The Price of Tea in China

So far the witnesses that prosecutors have called to testify are about as relevant to the actual charges Paul Bergrin is on trial for as the price of tea in China. Of course the charges are absurd anyway. Paul was an attorney that represented clients and it was not his place to pass moral judgment on a client when accepting a case. Are there attorneys out there that approach a criminal defense practice any differently? I have never encountered one.

I have met or interacted with many criminal defense attorneys over the years, but have never come across one that refused a case because a client might be guilty of something. Attorneys defend the innocent, the guilty, and anything in-between because that's what they do. They are criminal defense attorneys.

Does anyone actually have an issue with the fact that Paul Bergrin represented Marilu Carmona's former husband? Apparently prosecutors do. Would it have suited AUSA Gay if the husband had no attorney at all? Would AUSA Gay prefer to practice in India where the Delhi Bar Association recently stated that no members would represent accused rapists and murderers on moral grounds?

No lawyers will represent India'gang-rape' defendants on "moral grounds"

This is the United States and every criminal defendant is entitled to representation by competent counsel. Attorneys are not supposed to be judged by the clients they represent. The right to an impartial trial and representation by counsel is in the wording and is the spirit of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

For prosecutors to repeatedly flash an image of a nine year-old girl and then call her mother to the stand with an outlandish accusation that Paul Bergrin brainwashed the child in the course of defending the father who had allegedly attempted to kill mom is outrageous! For Judge Cavanaugh to allow this charade is twice as outrageous.

Yeah, I'm ticked-off, if you haven't noticed. These people THINK they're going to railroad Paul. If you are a criminal defense attorney, you should be even more outraged than I am.

Furthermore, the original case in which Paul represented Marilu Carmona's husband is not as clear as prosecutors would have you believe. This is what one friend sitting in the courtroom for Paul's trial had to say about the situation:

A view in the courtroom by Jihadah Sharif:

"Vicky, the government is trying to convince that Paul Bergrin is a cold blooded killer. To prove their accusation they are using a case that happened about 10 years ago when Paul defended a man charged with attempted murdered of his wife by stabbing. In the opening the gov. put up the picture of the couple's then 9 year old daughter who the gov. claimed that Paul, Yolanda and the father brainwashed to lie to save the father.

In cross Paul all but proved that what the child said in favor of the father was true. The mother claimed that she was so afraid of the father, but she made every opportunity to be around him. I am sure he convinced the jury that the mother in fact may had been the one who had planned to kill the father but the table turned.

The judge gave Paul a hard time in his cross-exam of the witness, (the mother) to get his point across, but enough information came out to convince the jury that what the gov. claimed was not true. I know I was convinced - not because I am a Paul Bergrin fan, but because of the facts presented.

I believe that the judge should have given Paul room in questioning the mother because more information could have came out. Like I said, the mother who claimed that she was so much in fear of this man moved only a few blocks from him. There was no complaint of him stalking her and the daughter lived with the father so that she could stay in the same school district...."

So there you have it. The prosecutors are not only using the fact that Paul Bergrin represented his share of drug dealers, but also pulling-in other cases in which they did not like the defendant that Paul represented and felt that the defendant should have no counsel or lousy counsel that did nothing to defend him. The worst part is that Judge Cavanaugh, the supposedly fair and impartial facts man, is going along with this sick anti-constitutional charade.

More later.