Obviously, she was obligated to defend the guy, and no one can fault her for that. It is nonetheless disheartening to read that she basically tried to use the "little bit nutty, little bit slutty’’ rape defense in a case where the victim was a 12 year old. (E.g., she wrote "I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable...with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fastasizing.”)
Well, to play the devil's advocate for a moment... her strategy worked, didn't it?
Is it a defense counsel's obligation to seek a more ethical, but potentially less effective strategy?
I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. I don't know what the professional code of ethics includes.
I would be curious if any lawyers here can offer their take on two distinct types of character attacks on a witness:
1) Attack the witness's credibility for the purpose of convincing the jury to doubt their story.
2) Attack the witness's credibility by engaging in character assassination of the type that would be traumatic to the witness solely because you want to intimidate them into not testifying, thus encouraging the prosecutor not to bring the case to trial.
#1 seems like common sense. If you're a good lawyer you have to do it. #2 seems rather ethically sketchy, and gets into creepy territory when you're talking about a kid. But of course, one can't really prove in a particular case what the lawyer's motivation for such a character attack is.
As long as #2 doesn't cross the line into slander, both are part and parcel for defense attorneys. Trust me.
