Thanks YoNo for posting these segments and your impression of what Nurmi has written. I read all the texts that have been posted on the BK site, and I never read anything that would support an accusation that Travis was a pedophile. That is where I think Nurmi went too far. I truly believe he suborned? false testimony. I never saw nor heard anything during trial either that would support that claim.
I agree that they were both addicted to each other with the common theme being sex. Once Travis knew his friends did not approve of Heinous, he did become secretive and went "underground" as he calls it. Yes, Travis was living a double life in a sense, however he did not deserve to be brutally murdered for it. IMO
You have opened a can of worms for me Zuri. :scared:
I had previously thought that Lawrence couldn't withdraw from being the murderer's lawyer (after I had read something- can't remember what) unless the murderer asked him to do something criminally related, but I visited the actual State Bar of AZ's website today and found out I was wrong. :sheesh:
"Rules of Professional Conduct
1.
Client-Lawyer Relationship
ER 1.16. Declining or Terminating Representation
"a) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if:
(1) the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;
(2) the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client; or
(3) the lawyer is discharged.
(b) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if:
(1) withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client;
(2)
the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer's services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent;
(3) the client has used the lawyer's services to perpetrate a crime or fraud;
(4) the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement;
(5) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer's services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled;
(6) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client; or
(7) other good cause for withdrawal exists.
(c) A lawyer shall comply with applicable law requiring notice to or permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation. When ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation....
Comment
...
Mandatory Withdrawal
[2] A lawyer ordinarily
must decline or withdraw from representation if the client demands that the lawyer engage in conduct that is illegal or violates the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. The lawyer is not obliged to decline or withdraw simply because the client suggests such a course of conduct a client may make such a suggestion in the hope that a lawyer will not be constrained by a professional obligation..."
http://www.azbar.org/Ethics/RulesofProfessionalConduct/ViewRule?id=35
BBM This changes what I had previously thought- that Lawrence
had to represent the murderer even if he felt that she was lying about Travis being a pedophile because that's the story his client wanted told and what she was saying was not
"criminal"
So far, in his book, he seemed to agree that Travis could be a pedophile when he heard the "sex " phone call in the beginning of his getting the case. But now I don't understand how he continued this view of Travis and brought this info to trial if he had no actual evidence (except the tape , IIRC, and that conversation, IMO, is a matter of interpretation of what Travis said- comparing the murderer's orgasm to a 12-year-old girl's first orgasm).
I also thought that a defendant's testimony was "evidence", hence the murderer testified that she saw Travis with pics of young boys/children and he had to take her word for that testimony?? (I remember I read that somewhere??)
And this:
"Third, if the criminal trial has begun and the defense attorney discovers that the client intends to testify falsely at the trial, the attorney may seek to withdraw but is not required to do so. The defense attorney should not withdraw if he or she reasonably believes that the client will be prejudiced.
If the criminal defense attorney is unable to get permission to withdraw, he or she may not prevent the client from testifying in his or her own defense. See Mass. R. Prof. C. 3.3(e). The client has a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel, due process of law, and a fair trial, including his right to testify in his own defense. Commonwealth v. Mitchell, supra at 544."
But there's this too:
"The attorney may not examine the client or elicit any testimony from the client that he or she knows to be false.
The attorney is permitted to object to the prosecutors cross-examination as appropriate, mindful not to assist the client in presenting false testimony. The attorney must not argue the false testimony in the closing argument or in any other proceeding, including appeals. Mass. R. Prof. C. 3.3(e). ..
Fourth, if during the clients testimony, or after the clients testimony, the attorney knows that the client testified falsely, the attorney must confidentially call upon the client to correct the testimony. If the client refuses to follow the attorneys advice, or is unable to do so, the attorney shall not reveal the false testimony to the court. Mass. R. Prof. C. 3.3(e) and Comment 10 to Rule 3.3(e)..."
http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/false.htm
"A. The Full Advocacy Approach
The full advocacy approach, is promoted primarily by Professor Munroe Freedman. Under this approach, a lawyer, to protect client confidences, may knowingly present perjured testimony, if the lawyer cannot dissuade his client from committing perjury.4 Freedman rejects the idea of withdrawing in the midst of trial because this is tantamount to blowing the whistle on the client. The full advocacy approach comes down on the side of confidentiality. Ergo, the only reason that the lawyer believes that the client is going to lie as because of a confidential attorney-client communication. It also recognizes the loss of trust and the corresponding impact of the disclosure on the attorney-client relationship. Instead of vigorous advocacy, the client perceives that their lawyer has switched sides and is playing for the prosecution...
B.
The Narrative Approach
The Defendant takes the stand and delivers his statement in narrative form. The defense attorney does not elicit the perjurious testimony by questioning and cannot argue the false testimony in closing argument. Under this procedure the defendant is afforded both his right to speak to the jury under oath and his constitutional right to assistance of counsel. In addition, the defense attorney did not elicit false testimony....
C. The Knowledge Based Approach
8] The prohibition against offering false evidence only applies if the lawyer knows that the evidence is false. A lawyers reasonable belief that evidence is false does not preclude its presentation to the trier of fact. A lawyers knowledge that evidence is false, however, can be inferred from the circumstances. See Rule 1.0(f). Thus, although a lawyer should resolve doubts about the veracity of testimony or other evidence in favor of the client, the lawyer cannot ignore an obvious falsehood.
[9]
Because of the special protections historically provided criminal defendants, however, this rule does not permit a lawyer to refuse to offer the testimony of such a client where the lawyer reasonably believes, but does not know that the testimony will be false.
*
***The key to this approach is knowledge. Pursuant to this approach, how does the lawyer know what is the truth and what is the lie?...
***If the lawyer reasonably believes the client has committed perjury, the analysis seems to fall under R.P.C. 1.6(c). This perjury does not constitute a future crime pursuant to R.P.C. 1.6(b)(1) because the conduct has already occurred. In addition, it does not involve fraud which will result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another. As such, the lawyer must analyze the facts of their individual case and determine whether disclosure is necessary to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm..."
https://www.isba.org/sections/trafficlaw/newsletter/2012/03/youthinkyourclientisgoingtolieonthe
(the bolded, underlined sentences- what I had read previously about the ability of Lawrence to withdraw about unproven evidence/lies from his client in her testimony)
----
All so very confusing to me. :sheesh:
I'm hoping that Lawrence will shed some light on why he kept the pedophile story in the trial further on in the book. In my mind now, if he doesn't clear this up in his book, I think that Lawrence was very wrong to drag Travis' reputation thru the mud without solid, concrete evidence. Guess I'll see when I'm further along in the book (or maybe I might have to wait for book 2/3?) :sheesh:
Too much to think about right now :scared: - I'm gonna take a nap now- my mind is tired from all this. :facepalm: