WASHINGTON - TelAve -- Lindsay Clancy's defense attorney has hurled numerous accusations against the single holdout juror, and an attorney for the holdout juror, Edward Paltzik has in turn accused attorney Raymond Reddington of violating legal ethics.

But neither Reddington nor the sole holdout juror should be blamed or even criticized for their actions because each did exactly what the U.S. legal system expects of them, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf. . . .

. . .

So, to defend a criminal defendant, an attorney may have a legal duty to even bring down a king; which is far more serious than inflaming public opinion against a juror and/or filing motions targeting him.

A criminal defense attorney cannot serve two masters; which means that his all-encompassing duty is to do whatever he can to protect his client (within the boundaries of the law), and this legal duty cannot be tempered even very slightly by concerns for others.

More on TelAve News

• Nutriband (N A S D A Q: NTRB): Fighting Back Against the Fentanyl Crisis With a New Approach to Safer Transdermal Medicines
• Oral statement on the situation of Chairman Lee Man-hee in pretrial detention in the Republic of Korea
• Names Are Not Important Asks What Remains When Identity Is Stripped of Labels
• Most Utah Deaths Never Reach the Medical Examiner. Postmortem Pathology Offers Salt Lake City a Private Autopsy Option
• Virtually Tour Heritage at South Brunswick's Resort-Style Living - Experience Indoor and Outdoor Amenities at Your Fingertips

. . .

Similarly, the holdout juror was merely doing doing what has been legal for jurors to do since 1670; performing a function under and consistent with our deep rooted and constitutionally required practice of entrusting even the most difficult and complex decisions to 12 laymen required to somehow reach a unanimous conclusion, rather than to a panel of experts, a judge assisted by expert testimony. a "special jury" (sometimes called "blue-ribbon" juries or juries of experts), or some other means far more likely to reach the factually correct result based upon facts but not emotions.

...

In short, jurors in a criminal trial are permitted (have a legal privilege) - if not sometimes even expected - despite the judge's strong admonition, to completely disregard both the law and the facts, and to return a verdict based upon their own feelings as to what is fair, just, and appropriate in a specific case.

More on TelAve News

• Derek Cook's Roofing Encourages Homeowners to Prepare for Fall Weather
• Boston Industrial Solutions Expands Product Offering with Pad Printing Pads and Silicone for Custom Pad Manufacturing
• Rodeo FX Originals Appoints Yvann Thibaudeau Head of Development & IP
• Modern Network Infrastructure with 6WIND vCGNAT
• Phoenix 5/7 Emerges as a Genre-Fluid Artist Collective

So just as we accept that an emergency room physician has an obligation to do everything he can to save the life of a known murderer or terrorist likely to continue killing in the future, we should accept that criminal defense attorneys have an obligation to do whatever they can, within the bounds of the law, to protect their client; even if the expected result will be more killings or, in the Clancy case, possible danger and major invasions of privacy for one or more jurors.

Similarly, because we insist upon entrusting important decisions to 12 laypeople who must decide unanimously, we must expect and accept that at least sometimes some jurors will act in accordance with deeply held feelings, even if those may not be consistent with the law, explains Professor Banzhaf.

http://banzhaf.net/   jbanzhaf3ATgmail.com   @profbanzhaf