How can you defend those people?

If he shot the baby first, was their a mention of any type of struggle or was it bang bang so fast she did not have time to even blink? I was not able to watch every minute.

One thing I can't comprehend in the Entwistle case is: How could a father and a husband that truly loves their family, not attend the funeral, but merely send flowers. Even in his taped sessions when they where questioning him, I did not see a lot of true emotion.

Could not agree more with Jami Floyd. Criminal defense attorneys are the protectors of the innocent – regardless of whether or not a client committed the crime with which he is charged. Defense attorneys hold the State to its burden, i.e., proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Without someone standing in that postion and saying, in the language of the law, "Prove it," any one of us could be punished for any offense without proper proof, or on the basis of shoddy police work, or a mere hunch. Defense attorneys are an invaluable part of our legal system; without them our constitutional guarantees would be meaningless.

That is why we all live here in America. Although our justice system isn't perfect, its probably the most fair system there is. And as much as I don't like Defense Attorney's, they are "just doing their job". It was very interesting in this case that the Defense called no witnesses to the stand. What he states is true that he isn't requried to prove Entwistle's Innocents but the Procecutions job is to prove that he is guilty. That is how our system works. I do hope he is found guilty by the jury because nothing else explains the death of his wife and baby in evidence left behind, or testimony from others contradicting the police, forensic science, and statements made. But at least we have a system that allows a jury of us to look at the facts and decide if he is guilty. No where else in the world is there a system like ours....

Very well stated – as a litigation support paralegal I am often asked the same question. Last Christmas I gave all of my loved ones small, hard-bound copies of the Constitution. I inscribed the one to my stepson with the words of the oath I once took and still honor . . . to protect and defend that Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. No citizen of the United States has any higher responsibility than this. I believe the jury in this matter will find that the defendant took away those rights from his wife and daughter, and they will punish him accordingly. But even if they do not, I have no intention of abandoning my oath, or my Constitution. If I did, who would defend and protect me?

This is insane! This man reeks, I mean reeks of guilt. Shame on Eliot Weinstein for even suggesting Rachel committed suicide. They were really reaching with that one.

I get the Constitution and the rights it protects to the people. Where I start having trouble is believing blatant criminals have the same equal rights as those that are truly innocent. I understand one's guilt or innocence only comes thru the court or a trial but it never ceases to disturb me that the Scott Petersons and OJ Simpson's of the world get rights and second chances and the victims do not.

Hi Jami. What I don't like about Weinstein is that he made up that outrageous tale of Rachel killing the baby and then herself because he HAD NO DEFENSE. I'm sure this has been very hurtful to Rachel's family and friends, to say nothing of failing to "protect Rachel's honor"! The "blame the victim" tactic is similar to "ambulance chasing", don't you think? Let Neil Entwistle stand trial for what he did, and let his own words and actions speak for him instead of making up stories to try and confuse the jury. That's where ethics and morals of an attorney come in, I think.

i have just recently become aware that entwistle told the police about bubbles??? please if possible, tell me what this refers to?

GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY AS HELL. defense couldn't even put on one witness in his behalf. comment" remember phot of him and u didn't know if he was crying or laughing? my clarificiation:

IF LAUGHING HE WOULD COVER HIS MOUTH – IF CRYING HE WOULD COVER HIS EYES -- AND HIIS MOTHER WHO WAS SITTING RIGHT NEXT TO HIM WOULD TRY TO CONSOLE HIM IN SOME WAY BY EITHER HOLDING HIS HAND, OR PUTTING HER ARM AROUND HIM. A MOTHER WOULD FEEL HIS TEARS AND REACH OUT TO HOLD HIM.

U BE THE JUDE ON THAT SITUATION.

Bravo!!!!

This is to the tru.tv programing,i been watching entwistle since day 1 and i have split my alliance to watching online cnn.com live,and had better information uncut by commercials and interviews you tru.tv does,that it take away interest of live coverage,i enjoy the OPEN COURT,and BANFIELD AND FORD reason is less defense lawyer oriented,i predict verdict will be guilty of 1st degree of murder with malice intent,life in prision no parole,i been emailing my thoughts since day 1 and have not seen 1 of my postings yet i think the truth hurts too much for others to read,i dare you all to read my past posting and see how right i am so far with jury verdict dare you,post them up on wednesday ,thursday or friday before verdict i dare you,i leave 1 town over in ashland,ma.i know prosecutor fabbri for over 5 years with or social friends,like i said i dare you to post my pasted opinions

Ashleigh Banfield has got to have the best job in the world. All she has to do is run her mouth about how she's really not qualified to do her job. But I do have to admit, she is good at that; at being not qualified. Haha! JK.

I totally agree with Mr. Entwistle's right to a defense and a fair trial, as well as Scott Peterson. However, although it is Mr. Weinstein's right to stand up and say that Rachel Entwistle committed suicide, not only after killing her baby, but by shooting through her baby, I am appalled. Unless he truly believes that is what happened, how could he do it?!

I understand the right to council and the right to a fair trial and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. I would want it no other way. Especially if it were me, an innocent person in the defendants chair. Thank God for the Constitution.

The problem that I have and that other people have, who are critical of defense attorneys, is when you have gone over the evidence, whether circumstantial or physical, and you realize with certainty that your prospective client is most likely guilty as charged, and you take the case anyway. Proceeding to find every possible (even ridiculous) scenario or loophole to create reasonable doubt. How can you, with conscience, let a rapist or murderer back on the street, to hurt or kill other people?

My question to you Jami, is this: Have you ever refused to take a case because you believed from the evidence and your own logic that the prospective client was guilty?

AND, I will not forget how Ms Banfield continually expressed her sympathy toward the cold-blooded killer Jean Pierre Orlewicz because of her expressed fondness for his cute and boyish angel face. While she had nothing but distain and mercilessness for the unwitting accomplice Alex Letkemann, who never wanted to kill anyone and who never did participate in the grisly inhumane act. Justify that, Ashleigh Banfield.

Entwistle is guilty as sin. Suicide? Give me a break. It has so many
reminders of Scott Petersen's trial. Jamie Floyd is the worst
commentator I have ever heard and she should go back to the courtroom.

THANK YOU, JAMI !!! IT'S AMAZING HOW SOME PEOPLE CAN BE SOOO SHORTSIGHTED. YOU CAN BET THEY WILL BE THE FIRST IN LINE FOR A DEFENSE ATTORNEY IF THEY EVER NEED ONE. MAYBE THEN THEY WILL UNDERSTAND "WHY DEFEND THOSE PEOPLE"!

The defense attorney damaged his reputation trying to alledge that Rachel shot the baby and herself.

IDid you note that in talking about how Neil had gone out shopping in the morning, stopped at Starbucks and out of love for his wife purchased two coffees – one to bring home to her, he erred. If you bring your wife a hot coffee, you don't sit down at the computer and waste two hours before going upstairs to give it to her!

I totally agree with you, but an attorney doesn't have to lie to defend his client. Lie is NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION!!!
What Weinstein did he invented and lie during his closing argument!
That to me is not admissible, absolutely not!!!!

This is a rehash of the same "last word" you did about two months ago. My problem is those defense attorneys who try to trash the victims. They should be very ashamed of themselves when they pull such cheap shots to people, who thanks to their clients, aren't around to protect themselves anymore.

It's not that I "hate" defense attorneys for defending a person. You're right, they are entitled to representation and a fair trial. However, they are not entitled to blame the family (as in this case) for "not seeing the signs" of a nonexistent disorder. There was absolutely no shred of evidence nor any testimony to even suggest that this was a suicide on the part of Rachel. It was the same as rape trials of long ago, blame the victim. Shame on Weinstein. Shame on you for not seeing the difference here.

Hello "Last Word"! I like your constitution approach – you've done that on several occasions, and it's what our country is based on what our judicial system SHOULD be based on. I like your comments regarding the Defense Attorneys who defend those who are, in the media's eyes, so guilty. However, in all fairness, I don't think a Defense Attorney's job is to get a person off of a crime they did commit due to a technicality or 'fancy talking'. That's what sickens me. I could go on with very well researched and sited examples, but this is just a comment post. Like I said, I agree with your references to the constitution, but not if it will be at the cost of the victim.

I just think the defense attacked Rachel unfairly. I could have accepted the reasonable dobut theory but to blame her is absurd. Why didn't Neil tell police earlier as his actions don't reflect that of a caring husband. I get upset when in cases were it is so obvious the guilt the defense uses dirty tactics.I watch you all the time. I love the show....

Jami, my problem isn't with Mr. Weinstein defending Mr. Entwistle my problem with Mr. Weistein's handling of the case. He's wanting the Jury to hold the prosecution to a higher standard than the Defense.

Why didn't the defense have the evidence tested? Why didn't they have their own expert witness to dispute the Prosecution's expert witnesses? The Defense didn't call one person to the stand. But in his closing he accuses Rachel of not only committing herself but also killed her beautiful baby daughter and he did this with no evidence. He never even brought this up as a possible defense until the very end. Why would he try to destroy the reputation of a Mom that has been killed?

He wants evidence to prove his client is innocent but doesn't even present a case, but attacks a woman that was murdered along with her daughter. How can he bring this up in closing but not present any evidence during the trial?

With Mark, my problem with him is the fact that this "amublance chasing lawyer" wasn't even in the court room when the verdict was read. Why? Why would Mark miss the most important moment of his client's case? Besides death what could possibly be more important than the reading of the verdict of your client whom is facing the death penalty?

Agreed Jami. But if the jury comes back hung or not guilty the prosecutor, based on Neil's tapes, had better have another charge up his sleeve. Neil at the least, by his own testimony, covered up a crime sceene, no matter his excuse or justification is.

I watched your show today and at the end you do a monologue I believe is called 'thelast word'. In it you referred to yourself as a true believer and it made me wonder....A true believer in what exactly? You are an idealogue who will root for the home team even if the home team is delusional and downright evil. Make an arguement for the sake of an arguement. You have been a counterweight to my prosecutorial leanings but you tend to lose me when you support the ridiculus. Like today with Entwistle, actually straining to find plausibility in the suicide theory. Any serious consideration of the facts makes that theory laughable. Be more balanced, your message would be better heard if you were. Although sometimes like today it seems you could care less about justice, droning on an on about the plausibility of that stupid suicide story. It makes you look heartless and now I'll have to work at tolerating you and your show again. Do you ever watch and listen to yourself? Do you ever ask yourself what if that were you, the mother of the victim. I understand innocent until proven guilty and respect it but yucking it up while toying with the facts just to play 'party politics' is callous. It's not the first time I've felt that way after watching you on your show. Grow a heart! Seems you love the ideal more than you love people.

I'd Like To Know If It Was Suicide, How Did She Kill Herself And Then Put The Gun Back To Where It Came From Without Leaving Blood Anywhere? She Would Of Left Blood In Her Car, The Floor, The Gun Cabinet, etc.

If Suicide Is A Buyable Defense, She Would Have Died With The Gun In Her Hand. Did She Kill Herself And Then Put The Gun Back? Or Did She Put The Gun Back First And Then Kill Herself? We Are Not Idiots And Neil's Defense Is Playing The Jury And All Of Us As If We Were. Defense Attorneys Make Me Sick!

On, I get the whole constitution thing, Jamie. But what you seem to miss is doing what you do with decency and integrity. To make up wild stories like the mother did it, as if there were even a scintilla of evidence that she would have murdered that baby girl? I realize there was simply no evidence that could help this guy, but to make up nasty stories to try to dirty up the victim? Maybe the baby drove to her grandparents home, stole the gun, murdered her mother, shot herself, drove the gun back to Grandpa's house, then snuggled up next to Mommy and died. That's about as plausible. Since those attorneys clearly have no conscience, at least they should have considered how outraged people (including the jury?) would become with that baloney.

Jamie Floyd in her usual puffed up way totally misses the point completely. Everybody agrees that every person has a right to council. What is wrong is the fact that these defence lawyers are willing to completely mislead a jury while putting out ridiculous scenarios, as to who caused the crime. They are willing to totally ruin the reputation of the victim to win a case. Even when I am sure that most of them know that there client is guilty , it still doesn't stop them from stooping to lying.The Enwistle case and looking back at the OJay trial, and at the Peterson trial. What these lawyers were and are willing to do is immoral. The fact that Jamie Floyd defends these people tells us where her moral compass is.

I completely agree that we need lawyers to completely commit to ensuring that each person is fairly represented and has an equal chance at a fair trial. But I object to lawyers defending the people whom they know are guilty, that is to me hiding evidence and almost helping with the crime when an attorney gets a criminal off and on the streets just because they are being paid enough to represent their client.

what justice did his wife & baby have i think he's gulity

blah blah blah again. 'it's about the constitution.' the constitution guarantees a fair trial and that's it. nowhere in the constitution are attorneys told to make up complete lies in the course of defending their client when they absolutely know they're guilty-as mr. weinstein absolutely does.
mr. weinstein could have suggested the state didn't rule out suicide. but to go through an imaginary scenario and portray his client not as the murdering cad he is, but as a noble fellow merely trying to defend his wife's honor, would be laughable if this case weren't so awful. it also flies in the face of the evidence in this case. so this guy's willing to spend his life in prison so that rachel's family doesn't have to face the 'truth' that their daughter was the real killer?
stop blathering about the constitution. this case is a perfect example of why people despise defense attorneys who are NOT defending the constitution, but trying to 'win' and get their guilty-as-sin clients off the hook.

Does "providing proper counsel" mean lying and dragging the victim through the mud in front of her family and friends, and accusing HER of killing her own baby while claiming "no one is trying to blame Rachel". Shame on Mr. Weinstein, and shame on all defense attorneys who place playing the "defense game" more important than the truth, or finding justice for murdered victims. Defense lawyers often care much more about winning than doing the right thing.

Amen!

Defending is one thing,,,,,outright lying and blaming the victim is another story. Making up outrageous stories shouldn't be a "good defense". They are down right lies that let murders go free because you are only looking for one juror to make a hung jury...is that justice, I don't think so. If there is no "legitimate" defense for a client, they should be punished. When the case is unclear, that's another matter but this one is so obvious we shouldn't even be wasting the tax payers money on a trial.

Did Neil Entwistle leave the music on loud because the baby and or Rachel was screaming and crying? Could they have been saved if he had called 911?

Jamie – I agreed 100% in your "Last Word".

I would never disagree that the defendant deserves a defense – 100% strong.

Unfortunately, for Neil E., I believe his attorneys were weak. In the hope for Neil E., I hope his appeal (which I also believe will have to happen) will focus on his attorneys' to have not presented a defense case. I can't understand the suicide theory his defense attorneys proposed during closing arguments, which is not proof – just a theory -but will ultimately result in an appeal (which is what I think they had in mind). I truly believe that is Neil's saving grace – an appeal and a new trial.

I must say, though, that if I was sitting on that jury (and thank God I am not), it would be a very difficult decision – and one that would be to convict.

Thank you, Jamie, for your intelligience and knowledge on TruTV – you are the one that makes the 6 hour show worth while to watch.

P.S. I never would have voted guilty on the "Mark Jensen" trial – that verdict, to this day, still haunts me – too much reasonable doubt.

Rebecca De Waard, Freeland, MI

Yes - we are all intitled to a compented defence and are not guilty until we have been proven to be. The problem starts when a defence just throwsout "possibliteys" – "this is what really happened " – "she/he was trying to protect or save the honor" – sorry I ain't buying. The state must follow rules, is the defence bound by the same??

It seems to me Neil left everything so he could try to fool himself that it didn't really happen. Leaving all the keys in the car was probably his way of cutting off what he had done in his own mind. I can't imagine he could keep it out of his mind totally, but enough to cope. I think he did laugh while watching the murder scene. He didn't laugh because he thought it was funny. With the stress he was under it was either laugh or have a breakdown. The pressure caused by his finances pushed him over the edge. It was easier to kill his family than face disgrace and possibly going to jail.

I think Jami Floyd makes a valid point. Our Constitution is to
protect everyone. Besides, if no one would defend these
people then they would still be out on the streets with us and
I for one am all for having saver streets for our kids to grow
up in.

It has always made me wonder why people even ask that question.
Did they miss the teaching of the Constitution in school?
If they ever get charged with a crime you and Petersons attorney will be the first one they call. If their kids wife ever goes missing you can bet they will call a hot shot attorney to defend him.
I cannot help but laugh when I hear this inane question.

Its not about defending an unpopular person or even a monster...that is correct and perfectly acceptable to the general public...its about making up a defense in a closing argument that is totally unsupported by any evidence...a lawyer can put his spin on evidence but should never make one up....and that is my word....

Jami: I am sure most people want an accused to be defended by an able attorney and to get a fair trial. What is objectionable is lawyer double talk theory not based on evidence but on imagination. Just listen to your guests, they never fail to come up with some wild explanation for criminal behavior. Walter.

Jami,
I couldn't believe my ears when the attorney trying to accuse Rachael of sucide. His coment was she shot lily and the bullet entered Rachaels breast, which would't be painful because that area is fatty tissue. Its apparent that idiot has never had a mammogram or breast fed or even been pinched! I am a WOMAN and am here to tell him that those things are extreamly painful. Breast are amoung the most sensitive parts of all women I've talked too,
Sincerely,
Diane

Do you defend people knowing they are guilty? I understand everyone's right to a fair trial, but if you know that they did it, aren't you commiting a form of perjury by trying to distill the facts or fabricate an alternate possibility (like a suicide) when you know your client is guilty?

Right to a fair trial I can understand and everyone has that right.

What I don't understand are attorneys who do there very best to discredit witnesses and evidence to get a guilty person off so they can be set lose on the public again. (O J Simpson is one) That is not what this coundty is about and not what our forefathers ment when they wrote the "Constitution!"

Everyone has a right to a fair trial, but not in the way some attorneys are going about it.

I say those attorneys are no better than the person they're defending.

I am not impressed with Eliot Weinstein. His failure to put on a defense. His passionless, lackluster, closing argument, which he appeared to be reading, is almost more puzzling than Neil's actions following the death of his wife and baby.

Jami, I think what many people find difficult to comprehend is this. When a defense lawyer has a client that is almost certainly guilty, meaning all of the evidence overwhelmingly points to their guilt, how they can, with a clear conscience, manufacture an absurd defense theory. Surely you must have, in the past, been asked to defend someone who you know, or are pretty sure, commited the crime?

I have a statement then a question! Neil has made a great attempt for everyone to know he left the door unlocked. When I was young and deep in love, my husband would never have thought of leaving the house without locking the door. It was an area Neil didn't know well, why if he was young and in love and wanted to protect his family would he leave without locking the house? Also what time do the staples stores open for business in the area?

I understand about "rights" and the "constitution"....BUT understaND IN MY

I undsertand what Jami is saying about the constitution, etc BUT, to try and defend this man buy insinuating his wife murdered her baby and then herself is makes my stomach turn.

Only Jamie would think Entwistle story, she still thinks OJ was not guilty. But with her genes what can you expect..

I think people are simply outraged that obviously guilty people have the nerve to sit in front of the world and claim innocence. And to top it off, they have "supporters" including their lawyers. If we didn't have the constitution and the justice system that we have today, our society would be barbaric. Regardless if the people don't understand the right to defense, I am sure they would appreciate it if they were in a situation of false accusations.

Jury was given a tough job with the late slam from defending attorneys. I feel they were fair, taking the time they did to deliberate. They did a great job, not allowing another murderer to walk free, as some have lately.
By the way, I never heard that Rachael's finger prints were found on the gun safe at her parent's home where the murder weapon was retrieved before the shooting. What about it?

Justice was served in the Neil Entwistle trial but there were no winners. In the end everyone lost.

I certainly do strongly agree that every citizen deserves good legal representation at trial. And I can understand going to great lengths to provide your client with the best defense you can summon. But I am concerned about the real justification for trial - to determine the truth. I find it absolutely abhorent that Rachel could be so visciously maligned by Entwistle's lawyers. Someone who, by her husband's hands, silenced her forever - she could never refute the nasty and degrading charges by Enwistle's attorneys. I can't imagine how difficult this must have been for her family. Her family has suffered enough.

There should be a difference between a "fair" trial and a bunch of defense attorney's throwing _ _ _ _ to the wall and hope it sticks. Defending the proposed evidence and Miranda rights and forensics is proper and ethical, however trying to create off the wall reasonable doubt, such as suicide is not what the constitution is about.

Neil Entwistle is in the ranks of Scott Peterson and all the other husbands who everyone says was a loving husband. He has no conscious and I believe he committed these horrifying crimes. Why? Who knows? No one can possibly understand what is going on with these crazy men in their crazy minds. No normal person would have reacted like he did and fled to another country to let Rachel's family suffer like that and let his wife and innocent baby lie in bed to decompose. I have no mercy for him and hope he spends the rest of his life in prison. Looks are deceiving and don't mean a thing. It is what inside that we cannot see that makes him evil.

Mr. Entwistle , if you were innocent(?) why didn't you take the stand?
He sits there looking free from doing moral wrong. My heart goes out to Rachel's family.She was sleeping with a killer. As for his mother , she has no "LOVE" for the baby and Rachel. If you have the heart to kill a child ,who cannot defend itself, that individual, should be put to death.

How can you defend those people? That's my last word.

if mr. entwistle was defending his wife's "honour" is it possible he instructed his defence team not to put on a defence!!!!could he have stopped his lawyer from his horrific closing argument? the whole thing makes no sense!he really needed to take the stand to explain his behavour. i have been watching court tv for years!he is one of the worst! life forever in the u.s. with no family could be much worse than death!he is young...his life will be long and slow...torture! joni

I have a terrible thought about how Racheal got the gun powder on her hands, she could have reached out towards the gun as he shot her, a defensive reaction.

Maybe Rachel had gun residue on her hands because she was holding her hands up for self defence when the gun was fired. Has anyone even thought of that. Entwistle is guilty as charged. He had no defence...cut and dry.

Jamie,
Watching today, I can't believe the defense attorney's. They gave the best defense for a man that was guilty and claimed he was innocent. Now their blaming the jury for being to incompetent to understand the trial system. Okay, so you have Neil blames, Rachael, the defense attorneys blame the jury. Why can't they just accept that they gave the best defense and they could and they lost. Just because you want to believe Neil isn't guilty, doesn't make it so.

One thing that has not been mentioned during the trial is the fact of how unlikely it is a Mother if under attack, such as having a gun pointed at her, she would not shield herself with her child. Quite the opposite, she would roll over on top of her baby to protect her child. If that is the case then the shooter would have shot the mother in the back of the head instead of the front as in this case. The thought process from there is quite easy to surmise.

Jami,
I went to law school although I opted out of the system because I thought it inherently distorted information in a bizarre dualism that never allowed syncretic thought. I understand your advocacy role, but Weinstein's defense was ludicrous. The victim of a gunshot has obviously been in the vicinity of a discharged weapon. Who would seriously consider suicide when the weapon is nowhere to be found?

AMEN. It may be hard to stomach for some, but everyone –every o-n-e deserves, and must have, robust defense counsel. Anything less than adequate, defined as good, counsel, besmirches the U.S. legal system, the Constitution, the country, and yes, the victim. Neither justice nor the tragic victim is ever served when a defendent's rights to counsel is abused or compromised.

And more to the point of self-interest, mistakes continue to be made, and not always innocent mistakes get made in evidence, detectivework and investigation, which very possibly result in wrongful conviction of truly innocent people who we love, or even ourselves.

To Jamie Floyd:

This is my last word. The verdict was confusing. Elliot Weinstein, Neil's Attorney made a suggedstion of suiscide, but didn't back it up with any evidence. Where were the experts? Neil did not get a fair trial. If F. Lee Bailey or Johnny or Barry would have been there you can bet we would have heard ablut the GSR on Rachell and Lillian.

Neil made himself look guilty by his actions. But all I heard was how could the mother have done that, well how could the father have done that? Same thing. If Neil did it he should rot in jail but the evidence should have came out.

Where was the Blood or Gun shot residue on Neil. With all the experts I am sure they could have found what they needed to convict the right person.

Thank you,
Sharon, Canada

I have never been so aware of the need for a good defense until I read the book 'The Innocent Man', it is well written for anyone following the legal system.
Sure Neil Entwistle looks as guilty as sin, and I believe that he is...however there needs to be stringent standards that prove that in a court of law. It was said that NE could not get a 'fair' trial, I beg to disagree...he was given the best chance that anyone could have ever had in a crime that has sickenened so many.
I do hope that Mr. Entwistle enjoys his stay at Hotel H*ll, he will have much in common with his fellow inmates.

To defend and fight for an accused when you truly know or believe the accused is innocent, is a mark of valor and pride in your profession, and you are appreciated when the true innocent goes free due to your efforts. To defend he/she which you know to be guilty, and to use the law against itself to create reasons why evidence or testimony should not or can not be used, just to win a case....is a low-life spit-in-the-face of good, approach.
The world does not need to pander to the guilty whom intentionally murder, mame, or damage society and/or our children. Yet you the defense, take whatever you can get away with, to taint the outcome in the bad guy's favor, only to get an equital so they can again return to the streets to play out their bad deeds again. And you cover yourself by saying they deserve the best defense. Maybe if we stop defending the guilty, crime rates would drop. If we the people have the right to be free from fear of these killers and rapists and child molesters, then it seems to me the guilty give up their right to live among us. Our land is for the law-abiding, not the law breaker.

You are a great advocate jami, but as such you take a position and then attempt to justify it. You speak of an unbiased jury, yet the writers of the constitution probably didn't envision jury consultants who attempt to get people on the jury who do have a bias. it's no longer about justice but about winning. defense attorneys, and i'd love em to death if i was in need, are quick to point out those convicted who are innocent, but they fail to provide the numbers of those released who were guilty. Perhaps that old country song would give us an insight "i wonder,i wonder, but i really don't want to know".
the judicial system is all about winning and over the years using protection of the innocent as an excuse the deck has been tilted in favor of those who can afford a good attorney (that isn't an oxymoron is it).
I can't prove it but i believe that while this has probably let the guilty get set free it has unwittingly convicted many who were innocent. it has caused law enforcement with good intentions to push the edge of the rules and sometimes cross the line to ensure someone they thought was guilty didn't get released on a technicality.

Just as i can't prove that preventing officers from using their weapons except under the most extreme circumstances have led to harsher treatment of suspects after foot pursuits. there used to be the time when a cop yelled freeze, fear of getting shot would cause a suspect to obey.
both the prosecution and defense need to quit worrying about winning and instead figure out a way to provide justice in the best interest of the people. and we wonder why the political parties are polarized, the leaders in most of them are lawyers.