No offense meant, but that would mean you wouldn't be a good defense lawyer. A defense lawyer shouldn't him/her self look at the case from the perspective of guilt or innocence. That is for the jury to decide. The lawyer's job is to present the case in the most favorable light for his client. If the jury declares his client innocent, he did his job. If the jury declares him guilty, he also did his job. I don't fault NP. It's not up to him to declare guilt or innocence. It does bother me a little to see this site disparage him so. I not a fan of lawyers, yet in no way do I feel he's a problem here. If FD is guilty, and the prosecutors are competent, he'll be convicted regardless of NP.
So stop ragging on NP. If it were you or me (and we were innocent, as of course we would be), we would want a lawyer who did everything possible to put us in a good light. Yeah NP. If I ever get arrested for something I didn't do in CT, maybe I'll give him a call.
I would never, ever, hire a lawyer who employs the kind of tactics NP has used in this case. Sure, it makes his client think he is "doing something" and I suppose it makes him feel good to thump his chest and shake his fists at the world. When his actions to date are examined, however, it becomes clear he has no well-considered strategy, has no grasp on the facts, and does not have a convincing narrative for his client's actions on the day of the murder. Lacking the fundamentals necessary to mount an effective defense, he has repeatedly engaged in completely unproductive, scatter-shot, victim blaming. He appears to care more about getting publicity for himself and less about actually defending his client.
Each time NP makes another command performance for the cameras, he loses more credibility. JD is a heroin addict; JD is a "Gone Girl"; FD has an airtight alibi, oh never mind; MT has an alibi for FD, oh, never mind; the prosecutor must give MT immunity from prosecution so she can tell the truth (why would she need immunity if she had not committed a criminal act?). Let's not forget the most outrageous comments he has made about being "SICK AND TIRED of hearing" about what happened to JD. On more than one occasion, his comments have shown that he is tone deaf and his words actually make us think even worse of his client.
Why is NP making these comments? To taint the jury pool, that's why. The rules of professional conduct, which NP has sworn to obey, explicitly prohibit lawyers from engaging in this type of conduct. Should the prosecutor seek a gag order in this case, it will be granted. The state probably hasn't sought one because it knows how guilty NP's comments make his client look. Still, NP is well aware he is violating the rules of professional conduct but, like his client, he doesn't care. After all, the ends justify the means, right?
Good lawyers try their cases in the courtroom, not the press room. Good lawyers know that saying they are "sick and tired" of hearing about the victim does not advance the cause of their client. Good lawyers do not affirmatively seek to influence the testimony of witnesses/co-defendants, nor do they speak publicly for them, especially knowing those witnesses are represented by counsel. Good lawyers do not send their associate into a courtroom to "accidentally" encounter a witness who is the subject of a no contact court order. The list of thou shall nots which have been violated goes on and on.
What would a good lawyer do in this case? The very first thing a good lawyer would do is keep their client away from media interviews! FD's interview was one of the worst I have ever seen, right up there with the one given by the Colorado man who killed his pregnant wife and young daughters. From his inability to say one nice thing about his missing wife to his absolutely ridiculous comments about being the real victim, FD's interview is surely going to be used against him. NP gets a 'F' for client control.
Good lawyers stay on message, avoid victim blaming, and thoroughly research the legal issues to be litigated. In doing so, they prevent entry of a blistering order granting custody of the children to grandmother. Again, the doctrine of adverse inferences is a well-established one. NP surely knew there was no way Judge Heller was ever going to make those kids return to a suspected murderer. In pursuing this matter, he opened the door for all kinds of additional (and highly prejudicial) information to come out about his client. He did so because either he is not in control of his client or he thinks any publicity in the case is good publicity. He is wrong.
This attorney has exhibited a complete lack of respect for the rules of professionalism he has sworn to uphold. He delights in continually disparaging JD and her family. While this type of conduct is perhaps overlooked in smaller jurisdictions, I can assure you that the stunts NP has pulled are NOT in the repertoire of competent counsel. This investigation is not some kind of reality TV show. A mother of five has been the victim of a "serious physical assault" in her own home and is now missing. Competent counsel would treat this situation with the solemnity it deserves.
Whenever his image pops up, I think "NP isn't a real lawyer, he just plays one on TV." I would not hire him to handle a traffic ticket!(JMO)
