Henry Ruggs just killed a person by driving his car at 156 MPH, while drunk, into the back of another car. Someone (not a public defender) is going to represent him in a court of law to try to get him off. How do you justify that in your mind?
Question for lawyers?
- Thread starter Glenn's Take
- Start date
I’m not sure any posters here are in the law profession, so good luck.
I wish I could be his lawyer. I could get him not guilty in an hour
What's your job? Think everyone you do business with is mistake free?
Ya what he did was awful but let's also keep perspective that it was an accident. An entirely avoidable accident because of his awful decision, but an accidental nonetheless. I can virtually guarantee most of the posters on this board drove under the influence at one point or another but made it home safely. Be glad your bad choice didn't have similar consequences.
I was a lawyer in my younger days. I've been asked a million times "how can you represent someone that did it"? In reality, the way our system works, if you are guilty, you need a lawyer because they can help you make the government prove that "you did it" beyond a reasonable doubt. And if convicted, your lawyer can help minimize your sentence.
Now, I'm sure people will say that is ******** to try to make the government prove if they are truly guilty or to try to minimize the sentence. The people that say that are the same people that try to figure out a way to put their parents' money in a trust so when they end up in a nursing home their parents don't have to pay, the government (read Medicaid, which means all of us through taxes) pays and they still get to inherit their parents' money. My experience before I quit is that everyone hates lawyers until they need one, and once they do, they want the meanest, dirtiest one they can find so that they win whatever dispute they are in.
Now, I'm sure people will say that is ******** to try to make the government prove if they are truly guilty or to try to minimize the sentence. The people that say that are the same people that try to figure out a way to put their parents' money in a trust so when they end up in a nursing home their parents don't have to pay, the government (read Medicaid, which means all of us through taxes) pays and they still get to inherit their parents' money. My experience before I quit is that everyone hates lawyers until they need one, and once they do, they want the meanest, dirtiest one they can find so that they win whatever dispute they are in.
It’s the proverbial balancing of the scales. The best result arguably comes when both sides have zealous advocacy. Whether someone did an act is not always the issue, as there may still be a defense. The idea(l) (both) is that if each side is doing their jobs, justice prevails. And, even when someone is guilty of the elements of a crime, the sentencing phase also requires strong advocacy. Navigating “the system” requires experienced representation, especially in federal court (this is not) where the sentencing guidelines requires it.
In this case, the prosecution reportedly asked for $1 million in bail. The judge set it at $150k. That probably involved some measure of oral argument. So, taking the case is not all about defending a guilty person.
In this case, the prosecution reportedly asked for $1 million in bail. The judge set it at $150k. That probably involved some measure of oral argument. So, taking the case is not all about defending a guilty person.
What if your client lies to you? We aren't mind readers you know and clients often do or shade the truth to make them appear in the best light.
Back to the OP, your real job is getting the best deal you can for the client, Hes gonna get convicted and serve time the question is how much
If this person were a random no-name in, say, Owensboro, who, under twice the legal alcohol limit, plowed into a car at 127 mph, and killed its innocent occupant, not one person here would bat an eye at 15-20 year sentence for manslaughter. It happens every day in every jurisdiction across the country. What possible mitigating factors could there be? That fact that he is a well known professional athlete should, theoretically, play zero role. But it's the only reason for a discussion on this board. To answer the OP, there is no justification. He will just beg the judge, jury for leniency.
FWIW, speaking of random no names, Larry Mahoney who killed 27 people in the Carrolton bus crash served 9 1/2 years. IIRC, Mahoney claimed he did not even remember the crash, he was so drunk.
Ruggs will absolutely serve time, but depends on the law in Vegas as to how long, when he will be eligible for parole, etc. I agree, there are no mitigating factors.
“I’m not really a piece of **** because all people are pieces of **** so it doesn’t matter if I represent a piece of **** or litigate like a piece of **** because you’re probably a piece of **** too that would want the biggest piece of **** possible when it’s your turn to act like a piece of ****”
I drove thru some bushes once to get from the reception parking lot to the street. Several martini fountains there were. Tore the hell out of my car wheel a few years back. Rarely drove to UK games for this reason & had 1-1/2 hr to sober up some. But I've calmed down at 73.
I can still recall from my young days that cops would help you home after an incident vs. arresting you.
His baby mama with him in the car. He could say she was driving. She goes to jail for two years while he continues to earn NFL money
Brilliant move, my good sir. I can hear it now: "Damn women drivers!"
The good old days when the woman driver defense meant something. It is still there, in our hearts, but you just don’t hear it anymore. Gone from the law. Can’t even find it in a new Black’s Law Dictionary.
Thank goodness we still have the back seat driver mitigating factor defense.
I have a question I'd like for a lawyer to answer. Or any other profession.
Why does Tarzan never have a beard?
Why does Tarzan never have a beard?
In the movie Tarzan from the 80s, there is a scene where Tarzan gives a yell from the jungle and, if I recall correctly, he had fillings. If those apes can provide a dental plan, they can certainly shave the king of the jungle.
The law in Nevada is that Ruggs has to serve a minimum two years and a max 20. I assume the lawyer’s job is really going to be getting him closer to the lower number. I like Ruggs and all from his Bama days, but if he doesn’t get 20 then what the hell would it take for a guy to get 20?
I don't know what it would take. The guy in the Carrollton bus crash was sentenced to 16 years and pulled 9 1/2 of it. Our justice system is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you'll get.
Not being a smart ***, but taking a wild guess, I would believe that 20 is more appropriate and likely for repeat offenders, or someone with prior criminal record, while the minimum of 2 would be for youthful first time offenders. But seriousness of the crime will surely be a factor, another wild guess would be a plea to 8-10 with an agreement to serve a minimum sentence, like four or five years, before he is eligible for parole.
Anyone remember Leonard Little? He hit and killed a woman while DUI in 1998. He got 90 days in a city workhouse and 4 years probation. Six years later, he was arrested for speeding, doing 78 in a 55 and failed 3 roadside sobriety tests. He also admitted later to drinking that night. He was acquitted of DWI and convicted of misdemeanor speeding.
Well what people need to understand is that different states handle crimes differently. We live in a republic thank God:
I don’t buy any of these ridiculous answers I’ve read here. At the end of the day, the reason is always the same…money.
A lawyer will take any case and make an argument for a dollar. Most really don’t care at all as to the circumstances or even outcome, it’s a job.
I’ve had the unfortunate pleasure of dealing with a few and it’s all a sham. They want to scratch each other’s back and make as much as they can, the end, no other reasons worth discussing.
A lawyer will take any case and make an argument for a dollar. Most really don’t care at all as to the circumstances or even outcome, it’s a job.
I’ve had the unfortunate pleasure of dealing with a few and it’s all a sham. They want to scratch each other’s back and make as much as they can, the end, no other reasons worth discussing.
Lol… ever hear of a public defender?
It’s a great system. My only issue with it is the length of time to try a case. The evidence gathering for Ruggs’s case should take a week, tops. Have the trial a month later. He should be in prison a few days after that.
Instead this will go on for years.
I understand it, but SMFH at how Leonard Little got 90 days on a work crew, community service and 4 years probation for hitting and killing a woman while DWI.
I would say that depends on how hungry the lawyer is. I know I have turned down a number of cases and clients because I could see they were more trouble than they were worth, or were advocating a position with no basis.
But at this point in my life I have the luxury of doing so. Young people in any profession have to do what they gotta do to put food on the table for their family.
Because that's the way our criminal justice systems works. You can't convict someone on public perception like you're suggestion. For example what if it was proven during the trial that the accelerator malfunctioned into a full open position?
Little, Peerless Price, Jamal Lewis, Travis Henry. UT keeps cranking out the best.
There’s a lot of money to be made if you’re willing to be a piece of ****.
by the same token, if you've got the bucks you can get away with most anything, whereas if you get a court appointed attorney it's 50/50 you get convicted guilty or not. The legal system definitely could use some major reforms IMO.
We have all dealt “with a few” from every profession and can tell you stories about crooks who are mechanics, plumbers, landscapers, doctors, etc. Not sure we can then make a blanket statement about the profession and those who do it. I know life long public defenders who are excellent attorneys doing their jobs because they believe in the system, while never perfect. I have also seen defense attorneys attempt to confuse the hell out of the jury in ways that defy a desire for justice. Making blanket conclusions from either group would be a mistake.
Last edited:
I know a BUNCH of lawyers who continue to help clients whose ability to pay them for their work expired years and years ago.
Why do they continue to help them?
A feeling of responsibility, usually. From my experience there are just as many good people working as lawyers as there are pieces of ****.
There are definitely scumbag lawyers but, in my experience, those people tend not to be particularly good advocates. The best way to lose credibility is to be caught in a lie. Bad lawyers blindly assume that everything a client says is the truth and never admit there are two sides to a story.
The best lawyers are able to take provable facts and tell a convincing narrative that meets the client's objectives. Sometimes it is a ***** of a job.