Those of us here accept the adult movie business without much of a second thought (or you would not be reading this, it seems safe to say), but you have to remember that a great deal of “polite society” still holds on to that prim and proper standard of a half a century ago. They may not voice the opinion, but those of us from that generation understand the era in which we grew up. Granted we have 20 years on most young attorneys, but we do not have much of an age gap when it comes to the bosses of those attorneys — or the politicians, as a rule.
Worse, this case has five defendants, and even though four of them confessed (implicating the others) five defendants means FIVE LAWYERS, each of whom has the relatively straightforward goal of blaming one or all of the other men accused of the crimes. Of course none of those complications even become relevant until the Clark County Grand Jury looks at all the preliminary evidence against each defendant — individually. Even though they have four overlapping confessions, and even though they found many of the items stolen from the home in a bag also stolen from the home, in the possession of the defendants, Cy has a lot more days in the courtroom ahead of her. It can be horrible. It really can.
Defense attorneys can say they’re “defending the system and the Constitution” all they want, and while that happens to be completely true in their minds, at some level you have to try to “work” that same system to the benefit of your client. Say, just as a hypothetical situation, he confessed to the crime. Well, the first thing the lawyers try to do is get rid of those confessions as evidence. You’ll hear some variation of the tactic:
- My guy didn’t say it.
- My guy didn’t mean it.
- My guy was coerced into telling a lie.
- My guy was coerced into admitting the truth, but unconstitutionally.
The arguments all read from the same script, and they all take time. Guilty defendants almost never benefit from that whole “speedy trial” promise, so they stall, and stall, and … well, you get it. Witnesses die. Witnesses forget. Officers retire, or go on to hundreds of other cases before someone asks them in court to remember this specific one. Even the memories of the victims fade. And if someone testifying in court says something just a little bit different from what they said when it happened months and months ago, well, watch out. That becomes the “reasonable doubt” hook all defense lawyers want the jury to hang their hats one.
Meanwhile the victims and their families have to try and move on, all the while reliving the event every single time another “hearing” comes up. You may never have thought much about victims’ rights groups before, but get involved in a violent crime, and you will likely see the world differently.
