Paul Ford with Jason

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[112885]

112885 Posts in 8614 Topics by 4618 Members
Latest Member: garrymoore

[Krissy]

I remember watching Ford's interactions with Jason in the film. I noticed how Jason didn't say much at all. He would hunch over and hunker down a lot. When he spoke, he was inarticulate (even for someone so young). My impression was he seemed guilty based on body language. I'm not saying he was guilty, just judging by his body language, he appeared guilty.

Do you believe Ford knew he was guilty? I've heard some of the best defense attorneys never ask their clients if they are guilty. They say it is not their place to judge them, but to provide fair representation. Do you think this was the case here?

Also, it seemed Ford wanted Jason to be tried separately from Damien. Any thoughts on why?

Thanks,
Krissy

[auburnesq]

Do you believe Ford knew he was guilty? I've heard some of the best defense attorneys never ask their clients if they are guilty. They say it is not their place to judge them, but to provide fair representation. Do you think this was the case here?

I can't speak for Ford, but I can say that most defense attorneys I know and have worked with assume the client is guilty. Quite honestly, most of the time they are. Defendants that go to trial either insist on their innocence (which may sometimes be the case), have a good or at least workable defense or have a butt load of money and take it to trial anyway.  An attorney can advise a client on the best course of action, but if a client insists on taking something to trial and the atty knows the client is guilty, the atty has two choices - go to trial or withdraw.

Also, it seemed Ford wanted Jason to be tried separately from Damien. Any thoughts on why?

I believe that Ford thought that it was his best chance for an acquittal. Jason, for the most part kept his mouth shut and never took the stand, so the prosecution never got a chance to cross examine him or impeach him. The lack of a cross examination coupled with Jesse's refusal to testify gave Jason the strongest defense in my opinion. The defense had a greater chance of constructing plausable explainations for things (such as his confession) which is turn increased the chances of one or two jurors finding reasonable doubt. I also believe that distancing him from Damien in the eyes of the jury would have been a helpful tactic.

[Fwarm]

Ford in PL asked Jason if he would find Damien guilty if he were part of the Jury and Jason said that he would have. Ford responded the he thought he would too. I don't know what Ford thought of Jason but he thought Damien was guilty in his own words. however it is not such a huge leap to put 2 and 2 together and think strongly that Ford would think Jason was also. But he did try hard and I think he was one of the better defense attorney's during the trial. He didn't however hang around afterwords once his appeals were dismissed.

[Farm]

Also, it seemed Ford wanted Jason to be tried separately from Damien. Any thoughts on why?

This was addressed in detail during the rule37 hearing.

Ford wanted to use the Hollingsworth testimony about the sightings on the service road to prove to the jury the perps were Damien and Domini and not Jason.

[DogIsYourName]

Do you believe Ford knew he was guilty? I've heard some of the best defense attorneys never ask their clients if they are guilty. They say it is not their place to judge them, but to provide fair representation. Do you think this was the case here?


Thanks,
Krissy

http://www.fadp.org/news/Palm_Beach_Post_20030622.htm

Ford, meanwhile, represented one of three Arkansas men accused of the 1993 cult-ritual killings of three 8-year-old boys that spawned several television documentaries, a book, and an off-Broadway play.

"I didn't think my client was guilty," Ford said of his most famous client, Charles Jason Baldwin, 16, who was sentenced to life in prison.

[mikespadre]

honestly what do you expect him to say, of course he is gonnna say that he thinks his client was innocent.

[Farm]

There is little in this world I find more hysterical than when someone cites a Defense attorney as proof of anything beyond the dishonesty of Defense attorneys.

[auburnesq]

"I didn't think my client was guilty," Ford said of his most famous client, Charles Jason Baldwin, 16, who was sentenced to life in prison.

If he said anything otherwise he could subject himself to disciplinary action. You know, that whole attorney client privilage thing. The privilage survives the case, so if he did think he was guilty (or knew) he'd be wise to keep his mouth shut.

Also, "I didn't think my client was guilty" could also read as the implication that he didn't think he was guilty at the time. 

[DogIsYourName]

Also, "I didn't think my client was guilty" could also read as the implication that he didn't think he was guilty at the time. 

Yeah, that's the question I was answering....

Krissy had asked, "Do you believe Ford knew he was guilty?"

 

[Farm]

I think if Ford truly believed his client was innocent, he would have put on a Defense.

[DogIsYourName]

There is little in this world I find more hysterical than when someone cites a Defense attorney as proof of anything beyond the dishonesty of Defense attorneys.

I guess that means we cannot cite a defense attorney's own words to determine what that defense attorney believes.  Nope, defense attorneys can never express how they feel about anything, because the rest of society should not put any value in what they say.  We will never know what he thought about Jason because we cannot put any stock into Paul Ford's own words on the subject.

I find it hysterical that you find it hysterical that I used Paul's own words to help answer a question about what Paul believes.  He could've just said he can't comment on that.  He did not have to say he thought Jason was not guilty.  Sure, he might be lying.  He also might be telling the truth.  Personally, I think he thinks Jason did it.  You follow?

[Farm]

I guess that means we cannot cite a defense attorney's own words to determine what that defense attorney believes.

Sure you can.

As long as you don't mind looking stupid.

Nope, defense attorneys can never express how they feel about anything, because the rest of society should not put any value in what they say.

Let me help you again.

The overwhelming majority of people who are Prosecuted for a crime are factually guilty.

This means the overwhelming majority of Defense attorneys make a living trying to decieve people.

We will never know what he thought about Jason because we cannot put any stock into Paul Ford's own words on the subject.

You might be catching on here.

I find it hysterical that you find it hysterical that I used Paul's own words to help answer a question about what Paul believes.

That's because you aren't very bright.

He could've just said he can't comment on that.

You do understand that his job is to convince people his client is innocent whether he is or not, right?

Sure, he might be lying.  He also might be telling the truth.

Hey,  whatever you need?

[DogIsYourName]

You do understand that his job is to convince people his client is innocent whether he is or not, right?

Yes.  And you do understand that his job had ended many years before he gave that quote, right?

[Farm]

Yes, like Stidham he's eager to admit to the public he defended a client he knew was guilty.

[auburnesq]

Yeah, that's the question I was answering....

Krissy had asked, "Do you believe Ford knew he was guilty?"

Before you try to get all sassy, you might want to actually read your response.

If you were answering her question, you failed. She asked what you thought. You responded with a quote by Paul Ford about Jason with no commentary as to your opinion on his quote. Unless you are Paul Ford, that isn't what you believe.

Additionally, the clarity or lack thereof of your response has nothing to do with my comment that his quote had more than one interpretation.

This means the overwhelming majority of Defense attorneys make a living trying to decieve people.

Oddly enough, I almost agree with you on this. I know we have discussed this before, and I disagree with you only on the amount of defense counsel that are deceptive. I believe that most defense attorneys try to plea bargain or put on the only defense they can when required to (no plea available or a client insisting on taking something to trial). I think you have a group of smarmy attorneys who take the high profile cases and don't really care about protecting a defendant's constitional rights during their trial (which is the intent of a defense attornys role) or their guilt, they want money and/or they want to win.

I can't imagine that anyone would want to see someone convicted without a fair trial, but I agree that the profession has been bastardized by the minority.

That, and not all of us can be prosecutors or civil attorneys.