Being Innocent In The Age Of Guilt

[PoliticalChic]

1.I believe we have to tread carefully in this #metoo age, where largely unprovable allegations can ruin a reputation, and for too many it is a political charge rather than sexual.

One of my favs was so charged, and wrote a book about proving his innocence. It’s Alan Dershowitz, a lawyer and professor of law, and the book is ”Guilt by Accusation: The Challenge of Proving Innocence in the Age of #MeToo.”

This is not the first Dershowitz book I’ve read, and I’ve followed him on TV. He is of a very different political persuasion from mine, but he is Liberal for whom I have developed a great respect.



In chapter 2, he explains the advice he gives his clients, and why he did the very opposite.



Here’s what he did when faced with the accusation:

2. “On the day before the 2015 New Year, I received a phone call from a journalist who said “You’ve been accused of having sex with an underage girl. What do you have to say?”

A few days later, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed entitled “A Night- mare of False Accusation That Could Happen to You”¹⁵ in which I wrote about the legal predicament I found myself in and about the “gaping hole in our legal system” that permits unscrupulous individuals to make false accusations without any legal or pecuniary consequence.



3. I agreed to waive the criminal statute of limitations by submitting a sworn affidavit that, if false, would subject me to a current perjury prosecution, despite the accusation being well beyond the statute of limitations. I challenged my accuser to pro- duce any photographs or other physical evidence substantiating her account, which I knew could not exist. I also demanded that she and her lawyers repeat the accusation on TV, so I could sue them. Of course, they did not. I called my false accuser a liar and perjurer—not only in court papers but in media interviews—knowing that this exposed me to the risk of an expensive and risky defamation suit by her. In short, I did everything I would never allow any of my own clients to do— because most of my clients have had something to hide.” Op. Cit.

 

[PoliticalChic]

4. Dershowitz would never allow clients of his to be as open and forthcoming as he was.

“I’ve represented hundreds of individuals who have been accused of crimes ranging from mass murder to insider trading. Rarely have I known for certain whether they were guilty, innocent, or somewhere in between. In my first book written for a general audience, The Best Defense, published in 1982, I acknowledged that most of the criminal defendants I’ve represented have probably been guilty, because in the United States the majority of people charged with crimes “are in fact guilty.”


Although absolutely innocent people are sometimes charged with serious crimes, criminal justice systems that operate under the rule of law pride themselves on that happening quite rarely. So when I take a criminal case, I begin with a presumption of guilt: I assume my client probably did it, though I hope I’m wrong—and sometimes I am.

Generally, it is much safer for a criminal defense lawyer to presume guilt rather than innocence as a beginning hypothesis. If I were to presume my clients’ innocence, I might make the mistake of allowing them to be questioned by the police. I might have them consent to a search of their home or computer. Or I might allow them to go on TV, assert their innocence, and lock in their account, which may turn out to be provably false.”
Dershowitz, “Guilt By Accusation.”



I bet everyone can certainly see how this applies to the Obamunist law agencies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. “If I were ever to have a case in which I knew for certain that my client was innocent—say I had a video of my client being on a different continent at the time of the crime—I might well waive his rights and encourage the police to question and search him. I might encourage him to go on TV, assert his innocence, tell his story, and even show the video. After all, if the client is innocent, what does he have to hide? Why have the client look guilty by refusing to answer questions?



Well, I was that client. Having nothing to hide, I did what I would never allow a client, of whose innocence I was not absolutely certain, to do. I went on TV, asserted my innocence, provided my evidence, waived the criminal statute of limitations and answered all questions.



I did it because I was my only client about whose absolute innocence there was no doubt. So I was prepared to break all of my rules, and the rules by which other good defense attorneys operate, when they represent accused persons of whose innocence they can never be absolutely certain. My candor and openness succeeded—at least initially.”
Op.Cit.



There's some pretty valuable legal advice there.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. You know the saying, “99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.”

Dershowitz is a courageous ol’ fella’….and he has no qualms about spotlighting the sort of lacking in integrity in some folks in the legal profession.

“One of the lawyers who had filed papers accusing me of having sex with Giuffre and other underage females—former federal judge and now a University of Utah law professor, Paul Cassell—acknowledged during a sworn deposition that he did not have the names of any such females, and had not spoken to any. In fact, he was not able to offer any actual evidence—because there was none—to corroborate his outrageous accusation. This is what he swore under oath when asked to name one of the other underage females with whom he said I may have had sex: “I have 24 names in mind as possible sexual abuse victims that Dershowitz may or may not have abused. And I have not been able to pinpoint exactly what happened.” (Emphasis added.)



He said that he got the names from a police report that referred to Jeffrey Epstein but did not mention me. It was a clear example of guilt by association between a client and his lawyer. The worst part was that this McCarthyite statement was not made by an ordinary lawyer but rather by a “distinguished” professor and former judge who lent his impeccable professional credentials to bolster the false accusations.



Because he made it in a cowardly fashion behind the litigation privilege in a court proceeding, I couldn’t sue him for defamation. He knew that if he made it outside of court, I would have sued him and won a large judgment. I challenged him then and invite him now to repeat his false and defamatory accusation outside of court. He won’t. I also invite the Utah bar association to investigate his outrageous and unfounded accusation. They won’t.”



Judge Sullivan on the Flynn case comes to mind….

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. Try to imagine the average person who is accused in this way, without the reputation and funds that Dershowitz has.

He continues:

“I am telling this story now so that the law may be reformed to protect innocent people from being falsely accused in the future. I am a victim of a false accusation, and I believe that victims must speak out against the injustices they suffered. The #MeToo movement has commendably forced into public view the rampant exploitation of vulnerable women by predatory men. Women who have been victims of sexual abuse must be encouraged to expose their abusers.

But men who have been falsely accused—especially those, like me, who were deliberately targeted for crass financial gain—must also be encouraged to expose their false accusers. I will continue to speak out against anyone who has falsely accused me, despite the difficulty of proving one’s innocence in the age of #MeToo. I will fight the current sexual McCarthyism of lawyers like Paul Cassell as strongly as I fought the political McCarthyism of my youth.”



I believed Dershowitz even before all of the proof he provides in this book.

BTW…..there’s a lot about Jeffrey Epstein in the book, too....and lots of other celebs, as well.