Who would you rather defend?

I received an email from a friend of mine from college asking if I had seen there is a new movie about Jacques Verges entitled Terror's Advocate. I will admit initially I had no clue who that was. But apparently you can find it on iTunes. (God, I love Apple. Have I mentioned this?) Anyway, ole' Jacques appears to have made a bit of a name for himself representing "terrorists" around the world. Of course he is French (I assume), so I can't be a huge fan.

So after I watched the trailer for the movie (by the way, probably not the best movie trailer I've seen. Seems ok, but a little bit of grandstanding by ole' Jacques), I realized my buddy had actually asked a question at the end of his email. Who would I rather defend/ or not defend:
1.) al Qaeda Islamic Terroristic held at Gitmo (That's Guantanamo Bay. I knew that one!)
2.) Nazi War Criminal
3.) Repeated Child Sex Offender
4.) Presidential Assassin
5.) Movie Star/ O.J.-type situation (of course I assumed v.1, but v.2 probably also works)
6.) American Politician accused of "War Crimes"
7.) Satan

Quite a list I thought. I wish we had had such a list for our frat parties, but I digress. I think we have to put aside the obvious that if you could successfully represent Satan in front of God, you're pretty much in Cooperstown. That brings up an interesting question. Who would I rather defend or not defend?

Well, initially I will say I don't think there is anyone on that list I would refuse to defend. So the question then becomes who would I rather defend? Well, not to make light of it, but child sex offenders are a dime a dozen, and I do that everyday anyway. So let's dispense with that. The Nazi War Criminal might be high on the list of some, but that was a generation ago. (Not to make light of the atrocities. Comparison purposes only.) That leaves the Terrorist, the Assassin, the Movie Star, and the American Politician in a War Crimes Tribunal, presumably.

So, since we're talking about The Hague (which I didn't realize until recently was an actual city I guess), I'm going to pass on that one. I'm not a big fan of Europe. I mean seriously. Really no matter where you are, it's weird. As my wife said, Russia makes Western Europe look like Vegas.

That leaves the Terrorist, the Assassin and the Movie Star. I think the O.J. deal has been beaten to death. Am I wrong? It was great in, what, 1995, but we've grown, haven't we? So that leaves the Terrorist and the Presidential Assassin.

There are a lot of people out there that don't like America. That's probably because they have only been to crazy places like New York and D.C., and haven't been able to enjoy the heaven-like experience of Texas. But nonetheless, they are serious bad guys. Then of course we have the Presidential Assassin. I have personally never been of a generation that was subjected to that. Of course we have the whole John Hinckley thing but it was a failure. (By the way, did you know Hinckley went to my alma mater Texas Tech? Super. Let's put that in the Alumni literature.)

Of those, I would chose the Presidential Assassin. Why? Well, such a trial would be the absolute "Trial of the Century." There could be no question. But that's not why I would want to defend that person. Think of the challenge. Of course, nowadays, you're betting even money on whether a given person actually likes the President. Obviously I do. It's in the contract.

Which raises an interesting issue. Would it make it a bigger deal to represent the person who allegedly shot the president you support? I think it would. It would be similar to that of Anthony Griffin, or others who represent those accused of crimes.

So the bottom line is that if I could choose to defend one person, it would be a Presidential Assassin accused of assassinating a president I supported. I want to know the responses of my four, no wait, five readers (thanks again Jenny.) Let me know. I know it's Friday, but what the hell else are you going to do?

Comments

[Other Steve]

You didn't talk about the challenge of defending a terrorist who refused to cooperate in his/her own defense. Although I suppose defendants who can't (or won't) assist in their own defense are also a-dime-a-dozon, now that I think about it.

But I think the most interesting part of your response is the way you approached the question: "Who would I prefer to defend?" became a question of "What's the biggest or most unique challenge?" rather than "Who do I detest the least?"

[Mark Bennett]

I'd take the terrorist. Defending the assassin, you'd only have half the country calling for your head on a platter.

[Scott Greenfield]

I'd take any but the child sex offender, and that's only because I wouldn't be effective vomiting on my client.

Reader 3

[Doug Weathers]

You do know Mr. Republican that since you have used the words "terrorist" "Presidential assassin" and "John Hinckley" that your blog and post are going to be showing up on a U.S. Government computer searching for such. Say hi to the NSA.