Chandler, Arizona, criminal defense lawyer and blawger Matt Brown learned a basic truth: challenge one of your own and his buddies will try to make you pay for your disloyalty. As criminal defense lawyers, the brethren applaud when we castigate the cops or prosecutors for their misdeeds. Who doesn’t love a good video of a cop gone wrong?
Criticize a judge and you’ll never have to buy your own beer. The brethren absolutely love it when a blawger puts the weight on his shoulders to say what everyone else thinks, but lacks the fortitude to publicly expound. Scared little bunnies, whispering amongst themselves about how unfair, even idiotic, some ruling might be, wholly unwilling to take the heat of publicly explaining their position. They thrill to have someone like Matt do the heavy lifting.
But mention one of the gang, a fellow criminal defense lawyer, in a compromising position, other than to chant the party line, and you’re a pariah.
Matt wrote about a local lawyer, David DeCosta, who was accused of trying to smuggle drugs to an inmate. He didn’t make this up. It’s all in pixels on the Arizona Republic website, a story that he would be remiss to ignore.
Criticize a judge and you’ll never have to buy your own beer. The brethren absolutely love it when a blawger puts the weight on his shoulders to say what everyone else thinks, but lacks the fortitude to publicly expound. Scared little bunnies, whispering amongst themselves about how unfair, even idiotic, some ruling might be, wholly unwilling to take the heat of publicly explaining their position. They thrill to have someone like Matt do the heavy lifting.
But mention one of the gang, a fellow criminal defense lawyer, in a compromising position, other than to chant the party line, and you’re a pariah.
Matt wrote about a local lawyer, David DeCosta, who was accused of trying to smuggle drugs to an inmate. He didn’t make this up. It’s all in pixels on the Arizona Republic website, a story that he would be remiss to ignore.
According to court documents and eyewitness accounts, on Sept. 18, DeCosta attempted to pass the drugs, stapled inside a legal pad, to Jesse Alejandro, a client he was representing, during a court hearing.
Emilee Keen, 19, a woman believed to be Alejandro’s girlfriend, was charged with the same offenses. Court documents say DeCosta admitted that Keen performed sexual favors on him in the days before the event as incentive.
What made this story even more curious was its connection to Jesse Alejandro, accused of being with the Mexican drug cartel,whose prior lawyer, Jason Keller, pleaded guilty to trying to smuggle a cellphone to Alejandro.
Matt questioned what it was about this defendant, Alejandro, that would make lawyers go wrong, do something incredibly stupid and risk their careers for him. It’s a very good question. While the story about DeCosta hardly proves his commission of any of the allegations, an obviously open question, it’s impossible to ignore the coincidence.
Should it turn out that the accusation against DeCosta was a total fabrication, that would be fodder for yet another question, whether any lawyer representing Alejandro was putting himself at risk of persecution, the flip side of a lawyer defending someone that the prosecution wants to “get” so badly that it will go to such extremes as falsely accusing his lawyer of crimes. But DeCosta’s case hasn’t reached the stage of exoneration yet. Should that day come, no doubt there will be a very different discussion.
Matt’s post about DeCosta sat relatively quietly for 10 days, until all hell broke loose when the locals picked up on it. Matt became the poster boy for disloyalty. Local lawyers John Thomas Banta, Russ Richelsoph and Pamela Nicholson took him to task for not writing the words that they preferred to see, that DeCosta was an innocent persecuted criminal lawyer.
How dare he post about the article, the arrest, the bizarre coincidence of Alejandro’s involvement with both Keller and DeCosta. He’s a criminal defense lawyer, and he has a duty to back up his brother.
Matt questioned what it was about this defendant, Alejandro, that would make lawyers go wrong, do something incredibly stupid and risk their careers for him. It’s a very good question. While the story about DeCosta hardly proves his commission of any of the allegations, an obviously open question, it’s impossible to ignore the coincidence.
Should it turn out that the accusation against DeCosta was a total fabrication, that would be fodder for yet another question, whether any lawyer representing Alejandro was putting himself at risk of persecution, the flip side of a lawyer defending someone that the prosecution wants to “get” so badly that it will go to such extremes as falsely accusing his lawyer of crimes. But DeCosta’s case hasn’t reached the stage of exoneration yet. Should that day come, no doubt there will be a very different discussion.
Matt’s post about DeCosta sat relatively quietly for 10 days, until all hell broke loose when the locals picked up on it. Matt became the poster boy for disloyalty. Local lawyers John Thomas Banta, Russ Richelsoph and Pamela Nicholson took him to task for not writing the words that they preferred to see, that DeCosta was an innocent persecuted criminal lawyer.
How dare he post about the article, the arrest, the bizarre coincidence of Alejandro’s involvement with both Keller and DeCosta. He’s a criminal defense lawyer, and he has a duty to back up his brother.
Maybe tomorrow the criminal defense bar will be abuzz about how you don’t even understand the most basic Constitutional right – presumed innocence. I’ve never met you and I know nothing about the quality of your work, but I must wonder how you can possibly be a zealous advocate for the rights of your clients if you’re writing this kind of stuff. Do you start with the premise that a person is guilty until proven innocent?
Of course, the author of this disingenuous tripe, Pamela Nicholson, offered no complaint when the discussion wasn’t about one of her own. While I can appreciate a lawyer defending a friend as much as the next fellow, and I’ve often done so here, the trio’s attack on Matt was fundamentally misguided. Matt neither suggested that he had any information to suggest DeCosta was guilty, and did nothing more than address the obvious question raised in the Republic article. Rather than comment in support of their friend’s innocence, the trio attacked Matt for his disloyalty. Dumb move. Wrong move.
In response, Matt wrote a second post, Missing the Point.
In response, Matt wrote a second post, Missing the Point.
Like typical troll comments, they made ad hominem attacks. One writer accused me of presuming my clients guilty, another accused me of going off “half-cocked” without knowing my facts, and yet another seems to think I merely hold myself out as someone who practices criminal defense and accused me of throwing gossip into the potential jury pool. They asked condescending (and obvious) questions, like whether I’d read the DR (police report) and if I was joking by “speculating based on facts presented by the news media.”
The comments missed the point of the post entirely. They read it as commentary about David DeCosta’s guilt rather than commentary about a hypothetical situation I find fascinating.
The reaction was typical,
If there is someone who missed a point it was you.
No “stick you head in gravy?” And then the school marm chimed in:
Young man, you have a lot to learn. Please re-read what you wrote – Mr. DeCosta “decided to sacrifice his career and reputation doing something monumentally idiotic.” This is not a hypothetical.Aside from the condescending “young man” opening, the original sentence excerpted was:
It’s unfortunate that you seem to relish the attention that you got in response to your post measured by increased internet hits. All attention is not good attention.
So you think that only those who bought into the “hypothetical” in your previous post actually got your point and contributed something productive to the discussion – a bit arrogant, don’t you think?
I was pretty surprised to hear that another local criminal defense attorney decided to sacrifice his career and reputation doing something monumentally idiotic, but I was stunned to find out the same client linked them together.So much for that commenter’s cred. It’s invariably better not to attack with your knickers around your knees. Now I’m not quite a “young man” anymore, and I’ve racked up a few years in the trenches. While I might not have written the initial post about DeCosta in quite the same way as Matt, there was absolutely nothing about his post that suggested he believed DeCosta guilty of any wrongdoing or had inside information about the case.
Nor, as his commenters suggested, was Matt somehow obliged to scrutinize all of the evidence, maybe even wait for the verdict, before writing about the Arizona Republic article when the subject is a criminal defense lawyer. It’s not up to the locals to dictate the terms by which anyone else thinks or writes, as if Matt needs their permission or approval to post.
But these are just subterfuges. These locals don’t really give a damn about Matt’s posts, except to the extent it touched on one of their own. He can smear anyone he wants, provided their not a friend. When the name in the post is a criminal defense lawyer, however, he’s expected to get his wagon in the circle and join the knee-jerk defense team. How dare he be disloyal to the cause.
I don’t begrudge the commenters their support for a friend, especially if David DeCosta is innocent of the accusations. Indeed, he may very well have done absolutely nothing wrong, and be targeted for his defense of a hated defendant, one of the highest callings of the criminal defense bar. And if DeCosta’s been maligned by the charges, I hope he kicks the prosecution’s butt across Maricopa County. I’m sure Matt does as well.
But nothing Matt wrote questions this, absent the blinders worn by his attackers. They don’t get it, and they’ve now embarrassed themselves by their childish attempt to blame Matt Brown for DeCosta’s circumstance. Ironically, the issues raised by their self-serving myopia will likely cause far more people to learn of DeCosta’s arrest, and their own incredibly poor handling and judgment, then would ever have come from Matt’s original post. I would be very surprised if commentary on this attack doesn’t make its way across the criminal law blawgosphere by Monday. This trio may be memorialized forever across the internet for having “missed the point,” long after DeCosta has been forgotten.
It’s tough when one writes about the world around him, and there will inevitably be toes stepped on in the process. Some will be annoyed, and other outright angered by discussions they would rather not have. Matt Brown will likely pay a price for his disloyalty to the cause, no matter how wrong his attackers are (and they most assuredly are dead wrong), amongst those who don’t get it. Hopefully, not every criminal defense lawyer in the neighborhood is as disingenuous and blind as this trio, desperate to create the blue pinstripe wall of silence around accusations against criminal defense lawyer.
We won’t tolerate the cover-up of wrongs by cops, prosecutors or judges. We won’t change the rules when it’s one of our own. And we won’t shy away from discussing relevant issues because of a few ignorant, threatening commenters who don’t get it. Got it?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I usually enjoy your blogs, but you miss wide right this time. Perhaps if you understood the gravity of what is occurring here in Maricopa County, you’d not be so quick to gallop to young Mr. Brown’s rescue. Brown has been an attorney for twenty-seven months. Pam Nicholson got her law license right around the time that Brown moved from pull-ups to big-boy Fruit of the Loom. Brown blindly ignores the pervasive corruption that the Maricopa County Sheriff is famous for. Just last week, the video was released in the Arizona Republic showing an MCSO deputy stealing documents from a public defender’s file, and directing another deputy to photocopy it. That document was provided to the county attorney, and then returned to the defense attorney without comment. This all happened right under the judge’s nose, and only came to light when the defendant raised a ruckus.
Jason Keller plead guilty. Da Costa maintains his innocence. Given the corrupt nature of the agency bringing the charges against him, and the odd common denominator of Jesse Alejandro, how could anyone swallow the hook tossed into these murky waters?
It is appropriate for seasoned criminal defense attorneys to chastise a young colleague for critical errors in thinking. It is called, “mentoring.” Mr. Brown needs role models, or at least a copy of the Constitution.
Huh? Brown’s blog post doesn’t discuss other issues — he discusses the entirely possible case of a lawyer smuggling in drugs for a client (which has happened, so we know it’s possible, whether or not Da Costa did it), with the hook for the discussion being this official accusation thingee (what you law-talking guys call an “indictment”, I think) against Da Costa. It — and he — doesn’t preclude any possible defenses (it never happened, deputies planted the drugs, Da Costa was under duress, whatever).
So, again: huh?
One of the great benefits of not having any horse in the race is the ability to read this from a detached perspective. No one, Brown included, suggests DeCosta is guilty of anything. And no matter how much of a crone Pam Nicholson may be (and I say that only to counter your ad hominem pull-ups comment), it changes nothing. Matt certainly didn’t write the party line, but similarly wrote nothing inappropriate in any way. That’s the view from a distance, and obviously the locals are too caught up in their agenda to realize that from a distance, it’s painfully clear who looks very bad here.
I’m even further removed from this issue than the American commentators here, and certainly I am not privy to any allegations of impropriety which you are but we all speak English and the natural meaning of words doesn’t require local knowledge.
I disagree that the comment quoted here is actually “mentoring” in any form – what is the teachable moment here? It says someone has a lot to learn and is arrogant and selectively quotes him prove the other person’s point. How’s that’s going to set him straight?
Mentoring cannot be “everything said by people who are older than you”, no matter how much people older than you would want that to be the case.
Quoting Brown:
“I was pretty surprised to hear that another local criminal defense attorney decided to sacrifice his career and reputation doing something monumentally idiotic, but I was stunned to find out the same client linked them together. What is this guy doing to his defense lawyers? Is it his personality? Are his girlfriend’s “skills” really that amazing? All joking aside, I wonder how one person can get two established defense lawyers to give up everything committing a crime that’s virtually guaranteed to get noticed.”
Perhaps the ASU class of 2007 never learned the term, “alleged.” Brown certainly never uses it. Never mind the party line; Brown’s blawg is far more consistent with the rantings of a Kool-Aid swilling line prosecutor, than an advocate sworn to be the check on government’s nearly limitless power to accuse and incarcerate.
He didn’t say it’s true. He said he “heard” it. He gave a link to it in the newspaper. He said the criminal defense bar has been “abuzz” with talk of it (a claim disputed in the comments, but unless the criminal defense bar in Maricopa County is a lot different than the criminal defense bar anyplace I’ve been seems awfully likely – we’re a gossipy group).
I don’t know any of the people involved. I’ve only been to Arizona to change planes at the Phoenix airport. I do know something about your sheriff there, and I have no trouble believing the charges might be trumped up.
On the other hand, I know of lawyers who have in fact smuggled things to prisoners in county jails, and I know of lawyers who’ve gotten blow jobs FROM prisoners in county jails, and I’m quite sure some have traded legal work for sex from the client’s girlfriend. What else is new.
Friends rally around their friends. The criminal bar works to ensure a fine defense. What doesn’t happen, and shouldn’t, is that we refuse to discuss the news until verdict. (And verdicts can be wrong, too, by the way, even after pleas. Are we to be forever prohibited from discussing the news except to declare that the allegations must be false because the Sheriff is dishonest?)
Scott’s right about perspective. The only people who seem to think Matt declared DeCosta guilty are a few of his brothers and sisters in Maricopa County. Perhaps you need to step back, take a deep breath, and read again.
The harder you push on his youth, a substantively empty point, the worse and more disingenuous your argument appears. Added to that the fact that, as Jeff says, no criminal defense lawyer outside of this very small circle of self-important, very experienced local lawyers seems to see the problem as you do.
Are you getting anything at all out of this?
Rather than continue digging the already very deep hole, perhaps its time to redirect your energy toward defending DeCosta rather than attacking Matt Brown. The latter isn’t playing out well for you at all.
I am one of the trio you chastise for commenting on Matt Brown’s blog. The bottom line is that the police misrepresented the facts to the media, and the media went with the story. Matt blogged based on rumor and not facts. Those of us who commented on what Matt wrote have actually read the police reports in the case. The police reports do not match what the media is reporting. If the police reports are accurate, the case against David De Costa is extremely weak.
Why would they pursue a weak case against a criminal defense attorney? Because we are not well liked and there is political capital to be gained from it.
Matt Brown’s blog was written as if the allegations against David De Costa are true. There was nothing “hypothetical” about what Matt wrote. The problem with what Matt wrote is that it unsurps the presumption of innocence and spreads rumors that are not true.
This is not about some “code” where defense attorneys protect their own no matter what. (Note that the criminal defense bar has responded differently in the Jason Keller case.) This is about promoting the truth, and the idea that an individual should not be tried in the media prior to having their day in court.
Practicing criminal defense is a profession and a discipline. The general public does not take the presumption of innocence seriously. If we, the criminal defense bar, don’t promote this fundamental right, than who will?
It is my understanding that Matt Brown has now obtained a copy of the police reports for the David De Costa case and that if he chooses to blog about it again, hopefully his blog will be based on the truth (or at least the truth according to the police reports) and not what it is being whispered in the court hallways.
I’ve been practicing law in Maricopa County for over 30 years. There is an unprecedented recent attempt by certain law enforcement agencies to discredit the defense bar. One of the ways they are doing it is by investigating or arresting criminal defense attorneys on the slimmest of accusations and rumors. The police reports in Mr. DeCosta’s case (and btw I don’t know him personally and neither does Ms. Nicholson)are ludicrous, even by police editing standards (and we all know what those are). The fact that many of his colleagues are coming to Mr. Decosta’s defense is just a “circling of the wagons” in response to a thoroughly justified perception that criminal defense attorneys are presently a target of some unscrupulous law enforcement agencies here in Maricopa County. The recent incident of a detention officer nonchalantly rummaging through a defense attorney’s file in open court is just another example of the ignorance of law enforcement regarding basic constitutional principles, an ignorance I have seen grow over the last 30+ years, with increasing trepidation. I have hesitated to comment on Mr. Brown’s blog, because I think blogs are ridiculous and extraordinarily egocentric blatherings of people who apparently don’t get enough attention in their day to day lives.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that there is lttle to be gained from disagreeing with what someone says in a blog, especially when they know very little about what they write. It also shows the sadly impersonal communication that we have become used to because of computers, e-mail, texting, instant messaging, etc.
So, let’s just knock it off. If we can’t stand together in support of our own, or you don’t like the fact that that’s what we do here in Arizona, then just blather on as you have been. If, on the other hand, you wish to know something about what you discuss in your blog, then call one of us and we can fill you in on the last 15+ years of having to deal with a madman like Joe Arpaio, the gathering storm and lack of control over “gang cops” and the unlawful insinuation of law enforcement into our daily lives. You may call me any time you want to talk sensibly about this, or any other subject dealing with criminal defense in Arizona. I’m in the NACDL directory and, of course, you can find me online.
And, btw, I am admitted in New York State as well, although I haven’t practiced there in many years.
Eleanor L. Miller
Past President, Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice; State Bar Certified Criminal Law Specialist
Had your comment on Matt’s blog been limited to your first two paragraphs, you would have been enlightening and effective. Arpaio is your enemy. DeCosta is your fellow criminal defense lawyer who, you clearly and perhaps with excellent reason, has been falsely accused. You would have been universally applauded for your comment.
Your third paragraph shows where you go astray. Matt wrote about a new article. He didn’t invent it. It’s not rumor or hallway whispers, but a published article. Your resort to platitidues about the presumption of innocence is childlike. Of course he’s presumed innocent. Matt suggested nothing to the contrary. It’s clear that the locals are so deeply wrapped up in the wrong that they believe done their brother that they find anything short of an absolute declaration of DeCosta’s innocence tantamount to conviction.
Note that this sense isn’t share amongst criminal defense lawyers elsewhere, not because we aren’t deeply concerned with a criminal defense lawyer attacked by a self-aggrandizing nutjob like Joe Arpaio, but because we don’t see Matt Brown’s post as reflecting any conclusion that DeCosta is guilty. Not in the slightest. But then, we aren’t emotionally wrapped up in this situation, which allows us to see it with clearer eyes than yours.
Your proposition is that whenever a criminal defense lawyer is accused of anything, criminal defense blawgers are obliged to write about the presumption of innocence and nothing else. Whether this holds true for all accused is unclear from your comment, though I doubt your concern extends beyond DeCosta since you’ve voice no concern before or about anyone else. The proposition is absurd.
Of course there is a presumption of innocence, but then there would be nothing else to discuss despite the obvious questions involved and issues raised, and no one would read it because it would be pointless to state only the obvious. While DeCosta’s innocence is paramount to you, as his friend, the same could be said for every accused. Then nothing would ever be discussed except the presumption of innocence, and as already said, there’s no discussion needed.
Your second proposition is that Matt shouldn’t write about something unless he has all the facts. While no one ever has all the facts, this too would preclude writing about anything. Should there be no discussion of any case until after a verdict? In this case, all the facts refers to all the facts that you deem true. Perhaps you are indeed in possession of “all the facts,” at least in this instance. Nothing prevented you from mounting a vigorous defense of your friend in Matt’s comments, but you preferred to attack Matt because of your myopic view of what he was obliged to write in his post.
People think, and write, about occurences constantly without having either personal knowledge or “all the facts” because it’s impossible to do otherwise. Have you been to Afghanistan? Do you personally know that American soldiers are dying there? Yet you have likely discussed the war there from time to time. Was it wrong of you to do so, lacking personal knowledge or “all the facts?” Obivously, it would be absurd. Yet you continue to pound on absurd propositions, blinded by your personal involvement in this case.
Don’t spout platitudes to other criminal defense lawyers. You’ve lost enormous crediblity by your misguided efforts to spin Matt’s post into a condemnation of DeCosta based on rumor. You look ridiculous. You obviously can’t see it, or you would have stopped digging. If you were half the experienced criminal defense lawyer you claim to be, you would have apologized to Matt for misdirecting your anger over the DeCosta accusation and focused your energies on defendant DeCosta and explaining why the accusations are false.
Your persistence in pounding a failed argument has served you poorly. Worse still, if DeCosta is indeed the target of false accusations, you’ve failed to help him and instead managed to turn the focus away from your real issue and undermined the credibility of the local criminal defense bar. And I’ll bet that you lack the thoughtfulness and grace to recognize this, and continue to insist that you’re right and everyone else just doesn’t get it. There’s still time to get the blinders off and realize that you are about to lose the case. Let’s see what you do about it.
If blogs are worthless, “ridiculous and extraordinarily egocentric blatherings of people who apparently don’t get enough attention in their day to day lives,” then why have you squandered your precious time commenting? Egocentric is the suggestion that because you’ve deigned to comment, we should all look you up to talk “sensibly”. What possible reason would anyone have to want to discuss this with you? Are you the center of the universe? Are we desperate for your approval? After all, you are a past president of the Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice, apparently a very powerful and important person, from whom criminal defense lawyers across the nation should flock for your blessing.
There must be something in the water in Maricopa County. Thank God the rest of us aren’t drinking.
There’s kind of a disconnect here. I’ve got no trouble granting your assertion that Arpaio is a jerk, and worse, or that his agency is trying to railroad a CDL or twelve pour encouragez les autres or discredit the defense bar; only the very best of LEO types understand how a vigorous, effective defense bar is in the interest of all, including his agency, and Arpaio, unsurprisingly, just doesn’t measure up. I’ve no trouble at all accepting, as a possibility, that Da Costa is factually not guilty by reason of not having done it, and if you’d just posted that stuff here, or at/on Mr. Brown’s blog, you might well have succeeded in hijacking the discussion from the question of how a CDL can go wrong into how a CDL who hasn’t gone wrong can get into trouble undeservedly. And if you’d waved your impressive credentials around while trying to do any of that, it wouldn’t have hurt none.
But, well, you didn’t.
One day I really wish to have your skills for summation. That’s perfectly done.
You are the master of irony and subtlety. I fear it’s wasted on Eleanor.
So…. which of you witty wordsmiths will be submitting a pro hac application to come to Phoenix to represent Jesse Alejandro? I’m sure we can arrange a sponsor. Then, once you are accused of a crime, we’ll all meet back here for another stimulating, didactic analysis.
What is so bad about being an egocentric? Many very successful people are egocentric. The original subject of the post was about an attempt to suppress discussion of an alleged felony and how can that be considered blather?
I am sorry you are having a bad day and I hope you will feel better soon.
Still fighting the wrong battle? Perhaps you’re right, the local talent isn’t up to the task. Perhaps that’s why Sheriff Joe Arpaio remains in control while you attack a blawger for discussing a significant story. It’s so much easier to fight with Matt Brown than Joe Arpaio, and you might even win a battle for once, even though it will change nothing about sorry circumstances of Maricopa County. Yes, it sounds like the Maricopa County criminal defense lawyers are in desperate need of some competent help. And quick.
Enough with the constant and repeated pounding of the “presumption of innocence” drum. There is indeed a presumption of innocence; it is a legal fiction applied only to juries in criminal proceedings. Perhaps the Maricopa criminal defense bar is getting their collective asses handed to them by the government is because they can’t grasp the most basic of legal tenets, i.e., the presumption of innocence does not apply to the media, to bloggers (or, “blawgers”), or to Joe Shmoe on the street.
While we don’t harp on the presumption of innocence in the sense of it being “the story” whenever something happens, it’s always implicit and real. By definition, we don’t know that someone arrested is guilty of anything, and that much should always be understood in any post, whether blogger, media or Joe Shmoe.
The offer stands to any of you legal eagles who think your skills are superior to the Maricopa defense bar: put your hindparts where your wussy typing fingers are and come on down. We’ll get you a sponsor, fill out your pro hac vice paperwork, and sign you up as Knapp counsel in as many cases as you can take. Let us know six months from now how much you enjoyed the experience.
You sound like you’re 3 years old. If intelligence is beyond you, at least try to maintain some dignity.
The issue really wasn’t ever that other people claim to better at your job than you, it’s that you’ve missed the point going after Brown instead of the (given the comments on here coming from people who deal with him) terrible, lawyer hating, corrupt (am I reading into it too much for that one?) Sheriff or simply defending DeCosta who’s being accused of serious offences which may end his legal career if proven.
Really, I’m surprised you have the time to go after bloggers with the problems you, and others, have identified in your district.
My dignity is intact, Sir. It is your integrity that is in question.
More people from more places have tried to help you to understand the error of your approach, and your response has been to dig in and insist that no one knows but you. Your attempt to deflect the issue, which I understand to a degree given that you’re not an attorney, is silly, but your persistence is what truly undermines your dignity.
Why would attorneys flock to Maricopa County because you whine about how hard it is to deal with Sheriff Joe? That has absolutely nothing to do with your problem, Sheriff Joe, and the criticism levied across the board, that you’ve misdirected your attacks toward Matt Brown when your issue is with Arpaio. Again, it’s obvious to everyone but you. And yet you keep stamping your feet.
In the meantime, Matt Brown has revisited the issue of David DeCosta, and written about the evidene against him. Rather than refocus your angst on the real issue at hand, you and others remain obsessed with fighting a losing battle lest you admit that you blew it from the outset. You’ve been given numerous opportunities to gracefully back off the misdirected attacks and fight the fight you keep claiming matters. Yet you persist in lashing out. This is the behavior of a petulant child, unable to admit that he was wrong and redirect his efforts toward something productive.
What is truly unfortunate about this whole affair is that to the rest of us, it appears that there is something seriously awry with the criminal defense lawyers of Maricopa County. No, we have no interest in running down there to your rescue. We have our own battles to fight in our own courts for our own clients. But we are nonetheless shaking our heads wondering how it’s possible that our brethren in Maricopa County just refuse to get it, no matter how hard we try to help them understand.
And another “I know you are but what am I” response isn’t going to help you convince anyone to the contrary.
Why Isn’t Anyone Speaking for the Five Solos Targeted by the Connecticut Bar’s Attack on So-Called Referral Services?
So, let’s say that a typical consumer – we’ll call her Jane Consumer – in Connecticut finds herself hounded by creditors and deeply in debt. Jane’s heard that bankruptcy might help but she doesn’t know if it’s right for…
I mean, on first blush from the news story, I’d think DeCosta couldn’t possibly be guilty; what attorney would smuggle shit for a client whose previous attorney was busted for doing that? I mean, even if you were the type of attorney who’d be up for doing that generally, the fact that his previous attorney was busted should send off warning flags a mile high.
The DRs in the case are a cautionary tale for anyone who works in criminal defense. Da Costa took some “legal supplies” from a family member of the Defendant, and passed them to the Detention Officer for inspection, and was in cuffs seconds later.
It’s good that you Maricopa County lawyers have Matt Brown to publicly explain that, since you all seemed more interested in hollering about the presumption of innocence and calling Matt names than in revealing the sordid facts of the case.