for five to 10 years after the laws took effect. Untold sums of money would be wasted at a time when the state can ill afford it.The law would also undermine our traditional American value of providing a trial by a jury of one's peers, effectively making the judge the trier of fact and diminishing the role and value of juries. This is a strange posture for so-called "conservatives," who often decry "judicial activism," to advocate.The death penalty is the ultimate punishment, and when it is applied—as I and Preston Smith believe it should be in appropriate cases—we should be certain we have made the right decision. Unanimous juries help ensure that our system is fair, accurate and effective. Georgians, especially those of us trained and working in the law, should never, as former state Rep. Fleming has done, permit politics or our feelings about case outcomes to take precedence over sound law.

 

 

You did not win any points with me by quoting Bob Barr or in your promotion of Preston Smith. I would not vote for either.

Edited August 8, 2010 by PUBBY
Copyright concerns/hidden text/effort at fair use

[xjudge98]

You did not win any points with me by quoting Bob Barr or in your promotion of Preston Smith. I would not vote for either.

 

 

Understood News Junky. But it's the well-reasoned comment and not the proponent which I think is important. Hope someone reading the post would not assess the quoted article (or me) based on the identity of the quoted writer, but rather on the content and the expression. I am not meaning to identify myself personally with either Mr. Barr or Mr. Smith, and I, of course, do not speak officially for Mr. Donovan.

 

Steve

[gpatt0n]

Pubby,

 

Sorry to interrupt you again --really don't mean to be argumentative. The position which Mr. Donovan takes on his web site (which has been there for months) on the death penalty is basically the same one taken in a Fulton Daily Report article for tomorrow's edition (although it came out online Friday). The author is Bob Barr, former US Congressman, former United States Attorney (read that "Federal Prosecutor") and also former criminal defense attorney. Certainly, he is a card carrying conservative-- a hero to some conservatives. His point is made in support of Preston Smith's Attorney General campaign, but it is instructive just the same because it sets out in large measure the same rationale expressed by Mr. Donovan. I would urge you and other paulding.com members who are interested in this complex issue to read it, and to read the entire article. I have set it out below, because one cannot get it on the Fulton Daily Report without a subscription.

 

Steve

 

 

Actually, Steve, I agree with Mr. Barr, obviously you and Dick Donovan on this particular point. Further, I would think it a travesty to impose the death penalty without unanimous decision of a jury. I actually have concerns about voir dire that allow the jury to be 'death penalty qualified.'

 

If you've read all my comments on this, I stated that one reason I don't endorse Drew Lane is because I do feel differently than he does on this issue and that DD's position is actually closer to mine.

 

My point in the above post was not to criticize DD on his position on the death penalty but rather suggest that it was one more commonly held by those with 30+ year careers as defense attorneys than those who, while they may have some experience as defense attorneys, chose to become career prosecutors.

 

I see Mr. Olens and Mr. Flemming's efforts to lower the requirement of a unanimous jury to enact the death penalty typical of bureaucrats seeking more power over their fellow man ... which is in my opinion a specific expansion of government power which, in my opinion, is antithetical to any philosophy of smaller, less intrusive government.

 

I will be supporting Preston Smith for AG in the runoff for this reason.

 

And, to those from CeeJay to Tbird ... I recognize that attorneys may spend two, three, maybe four years as a defense attorney or even as an ADA ... without that choice being branded as a career. Drew has been a DA and an ADA for close to 15 years and Dick, a defense attorney for 31+ years. Those are career choices.

 

My point is that we should not confuse career experiences designed to gain additional professionalism with true, life-defining career choices.

 

pubby

[xjudge98]

Actually, Steve, I agree with Mr. Barr, obviously you and Dick Donovan on this particular point. Further, I would think it a travesty to impose the death penalty without unanimous decision of a jury. I actually have concerns about voir dire that allow the jury to be 'death penalty qualified.'

 

If you've read all my comments on this, I stated that one reason I don't endorse Drew Lane is because I do feel differently than he does on this issue and that DD's position is actually closer to mine.

 

My point in the above post was not to criticize DD on his position on the death penalty but rather suggest that it was one more commonly held by those with 30+ year careers as defense attorneys than those who, while they may have some experience as defense attorneys, chose to become career prosecutors.

 

I see Mr. Olens and Mr. Flemming's efforts to lower the requirement of a unanimous jury to enact the death penalty typical of bureaucrats seeking more power over their fellow man ... which is in my opinion a specific expansion of government power which, in my opinion, is antithetical to any philosophy of smaller, less intrusive government.

 

I will be supporting Preston Smith for AG in the runoff for this reason.

 

And, to those from CeeJay to Tbird ... I recognize that attorneys may spend two, three, maybe four years as a defense attorney or even as an ADA ... without that choice being branded as a career. Drew has been a DA and an ADA for close to 15 years and Dick, a defense attorney for 31+ years. Those are career choices.

 

My point is that we should not confuse career experiences designed to gain additional professionalism with true, life-defining career choices.

 

pubby

 

Understood. And this post was certainly less confrontational than the one before it, which is good. You and I need to talk more often.

 

Steve

[Cabe]

Quite frankly, while some on this very board argued against the money spent on Nichols death penalty trial, I supported every dollar. If Nichols had walked without the death penalty with the overwhelming evidence against him, I don't think you would ever see a death penalty case in GA again.

[solosoul]

Madea:

 

I'm sure Drew doesn't have any problem whatsoever with counselors for the defense and the right to counsel in a trial.

 

When he references Donovan's 31 years as a defense attorney he is basically reminding voters that career defense attorney's have a mindset that is different than prosecutors, personal injury lawyers and the like.

 

When you realize that those who have been, say a defense attorney for 31 years, you realize that over those three decades they've read articles written to and about defense attorneys; they've attended defense attorney conventions and they've adopted 'defense attorney' attitudes.

 

Do you think that notion that the death penalty is too expensive to use is a common discussion at the convention of district attorney's?

 

I wouldn't think so.

 

Which is why no one is paying you think.

 

Now I would think that defense attorneys have been spreading that message for decades - that the death penalty is too expensive. Their assertion of expense as a reason not to demand the death penalty got its 'poster boy' in Brian Nichols. So guess where that exact argument appears? On DD's site.

 

The point is that DD is a 'defense attorney' and like a tiger, is not likely to change his stripes ... and yes, I'm sure that Donovan got acquittals for some 'guilty as sin' perpetrators on whatever technicality he could muster. And if he didn't when he could, then he provided incompetent counsel.

 

While many prosecutors have some defense counsel experience, typically they don't have a 30+ year career.

 

I mean to change sides at this point is kind of like finding religion.

 

You know, it might be believable that DD really really showed he wanted to put criminals behind bars by doing something dramatic like closing his law office. Otherwise, the decision to switch sides at this time is kind of like a wolf deciding to be a sheep dog. I mean, if he had closed his law office because he was so disgusted with being a defense counsel and swore he would never, ever get someone off for a crime, that would be believable.

 

but when, like Dick, chose to keep his law office open, it is not like he swore off being a defense attorney.

 

I just don't think folks can move back and forth from defender to prosecutor on issues of crime and punishment that easily. Maybe I'm wrong on that but I do not think that even great attorneys can make the switch and be good.

 

pubby

[CFunK]

Madea:

 

You know, it might be believable that DD really really showed he wanted to put criminals behind bars by doing something dramatic like closing his law office.

 

He did the fact he was a police officer escape you?

 

-Funk

[mei lan]

Right? I mean you can't really hire your own prosecutor. Common sense would dictate they are either criminal defense attorneys or maybe real estate attorneys or civil attorneys. I think I would pick criminal defense attorney since they do the criminal stuff and all. Jeez.

 

Well, actually, you can hire your own prosecutor if you think the DA's office isn't doing a good enough job. I don't know how one would go about it, but I know of a case a number of years ago in another county where the father of the victim hired an attorney to make SURE of a conviction (which he got). Not saying most would, or even could afford to...just sayin'.

[FreeBird]

I guess that I always thought that Lane was concerned with keeping cases out of the courtroom and was highly likely to work out a plea in cases.

 

It would be interesting to know the percentage of cases presented to the DA's office actually made it to trial as well as the number that were bargained down to reduced charges.

[gpatt0n]

He did the fact he was a police officer escape you?

 

-Funk

 

That was more than 32 years ago. It really wasn't a career ... he left it to become a lawyer and used his experience as a police officer to help those clients accused of criminal acts to get off.

 

pubby

[Cathyhelms]

That was more than 32 years ago. It really wasn't a career ... he left it to become a lawyer and used his experience as a police officer to help those clients accused of criminal acts to get off.

 

pubby

How long was he on the police force??? I think things have changed a lot in the last 32 years, especially here in Georgia.

[CFunK]

That doesn't diminish the fact that he did put criminals behind bars.

 

-Funk

[LisaC]

Maybe I see this differently because I've worked in a big law firm for so many years, but it isn't unusual to see someone jump sides in the legal profession. We've had a few former U.S. Attorneys and others from the Department of Justice come to work here and we've had some leave here to go to work there. I've also seen former police officers go to work for criminal defense firms as investigators and former DA's go back into private practice after they've left office.

[AcworthDad]

I guess that I always thought that Lane was concerned with keeping cases out of the courtroom and was highly likely to work out a plea in cases.

 

It would be interesting to know the percentage of cases presented to the DA's office actually made it to trial as well as the number that were bargained down to reduced charges.

 

That was exactly what happened with my case and both you and I know that the guilty party should have been tried, had his licence revoked for life and been thrown in jail for around 10 years.

[Cabe]

That was more than 32 years ago. It really wasn't a career ... he left it to become a lawyer and used his experience as a police officer to help those clients accused of criminal acts to get off.

 

pubby

 

There you go with that Drew Lane line of thought again.

[peachesga]

don't think folks can move back and forth from defender to prosecutor on issues of crime and punishment that easily.......I do not think that even great attorneys can make the switch and be good.

 

pubby

 

I TOTALLY disagree. Some of the best prosecutors are former defense attorneys.

 

Well, actually, you can hire your own prosecutor if you think the DA's office isn't doing a good enough job.

 

Uh, no you can't.

[eym_sirius]

In his Paulding.com ad Drew Lane states that Donovan spent "31 years keeping criminals off the streets".

 

The right to a fair trial belongs to each and every American. That's the role of a defense attorney, assuring the defendant gets a fair trial. Is Drew disregarding that right? If it's true that Donovan has kept criminals off the streets for 31 years then that means someone on the prosecution side didn't properly to their job.

 

I think that you misquoted him, Madea. It was ON the streets, not OFF.

 

Unless you're saying that Donovan did such a crappy job defending his clients that he got 'em all sent to jail ("off the streets").

 

 

I think you meant "on", but you can clear that up. My impression was that Donovan was a defense attorney and would not want his clients "off the streets" aka "in jail".

[Mason Rountree]

Pubby,

 

The author is Bob Barr, former US Congressman, former United States Attorney (read that "Federal Prosecutor") and also former criminal defense attorney. Certainly, he is a card carrying conservative-- a hero to some conservatives.

 

Steve

 

 

 

Bob Barr does not consider himself a Republican any longer, much less a conservative. In fact, he ran for US President as the Libertarian Candidate in 2008 - not exactly a darling of the conservative movement. He also currently practices criminal defense law in GA. I understand your point in a later post of this thread that it should be the substance of the article and not the credentials of the writer; however, Bob Barr receives significant print coverage because of his credentials and current/former associations, not because his ideas are original. They certainly are persuasive, though.

[Cabe]

I think that you misquoted him, Madea. It was ON the streets, not OFF.

 

Unless you're saying that Donovan did such a crappy job defending his clients that he got 'em all sent to jail ("off the streets").

 

 

I think you meant "on", but you can clear that up. My impression was that Donovan was a defense attorney and would not want his clients "off the streets" aka "in jail".

 

You are correct. I stand corrected.

[tbird]

That was more than 32 years ago. It really wasn't a career ... he left it to become a lawyer and used his experience as a police officer to help those clients accused of criminal acts to get off.

 

pubby

 

 

We have an attorney in our office that was a former police officer. In fact, his first wife died and he supported himself and his very young daughter and put himself thru law school while a police officer. And yes--it helps him with his criminal cases--especially the police brutality ones. He is one of the few attorneys around here that will take a brutality case.

[hart408]

Uh, no you can't.

 

If I were a criminal and could hire a prosecutor, I would have to go with Drew Lane. lol. I might never go to trial that way and have my charges reduced enough to make my crime pay!

[workingforaliving]

If I were a criminal and could hire a prosecutor, I would have to go with Drew Lane. lol. I might never go to trial that way and have my charges reduced enough to make my crime pay!

And see, if I were trying to hire an attorney, as a defendant.....oh wait....crap. I DID hire Donovan....and then fired him because he didn't do his damn job.

 

See...I can play too!

[CFunK]

I hired Mr. Donovan, he did his damn job with my case and justice was served.

 

That was petty, but I had to.

 

-Funk

[workingforaliving]

I hired Mr. Donovan, he did his damn job with my case and justice was served.

 

That was petty, but I had to.

 

-Funk

Did you find out in August that he didn't file paperwork that was due in March?

 

Did he belittle and humiliate you as you were leaving the courthouse?

 

Did he then threaten you when you dared to tell others about his gross mishandling of a client/case?

 

Because he did all these things...and more...to me.

[xjudge98]

Did you find out in August that he didn't file paperwork that was due in March?

 

Did he belittle and humiliate you as you were leaving the courthouse?

 

Did he then threaten you when you dared to tell others about his gross mishandling of a client/case?

 

Because he did all these things...and more...to me.

 

 

You ARE a good player, Waffle. You can be my friend, even though you don't like my other friend. I like your other friend.

 

Steve

[workingforaliving]

You ARE a good player, Waffle. You can be my friend, even though you don't like my other friend. I like your other friend.

 

Steve

I could count on one hand the number of people I dislike in this world

 

I appreciate that you can be involved in a discussion and not get your feelings hurt when people have a different opinion.

 

At the end of the day, who you vote for is a personal decision....but it's necessary to be informed about WHO you are voting for.

[hart408]

And see, if I were trying to hire an attorney, as a defendant.....oh wait....crap. I DID hire Donovan....and then fired him because he didn't do his damn job.

 

See...I can play too!

 

I wish it were that easy to get rid of a DA. Instead we have to have a battle of the words to try to influence other adults when we both KNOW people are just going to vote for whomever goes to their church or lives down the street from their cousin.

 

I have a feeling you don't really give a flip about Lane either way, you are just xxxx-blocking Donovan. haha

[CFunK]

Did you find out in August that he didn't file paperwork that was due in March? - Nope

 

Did he belittle and humiliate you as you were leaving the courthouse? - Nope

 

Did he then threaten you when you dared to tell others about his gross mishandling of a client/case? - Nope

 

Because he did all these things...and more...to me. - Sorry to hear that.

[Georgia Dawg]

A mindset?

And to think some Democrats were actually wanting to put an ambulance chasing lawyer and his $400 haircut in the Oval Office.

 

As far as Drew being unconcerned about a right to trial, maybe not, but it's difficult to argue that he supports the right to a 'speedy' trial based on his backlog of cases.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Georgia Dawg

[gpatt0n]

A mindset?

And to think some Democrats were actually wanting to put an ambulance chasing lawyer and his $400 haircut in the Oval Office.

 

As far as Drew being unconcerned about a right to trial, maybe not, but it's difficult to argue that he supports the right to a 'speedy' trial based on his backlog of cases.

 

where did you hear the allegation of a vast backlog of cases?

 

It wasn't from the clerk of the superior court. It wasn't in documentation filed with the administrative offices of the Georgia Courts; it wasn't even in a release from the District Attorney or his association.

 

So where did it come from?

 

It is an undocumented allegation of a 64 year-old person who had to come up with something to base his campaign upon.

 

There is ample evidence that the figures mentioned were 'invented,' as is the allegation that courtrooms are dark.

 

Fact is you are basing your assertion and belief on a campaign ad that is based, most likely, on the results of a survey of what would get the man elected.

 

I mean, if there is an issue in Paulding is that, according to the formula for rural judicial districts, the caseload for civil cases alone would fill every courtroom from dawn to dusk. the plain fact is that based on case load, the Paulding Judicial district should have something on the order of eight superior court judges; not three.

 

If there is the bottle neck in the local courts, it is in the number of judges available to hear cases; not a lack of pursuit of justice by the sitting District Attorney.

 

Oh, and the issues that confront the court today will continue to confront the court after the election.

 

What few seem to recognize is that the disruption that would be caused by the election of Dick Donovan to the DA's office will likely make things worse - a lot worse. And, because he is 64, by about the time things recover, he'll be looking to retire permanently, creating a whole new wave of disruption.

 

As a taxpayer interested in the efficient administration of justice, we'd all be better off letting Drew remain in office and consider hiring a younger man four years hence.

 

Dick, for a variety of reasons - disrespect for the first amendment, disrespect for people in general and a temperament more fitting a crotchety 84 year old - means he is just not the man for the job.

 

pubby

[tbird]

Did you find out in August that he didn't file paperwork that was due in March?

 

Did he belittle and humiliate you as you were leaving the courthouse?

 

Did he then threaten you when you dared to tell others about his gross mishandling of a client/case?

 

Because he did all these things...and more...to me.

 

 

My first question would be why did you hire somebody that has a specialty of criminal law to handle a family law case??? Yes, he does handle some family law, but not his specialty. Sort of like going to the dentist for a heart attack--both Dr.'s, but they each have their specialty.

 

Even before I worked in the legal field--when I needed a child support attorney--I went for one that pretty much only did family law. Common sense.

Edited August 10, 2010 by tbird