The main thing I dislike about him was he procecuted Lenny Bruce.
Of course he was just doing his job.

Translation: I'm going to ignore all of the good points you made, and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

Keep doing that, see how far it gets you.

One statement and then I am off like a prom dress (if I wanted to get involved in this crap I would go to Fark):

Your statement above is not actually true. The purpose of a defense attorney is to ensure a fair trial. Their purpose is to make sure the prosecution holds to the letter of the law and does not abuse their power. The defense attorney makes sure the prosecution doesn't create false evidence or testimony.

Granted, anyone accused of a crime is going to get the guy with the best record for acquittals, so I understand their vigor in attempting to produce the most not guilty verdicts.

I understand that my statement above is a "rose-colored glasses" approach to criminal defense, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Commence with your name calling and bickering.

Absolutely wrong. The prosecution could hold to the letter of the law, avoid abusing their power, yet still be prosecuting the wrong guy. Some cop could have lied, or they just made the wrong conclusions about the evidence. Merely keeping the prosecution in line is not enough. It's the defense attorney's job to poke holes in the prosecution's case, or in other words show the jury that there is reason to believe the client may be innocent.


If the defense is successful, then the prosecution was either wrong (the guy really is innocent) or the prosecution failed to prepare a good enough case (not the defense's fault)