Justice Demands Defense -- Courant.com

Fry 'em.

If these men are acquitted, will you volunteer to make sure they work in your office and live in your neighborhood?

If the answer is no, then why are you dismissive of those who want eagerly to see Ullman, Donovan and Grogins fail.

Personally , I think it would be good for the enviroment if the defendant's carbon footprint is erased from the planet.

The rabid raccoon this week had more humanity than these defendants. Moms in Cheshire know what to do with vermin these days.

"Several years ago, Donovan and Groggins had a defendant in a murder-for-hire trial in which I had a co-defendant. The crime was brutal, and the defendants were unsympathetic. My client was convicted; Donovan's and Groggin's was acquitted."

Hey Norman, clue us in on the two that were acquitted. What crimes have they done since then. I bet at least one of them is in prison again.

I'm sure they will use every dirty trick in the book to spring Josh.

Steven_G_Erickson wrote:

This case should be watched to make sure that the judges involved don't intimidate the lawyer defending these criminals or rig the case.
Justice should be honest for everyone, no matter what.

Attorney Jim Brewer defended good cops against bad ones and was later disbarred, arrested, and labeled crazy.
Other lawyers that break ranks with each other, police, and judges have also suffered similar fates.
Where is justice in Connecticut?

Look pal, stop trying to hijack every forum topic for your own agenda, okay? Find something else to do in Vermont. Connecticut has had enough of you.

"Or perhaps there will be no trial at all. The defendants may well plead guilty and ask that the state not kill them. Nothing obliges the state to accept such a plea, though that would be the kinder course for all concerned. A public trial would replay the home invasion in slow and excruciating motion."

This would be the best thing that could happen for all concerned. While conviction for these crimes is a slam dunk, a growing number of people are opposed to the death penalty.
I am also sure that during jury selection, the attorneys will try and make sure they can get as many people on the jury who seem either opposed or reluctant to vote for death.

Let's be realistic and pragmatic. If they entered a plea of guilty in order to take the death penalty off the table, the state should take it because of the huge cost this trial will be and the fact that even if the death penalty is handed down, it will be twenty to thirty years before it is carried out
plus the extra costs associated with the entire appeals process. Add to this the extra expenses involved of keeping someone on death row vs. in a cell and it really does become a good deal for the state and it's citizens.

What a load of crap!\

[QUOTE who="Mike Hawk[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't hold my breath. Defense lawyers would rather be disbarred before ever allowing a guilty plea. Consider the publicity this trial will get. That's something defense lawyers dream of. Mark my words, they will enter a not guilty plea.

It is amazing how people will kill a defenseless animal without any thought and yet when someone is a KNOWN criminal who has commited a brutal crime we have a problem with the death penalty. Then let those who are in favor of keeping these bums alive, feed them and pay for there expenses. I don't care to have my hard earned money spent on them. For the attorneys who think they have rights, stop soaking people of their hard earned money and get a real job! I'm sorry but these two guys don't have rights. They lost them a long time ago. They were given chances to clean up their act.

Marian Morrison wrote:

If these men are acquitted, will you volunteer to make sure they work in your office and live in your neighborhood?
If the answer is no, then why are you dismissive of those who want eagerly to see Ullman, Donovan and Grogins fail.
Personally , I think it would be good for the enviroment if the defendant's carbon footprint is erased from the planet.
The rabid raccoon this week had more humanity than these defendants. Moms in Cheshire know what to do with vermin these days.

AMEN MARIAN!!!!

This was expected. I knew that it would be only a short time after the murders before the forces of the left came out in full force trying to reduce the role of personal responsibility.

Blablabla.

Far as I know, there haven't been lynch mobs showing up at the jail house gate with torches and ropes. This blather is just a smoke screen to take clarity out of the actual situation.

The actual situation is that two white career criminals have demonstrated that it is quite possible to commit a crime for which the death penalty is a just punishment. How awkward for capital punishment foes.

By all means, give the accused a fair trial. Then, if found guilty by a jury, give them their just and swift punishment. No need for ten billable years of appeals.

CPC wrote:

<quoted text>
I wouldn't hold my breath. Defense lawyers would rather be disbarred before ever allowing a guilty plea. Consider the publicity this trial will get. That's something defense lawyers dream of. Mark my words, they will enter a not guilty plea.

I'm not holding my breath, but their clients would not get a better deal than this, providing the state is even willing to take the death penalty off the table. But if the state is willing to do this they must put that offer to the client and let him decide.

KevinM wrote:

Blablabla.
Far as I know, there haven't been lynch mobs showing up at the jail house gate with torches and ropes. This blather is just a smoke screen to take clarity out of the actual situation.
The actual situation is that two white career criminals have demonstrated that it is quite possible to commit a crime for which the death penalty is a just punishment. How awkward for capital punishment foes.
By all means, give the accused a fair trial. Then, if found guilty by a jury, give them their just and swift punishment. No need for ten billable years of appeals.

Unfortunately you cannot have one without the other.

In the words of Norman Pattis: "The commitments we have made one to another in our Constitution - presumption of innocence, fair trial, proof beyond a reasonable doubt - are tested in hard cases. This is such a case. A defense lawyer's job is not to preen and posture before the mirror of public opinion, taking only the prettiest clients. Donovan and Groggins earn my respect for stepping into a maw of red-hot hatred to take this case. They will ensure that public passion does not trump the rule of law. They will insist that their clients be given a fair trial. In so doing, they will vindicate the rights of each of us."

I agree with him. Yes, I think the defendants, if found guilty, should be executed asap. But I don't think it should be done at the expense of weakening the legal presumption of innocence and the legal right of every defendant to a fair trial and a vigorous legal defense. Without these rights extended to all, our country would quickly turn into a totalitarian dictatorship of unlimited govt power.

Mike, mind explaining what meritorious grounds these perps would have for ten years of appeals?

Most of the DP appeals in the system are brought by black defendants arguing disparate impact. Seems white guys killing a white family shouldn't be able to raise that argument, but watch Old Saybrook's Jeremiah Donovan, Fairfield's Auden Grogins, and Bethany's Norm Pattis argue that executing an heir to Russian nobility will be bad for defendants from the 'hood

timemachinist wrote:

In the words of Norman Pattis: "The commitments we have made one to another in our Constitution - presumption of innocence, fair trial, proof beyond a reasonable doubt - are tested in hard cases. This is such a case. A defense lawyer's job is not to preen and posture before the mirror of public opinion, taking only the prettiest clients. Donovan and Groggins earn my respect for stepping into a maw of red-hot hatred to take this case. They will ensure that public passion does not trump the rule of law. They will insist that their clients be given a fair trial. In so doing, they will vindicate the rights of each of us."
I agree with him. Yes, I think the defendants, if found guilty, should be executed asap. But I don't think it should be done at the expense of weakening the legal presumption of innocence and the legal right of every defendant to a fair trial and a vigorous legal defense. Without these rights extended to all, our country would quickly turn into a totalitarian dictatorship of unlimited govt power.

I agree with you. You cannot give one man a fair trial and deny another of the same. This is a case that cannot be won by the defense other than if there were jury nullification and that is not going to happen. These guys, Donovan and Groggins, are there for round 2 when they hope to spare their clients the death penalty..that is the best they can do.

Just fry 'em, ok?

Wow, now defense lawyers are newfound angels! Should the defense lawyers in this case just go straight to the penalty phase, where they should argue why the two scumbags should not be put to death? Are you guys actually interested in justice, or getting your clients off the hook, no matter how guilty they are?

Several contradictory statements from this post:
"A defense lawyer's job is not to preen and posture before the mirror of public opinion" and "And no witness is confident of surviving his sardonic wit." Don;t these two clash?

Personally, I am hoping for life in prison for K and H. K will feel like he is 14 for a long long time, and H looks great to be some fat bastards bitch :)

Frank Garlington wrote:

This was expected. I knew that it would be only a short time after the murders before the forces of the left came out in full force trying to reduce the role of personal responsibility.

Don't bring politics into this--Bush is the one who pardoned Libby. If you are keeping count the neo-cons lead in corruption.

They are entitled to a defense. No question. However, once they are convicted [you pretty much conceded that a conviction is a virtual certainty] are you willing to accept that the two should be put to death under Connecticut's death penalty statute given the horrific nature of their crimes? I have no problem with the two receiving a defense --- the Constitution gives them that right. And, I am not terribly worried about the outcome because the evidence is overwhelming. Also, given the sheer brutality of this crime and the amount of time they terrorized this family, I believe that virtually any sane jury will opt for the death penalty, But, will Connecticut actually carry out the sentence? That's the part that worries me.