The Unintended Consequences of Finding Chemical Weapons In Iraq

[Ksyrup]

Here's how to turn a negative into a positive!


MANASSAS, Virginia (CNN) -- Attorneys for sniper suspect John Allen Muhammad Friday raised the possibility that Muhammad may have been exposed to nerve agents or chemical weapons while serving in the U.S. Army in the 1991 Gulf War.

Muhammad, charged in a 20-count complaint as the killer in seven of the Washington, D.C.-area sniper shootings last year, served as an engineer in the U.S. Army and participated in the 1991 Gulf War.

Friday, his attorneys asked a Virginia court for an investigator to help prepare Muhammad's defense, and for a "mitigation specialist" to look into possible mitigating factors if the capital case goes to a sentencing phase.

Attorney Jonathan Shapiro said he wants that specialist to look into a variety of aspects about Muhammad's background, including his "role in the Gulf War" and "possible exposure to nerve agents (and) chemical weapons."

Asked by a reporter after the hearing whether suspicions that Muhammad was exposed to nerve agents were based on evidence or conjecture, Shapiro said, "It's not wild conjecture. Let me answer it that way."

"It's based on a good faith belief," he said, but added that defense attorneys still do not have enough information about Muhammad's background.

Shapiro said the mitigation specialist would also look into Muhammad's family history, economic circumstances, psychiatric condition and other aspects of his background.

Prince William County, Virginia, Circuit Court Judge LeRoy Millette approved the request for both the investigation and the mitigation specialist.

Muhammad is scheduled to stand trial in October for the October 9, 2002 shooting of Dean Harold Meyers at a Sunoco gas station in Manassas, Virginia.

His alleged accomplice, Lee Boyd Malvo, is awaiting trial in neighboring Fairfax County for the October 14, 2002 murder of Linda Franklin outside a Home Depot store in Falls Church, Virginia.

[JeeberD]

No offense intended to those here, but I hate lawyers...

[Ksyrup]

I understand...

But when you've got a client who is facing the death penalty, what are you going to do? Let him be killed without a fight? Providing a defense for the indefensible is one of the duties of a lawyer. Which is a major reason why people will always hate lawyers.

[Anrhydeddu]

what are you going to do? Let him be killed without a fight?

What were his victims going to do? Be killed without a fight?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Insert lawyer joke here

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
What were his victims going to do? Be killed without a fight?

See? You just don't understand unless you are an attorney. Hell, even as an attorney, I'd have a hard time defending someone like this (which is why I'm nowhere near a criminal courtroom), but I understand completely why it is necessary.

Now, civil plaintiff's lawyers, on the other hand...

[Fritz]

I don't know that anyone could demonstrate (to me) an acceptable defense for random sniping. The case should simple be "did he do it?"

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
Insert lawyer joke here

What do you call 100,000 lawyers on the bottom of the ocean?

[The Afoci]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
What were his victims going to do? Be killed without a fight?

That is unfair to compare the two. The lawyers job is to defend him, not his choice.

[The Afoci]

Originally posted by GrantDawg
What do you call 100,000 lawyers on the bottom of the ocean?

A good start, :rimshot:

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by Fritz
I don't know that anyone could demonstrate (to me) an acceptable defense for random sniping. The case should simple be "did he do it?"

Not trying to be picky here, but I think they are looking into this potential theory more to convince a jury that he shouldn't be put to death than to excuse the behavior outright:

"Friday, his attorneys asked a Virginia court for an investigator to help prepare Muhammad's defense, and for a "mitigation specialist" to look into possible mitigating factors if the capital case goes to a sentencing phase."

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by GrantDawg
What do you call 100,000 lawyers on the bottom of the ocean?

I don't know. Does it have something to do with colossal squid?

[John Galt]

While I don't normally defend lawyers in these threads, this time I think I have to say something. Criminal defense (either at trial or on appeal) for death penalty cases is some of the hardest work anyone could ever do. More often than not, your client will die (almost always at the appellate level) and yet you have to do everything possible to save them. At the end of the case, your client is usually going to die, you second guess yourself about every decision, and people criticize you for defending a murderer.

You might ask why anyone woud do death penalty work? The answer to that question is exactly why criminal defendants (and convicts) often have some of the worst lawyers and why 100s of death row inmates are unable to get a lawyer to file their appeal. It is a sad system and why there have been more than a handful of people freed by the Innocence Project (and similar efforts). Death penalty cases are a nightmare to handle and live with.

[Craptacular]

Good post John.

..ooOO Wow, I find myself agreeing with John Galt, and on a thread where he defends lawyers. What have I been drinking??

[Ksyrup]

One of my law school professors, who died of a heart attack while I was still in school, did death penalty appeals pro bono. A number of students, including myself, would accompany him to the FL Supreme Court to watch the oral argument.

He was one of the most admirable attorneys I've ever known. For him, it wasn't about putting murderers back on the street, it was about saving a life. These people were beyond guilt or innocence, it was simply a matter of live in jail or die. And I can respect that, despite the fact that I see no objection to the death penalty.

[Havok]

No offense intended to those here, but I hate lawyers...

Amen

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
Not trying to be picky here, but I think they are looking into this potential theory more to convince a jury that he shouldn't be put to death than to excuse the behavior outright:

"Friday, his attorneys asked a Virginia court for an investigator to help prepare Muhammad's defense, and for a "mitigation specialist" to look into possible mitigating factors if the capital case goes to a sentencing phase."

My feelings on this do not change. I don't think the "why" here should be a factor. His mother could have been spoon feeding him LSD from the time he was 2 and it would not make a difference.

[RonnieDobbs]

Originally posted by John Galt
While I don't normally defend lawyers in these threads, this time I think I have to say something. Criminal defense (either at trial or on appeal) for death penalty cases is some of the hardest work anyone could ever do. More often than not, your client will die (almost always at the appellate level) and yet you have to do everything possible to save them. At the end of the case, your client is usually going to die, you second guess yourself about every decision, and people criticize you for defending a murderer.

You might ask why anyone woud do death penalty work? The answer to that question is exactly why criminal defendants (and convicts) often have some of the worst lawyers and why 100s of death row inmates are unable to get a lawyer to file their appeal. It is a sad system and why there have been more than a handful of people freed by the Innocence Project (and similar efforts). Death penalty cases are a nightmare to handle and live with.

Fantastic post John. As silly as lawyers seem sometimes (civil cases notwithstanding), I'd much rather have them than not. The man is just doing his job the best he can. If people have a problem when stuff like this works, don't blame the lawyers. Like any job, there are bad apples just out for fame/money. But I think lawyers generally get a bad rap.

*ducks*

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by RonnieDobbs
Fantastic post John. As silly as lawyers seem sometimes (civil cases notwithstanding), I'd much rather have them than not. The man is just doing his job the best he can. If people have a problem when stuff like this works, don't blame the lawyers. Like any job, there are bad apples just out for fame/money. But I think lawyers generally get a bad rap.

*ducks*

Yes they do (like many professions), but they are fun to poke fun of too.

[Ksyrup]

That's why we are paid well - to take crap from everybody.