It's been a while since I've talked about ole' Nancy. I thought that faithful readers of this blawg and loyal Nancy fans (I think it would be hard to find more mutually exclusive groups) will enjoy this site. (Link courtesy Norm Pattis.)
A number of hits to this site have come from people Googling Nancy Grace and also Cabellas (this is the really bad drug dog sniff search earlier this year. I think people are instead looking for Cabela's, which I certainly understand. Next time, use only one 'L' and click on the above link.) This posting may raise my hit counter.
In the meantime, if you are directed here because you truly are part of the Nancy Grace Fan Club, ask yourself some questions:
Why are you fans of someone who has consistently advocated convicting someone before she knows all of the facts? (She was wrong about the runaway bride. She was wrong about Richard Jewell. And she was wrong about the handyman in the Elizabeth Smart case. In each case, she 'knew' what had happened before any evidence had come in.)
Why are you fans of someone who has been personally named in three (3!) separate appellate opinions as having violated the rules of evidence? If you had a friend, neighbor, family member or someone close to you charged with a crime, would you want the DA to hide evidence? Would you want the DA to try to inflame the jury in order convict on something other than the evidence? If you would not want such for your friends, why do you want it for people you do not know? Is this just inconsistency or is it hypocrisy?
I am one of those defense lawyers that Nancy Grace despises. I've done this job for a long time. I've practiced in large communities and in small. And I really do not recognize the world Nancy appears to inhabit. In fact, I can count on one hand the number of prosecutors that even come close to Nancy's attitude. A prosecutor with that attitude spends a lot more time in trial than other attorneys, generally with very little to show for it.
In reality, most of my clients were regular people who did stupid things. I do my best to make sure that we are human beings and treat them fairly, to make sure that they get a sentence that is appropriate, and to make try, in some small part, to prevent a rush to judgment. Why is that so wrong?
If you think that this job is reprehensible, there are a number of societies you can go join where defense lawyers are a lot more toothless than they are here: Iran, China, and North Korea come to mind. The fact that all of those countries are horribly repressive regimes that violate basic human rights is no coincidence. Winston Churchill once said (and I'm paraphrasing here, so don't ding me if I don't get the quote exactly right) that one can judge how civilized a society is by the way it treats it criminally accused. Based on that, it does not appear that Nancy Grace is very civilized. So why are you a fan?