Hello everybody,
First post here at WS, and it's gonna be a long one. First off I'd like to say nice to work to the WS administrators and to all the posters, and thank you. It was a pleasant surprise to find this forum and this thread. I have no personal connection to the DM case, but I am a criminal lawyer and have been quite captivated by this case since first learning about it, and stumbled upon this thread one day while looking for updates.
What drove me to finally register an account was the amount of commenting I see on the possible motivations of KM's lawyers, as well as some other comments here and there regarding various aspects of the legal process, that have made me want to jump in and gently correct some things. At the very least, adding my $.02 from my professional background might be constructive. Looking back through the thread it looks like some other lawyers have jumped in as well, so a big thank you to them for contributing to the discussion.
I'll preface this by saying that nothing I say is intended to be disrespectful or condescending. I do not expect non-lawyers to know these things, and so the nature and scope of the speculation on here is understandable and does not reflect poorly on anyone. But I do think there is some irony in the fact that many have mocked the A's lawyers for putting out their statement re "fanciful fiction," when much of the subsequent speculation here on WS about what is happening behind the scenes in this case is, in all likelihood, fanciful fiction of its own.
I really disagree with the suggestion that KMs lawyers are knowingly, or unknowingly, working as pawns for the still-unindicted alleged co-conspirators and their respective attorneys. I suppose I can't guarantee 100% that this isn't happening, but what I will say is that you cannot understate what a monumental ethical violation it would be for all lawyers involved. Some of the facts that many here find suspect, such as that the lawyers share the same address, mean nothing to me. First, it is very common that law offices are concentrated in certain areas of cities, so the chance of different lawyers working in the same building ending up on the same case is heightened to begin with. And even if there is a direct referral, the connection ends there and nothing should be read into that without further evidence. For example, I have gotten/given referrals from/to other attorneys for co-defendants on conspiracy cases, and as the case develops it turns out that the defendants have defenses that are "mutually antagonistic," i.e. one defendant points the finger at another, or at least minimizes his own conduct at the expense of another defendant. When that happens, there are no hard feelings between the attorneys, regardless of the original professional relationship that gave rise to the referral.
Same thing goes as to the source of funds. First, most lawyers will accept payment only directly from the client even if they have reason to know someone else is paying, and in their engagement agreement they make the client acknowledge that the lawyer's duty is to the client regardless of anyone else who may be helping pay the fees. I even have in my agreements that I won't communicate with anyone else but the client regarding the case, unless the client gives consent AND I determine there are no ethical issues with such communication. Translation: Mom pays for me to help little Johnny with his DUI - I'll probably end up talking to Mom about the case if little Johnny consents; mid-level drug trafficker suddenly has the cash to pay full retainer - I have no need to talk to anybody else. It could very well be true that the A's got KM a referral and helped pay for her legal fees. But under normal circumstances that would do absolutely nothing toward ensuring that KM and her attorneys conduct themselves to the A's liking, and KM's attorneys could conceivably accept the payment and still conduct themselves ethically and in the best interests of KM.
Nothing about the way KM's lawyers have handled the case so far suggests anything otherwise. Their aggressive stance and adamant maintaining of innocence is all par for the course. It doesn't indicate that they are foolish, or being controlled by other parties and their lawyers to their own client's detriment, or that they won't change their tune and take a plea at a moment's notice if the circumstances are right.
There have been some other posts here and there that have given me pause and made me somewhat concerned, just in general about the level of understanding of the legal process. For example, there was a post a while back in the thread where a poster suggested that prosecutor GC could surprise visit KM personally in jail without her lawyers present to get her to see the light. This is the type of thing that you might see in a legal movie or tv show, and if you did it would be highly unrealistic and cause anyone with any background in the legal profession to roll their eyes. It would simply never happen in real life, and would be a great way for GC to completely ruin her case. In fact, it is so out of the question that it wouldn't have even crossed GC's mind.
Also, really disagree with whoever suggested writing to KM in jail, and all those who jumped in afterward saying it's a good idea. It's a bad idea, or at the very least something that won't help anything, so don't do it.
Thanks to whomever put up with the long post. Again, I'm really fascinated by the DM case, and anxious to see how it plays out. I'll be checking this thread and I hope I can contribute meaningfully to the discussion.
)
