Mark. Mark. Mark. Mark. Mark. You were so nice the day after the election, and now you've hauled off and written this crap.
Now, I've grown accustomed to your article comments when you, Steve Gustitis and that Scott Greenfield dude start applauding yourselves as Defense Attorneys like you were from the League of Extraordinary Gentleman, but come on, who appointed you the Gate Keeper to who and who is not going to translate well from the job of prosecutor?
Now, granted, you hedged your bets and said Kelly might end up being a good defense attorney, and then you added:but give ‘em all a few years of proving that their hearts are in the right place as defense lawyers before you even think about trusting them with your freedom.
Isn't that a bit of a Catch-22 for the poor ex-prosecutor?
Now, you clarify your position in your comments that you aren't threatened by the business competition because there are plenty of cases to go around. I agree with that. Most prosecutors (like allegedly myself) don't know doodly-squat about the Federal system, and are pretty much restricted to having a good base of knowledge in the State courts. You, on the other hand, have spent a significant amount of your career, um, fighting the Feds (and, on occasion, the Fashion Police).
But when you say that a criminal defendant can only be well-served by a "true believer", and thus a new former-prosecutor just won't be as good, I think you may be out of your mind.
I've always felt that extremism in any field is foolish and frightening. The Radical Right scares the pee-pee out of me every bit as much as the Radical Left.
The same applies to prosecutors and defense attorneys.
Any prosecutor that believes that "everybody charged is guilty" is as foolish as the defense attorney who believes that every client they have is factually innocent. If you ask me, neither is going to be that swell of an advocate when it comes to trial time.
That type of zeal leads to tunnel-vision, and tunnel-vision leads to mistakes. Sometimes enormous mistakes. For a prosecutor who makes the "facts fit his ideas", the potential for injustice is obvious.
But how about the "true believer" defense attorney who tells his client: "I don't care if you have three videotaped confessions, and the murder was caught on videotape, and the State is only offering you 10 years. If you tell me you didn't do it, then I say, let's tee it up!"
I would suggest to you that a person charged with a crime is best served by an intelligent, well-spoken, hard-working pragmatist. One who can go in and assess the case from both the defense side and the State's side, and offer good advice. If I got charged with a serious crime, I would want somebody that I knew wasn't going to bullshit me, even if I was bullshitting them!
True Believers start thinking of themselves as bulletproof, and that's not good for anybody.
If I ever find myself in trouble with the law, give me a good realist who knows how to fight over someone who thinks that their righteous indignation will carry the day.
(NOTE: As an aside, check out this post by Harry Lime for a great write up on Kelly Siegler. She's clearly the James Bond of prosecuting.)