David Letterman’s sex life is something I wish not to think about.  It isn’t fascinating to me. It’s not even mildly interesting. It is, as he said himself, creepy.

Gerald Shargel’s public defense of Robert (Joe) Halderman by taking to the airwaves, on the other hand, is mildly interesting.  From the Los Angeles Times :

Shargel declined to go into details about his client’s actions, saying he was still gathering information about the case, but said it did not make sense that Halderman would try to pull off such a crime. He noted repeatedly that he had never heard of an extortion attempt in which someone asks for a check.

“Joe Halderman was at CBS for 27 years,” he told Roberts. “Here’s a guy who was an investigative journalist for so many years. He knows all about cops and wiretaps. And to suggest that he was trapped in an extortion plot is sort of preposterous.”

“I’m not saying he didn’t take the check,” Shargel told Maggie Rodriguez on CBS’ “The Early Show.” “But the question at the end of the day is, what was his intent? One of the things that the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, one of the elements of the offense, is that Joe Halderman had specific criminal intent. And I say to you and to the public that we shouldn’t rush to judgment, because I think, at the end of the day, when the case is tried and after the cross-examination of David Letterman and the full story comes out, I’m confident that a jury will not find that specific criminal intent.”

Shargel did all the morning shows, and there’s a ton of video around saying pretty much the same thing.  Why would he do this?  Clearly, Halderman was getting skewered in the media, but that’s bound to happen when you get a $2 million check from Letterman to keep his sex life under wraps.  But if Shargel is going to do the talking head circuit, then he’s got to have something to say that’s going to deflect guilt, or at least change the discussion somewhat to his client’s benefit.  Arguing that his client lacked “specific intent” just doesn’t play well.

Aside from the vague and meaningless suggestion that there is evidence that will come out later, and that he can’t wait to cross-examine Letterman (who could?), the only substantive argument offered is that Halderman, as an “investigative journalist,” would never let himself be trapped in an extortion plot.  It’s “sort of preposterous.”  Got any specific examples, there, Gerry?

This is no argument at all.  Politicians do it all the time. Cops do it in front of dash cams. Journalists are too smart to get caught committing a crime?  Who are you kidding?

It’s not like Shargel did the circuit because he wanted to see his balding pate on the tube.  He does more high profile criminal defenses than any other lawyer in New York.  He could get his face on television whenever he wants.  That being clear, his decision to talk to the cameras must have been in reaction to the overwhelming attention given Letterman and the presumed guilt of his client. But if so, and I can’t imagine any other reason for his flurry of appearances, then he really should have had something better to say.  This was lame, and did nothing to make Halderman look any less guilty.

Perhaps there will be more to the defense when time for trial arises.  But my biggest fear is that this case will actually go to trial, that David Letterman will take the stand and be cross-examined by Gerald Shargel.  Shargel will then cross-examine Letterman about his sex life in excruciating detail.  I don’t think I could stand it.