Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

On 26 August 2006, I received this letter about the above story:

Subject: Your definition of truth

I find it offensive and just plain wrong that everytime someone googles my name, they read about the worst day of my professional life and get the impression that I am/was naive. You make money off other's misfortune and get a laugh from making your sarcastic (and by the way, untrue) aspersions about other people.

David Huffman was mentally ill and actually confessed to things he DID NOT DO. I was a young and earnest defense attorney who had been placed by my boss on a case which was beyond my skill level. I was refused help when I called for it at my office. To top it off, I had a family member die in a car accident the day before and was refused permission by the judge to join my family. My life was a pressure cooker at that moment.

I fainted because, among other things, I realized that David's agenda was to be killed by the state, a punishment for which he was not even eligible unless he lied and convinced the prosecutor that he tortured the victim in addition to killing her. The autopsy did not show evidence of the torture he "confessed" to. While it might be true that at the moment I was "overwhelmed," it was not because he was admitting he killed her. I, more than anyone, was quite aware that he would take responsibility for killing her. I fainted because he was LYING about torturing her, and trying therefore to get the death penalty.

Watching him do that was like watching a person committ suicide. Would that make you a little woozy? Perhaps you would think it was funny, or see the chance to make a joke or some money if you saw someone committ suicide. I have no shame for fainting that day.

Almost every day potential clients google me to see what I have done professionally. More than ten years later I have to explain this incident often because of your glib throwaway comment about a situation you did not understand.

Ironic, isn't it, that you claim to tell the truth, and practically every day I have to explain why your comment about me is not true?

KRISTINE EAGLE

Randy Cassingham responds:

Make up your mind: you admit to fainting (which I certainly don't think is shameful), yet the story is "not true"? I don't see it that way.

True is, quite simply, social commentary on actual events reported in "mainstream, legitimate" newspapers. Yep, I definitely "make money" by writing commentary, just as you "make money" from the misfortunes of others -- you were paid to defend that man you say was mentally ill, yes? Yet somehow my "making money" from commenting on a sad situation is "offensive", while your making money from actually participating in the situation is a wonderful thing? Uh huh: no loss of objectivity there!

More to the point, I have reviewed the source story for my summary from the Associated Press, and find no factual errors in my summary of that story. That said, had I seen -- back in 1995, when this story came out -- a report of a judge not allowing an officer of the court a short leave to grieve over a family member who was killed the day before, I would have likely lambasted his gross and disgusting insensitivity. AP didn't choose to report that death. Indeed, that was apparently even your choice: "Eagle would not say why she fainted," the AP story concluded, "although the judge said the attorney had been affected by the heat." Nor did you apparently wish to share your theory that your client was trying to commit state-assisted suicide. It's clearly your decision to make -- to share, or not share, your defense strategy with a reporter. It's not particularly reasonable for you to lambast me for the decisions you made more than a decade ago. I even presume it was a good decision. Live with it!

Still, I can certainly understand why you'd be tired of hearing the story. Surely you realize that any news organization with a comprehensive online archive would be, or will be, discoverable via a good search engine. If you have "no shame" for what happened that day, then I'd suggest the best course of action would be to stop being defensive about it. Or even better, create your own page about it so you can explain it however you wish. If you do, feel free to send me the URL so I can link to it from this page.

While you're entitled to feel offended about anything you wish, perhaps you should argue about my "definition of truth" after you have seen what it is -- I have made that clear on the article sources page, in the paragraph starting "Is it really "true"?" (all emphasis from the original).

The bottom line, counselor, is you're letting your emotions get ahead of your ability to argue from a well defined position -- something that seems to have happened both times I've heard your name.