Terri Horman retains criminal defense attorney!

[Cilene]

When someone hires a defense lawyer...does the lawyer ASK if the client is guilty?? Surely they don't go around bllindly trying to get them off the hook if they are really guilty?? Or maybe they do? Or do clients lie to their lawyers and tell them they aren't guilty when they really are?

In the details of the cold case that I have been researching, the informant told LE that the attorney of the POI spoke with the informant about the murder. Informant says the attorney's response was "Yeah, I wish they'd never told me about the double murder." *
*based on court documents

I did not understand this at all. I spoke with a lawyer friend and she said that the attorney is bound by a code of ethics not to disclose what a client has told them in private confidence. My lawyer friend went on to explain that the attorney/client priviledge is a foundation stone of a fair judious system.:twocents:

 

[loves2bmom]

Have we ever heard her voice?

I am not 100% positive but I thought it was her speaking on one of the videos the family released of Kyron. The one where he was giving his Bridge report. Somone corrects his numbers. He said something like 400 and the voice said "4000" and is very close to the microphone. I assumed it was Terri because when the teacher spoke at the end, you could tell she wasn't sitting near Terri on the video. That is the only audio that I can recall that might be her.

 

[miimaa]

Did anyone else see Terri and Kyron at the science fair that day? If so, I have not read that anywhere. Someone must have seen them... how would she have gotten into the building unless it was open and activities going on, but I have not read about anyone saying they saw or spoke with Terri at the school that day.

Do any of you know if Kyron's backpack was found and where? I have not read that either. Every kid I know uses a backpack. Was the backpack at school? Home? Vehicle?

 

[Sailor Bug]

OT... have we ever seen a picture of her with Kyron? Have we even heard her voice? TIA

My Bold Above

I take all the pictures in my Family...I have few pictures taken with others as I'm the one always taking pictures. Kyrons pictures are priceless he's looking at the picture taker and he looks soooooo happy.

I don't believe her not being in pictures is indicitive of anything nefarious

 

[21merc7]

Did anyone else see Terri and Kyron at the science fair that day? If so, I have not read that anywhere. Someone must have seen them... how would she have gotten into the building unless it was open and activities going on, but I have not read about anyone saying they saw or spoke with Terri at the school that day.

Do any of you know if Kyron's backpack was found and where? I have not read that either. Every kid I know uses a backpack. Was the backpack at school? Home? Vehicle?

I'm not certain, but I think I read yesterday that 3 people had? Including a school mate? I could be wrong. Don't know if any belongings have been found either, just wanted to add to your list of questions.

Was the school science fair advertised? Signs put up around school, neighbors, any news announcements of it?

I'm sure these questions belong in some other thread, just don't know which one.

 

[ella971]

My Bold Above

I take all the pictures in my Family...I have few pictures taken with others as I'm the one always taking pictures. Kyrons pictures are priceless he's looking at the picture taker and he looks soooooo happy.

I don't believe her being in pictures is indicitive of anything nefarious

I agree with that. I was just wondering if we have ever seen one of them together. We all have at least a few.Someone posted that on her facebook she did have one. Thinking along the lines of why LE would not have used one of them together.

 

[keeponsearching]

Gosh, I have barely any with my kids. I feel horrible, I always think of asking my husband to take pics of me with them, but I forget. I love my kids so much and just snap pics here and there. I think I'll take a few of me with them today.

 

[speedracer1263]

Well, if she can slip past a hoard of reporters without being seen, she most certainly could have slipped past a few teachers, parents and students with Kyron without being seen. Appears to me she's had a little practice at slipping past people un-noticed. Maybe she disguised herself as a red squirrel.

Too funny

 

[Etilema]

I did not understand this at all. I spoke with a lawyer friend and she said that the attorney is bound by a code of ethics not to disclose what a client has told them in private confidence. My lawyer friend went on to explain that the attorney/client priviledge is a foundation stone of a fair judious system.:twocents:

But I think it makes a difference in the way that the lawyer can defend the client. If the client has confessed (privately) and the lawyer knows s/he is guilty, I believe the lawyer is not allowed to assert otherwise. If the lawyer does not know for a fact that the client is guilty, I think the lawyer *can* say the client didn't do it. Anyway, that's how I understand it.

 

[lowa1]

Has anyone said if that will be 10 am PST?

I am looking all over the chanels now...nothing. I am thinking PST

 

[Forensic fan]

Good point..........but my heart won't listen to my head when it is a child in these cases.........it just won't and I can't help it.

ITA, glad she got a lawyer but ...

Big OT, just heard Andrea Lyons quit KC's case due to travel expenses, etc.

 

[redkatrampant]

Just throwing this out there . I did not think it merited it's own thread. AND it may have been discussed.

Taken from Ap news article
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/29/1706007/father-of-missing-oregon-boy-files.html
I realize it's Miami but I was doing a google search and needed a point of reference.
Anyhoo.... I just don't see their looks and body language to be truly supportive. He looks like he would rather be anywhere else but there with her.
MOO, just looking for opinions.

 

[curiousgal]

Just throwing this out there . I did not think it merited it's own thread. AND it may have been discussed.

Taken from Ap news article
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/29/1706007/father-of-missing-oregon-boy-files.html
I realize it's Miami but I was doing a google search and needed a point of reference.
Anyhoo.... I just don't see their looks and body language to be truly supportive. He looks like he would rather be anywhere else but there with her.
MOO, just looking for opinions.

Well if I was in his shoes, I'd have suspected something was up from day 1. Yes she is his wife, but...maybe that's just my type of personality. Whether he thought she had something to do with it, or just was angry as hell I'm sure!! I never did get the feeling that they were warm and fuzzy to each other. That's why it's hard for me to figure out what i think exactly happened!

 

[RoughlyCollie]

If the lawyer does not know for a fact that the client is guilty, I think the lawyer *can* say the client didn't do it. Anyway, that's how I understand it.

The client owns the attorney-client privilege, and the attorney can't say anything having to do with client communications without the client's express permission.

I think it is best if attorneys don't speak publicly about their cases at all. "No comment" is the best response, IMO.

Unless the evidence is overwhelming, the attorney can't know for a fact that the client is factually innocent or factually guilty. ("Factually" distinguishes The Truth from what a jury decides is the truth.)

Even in the face of overwhelming evidence, of proof positive of guilt, criminal clients will often maintain that they are factually innocent. I think it is because they are mentally ill or sociopaths/psychopaths, and/or they are afraid their attorney will not zealously defend them if the attorney thinks they are guilty.

In fact, whether the client is factually innocent or guilty should have no bearing on the attorney's zealous advocacy. It makes no practical difference at all to the attorney, in other words. In either case, the attorney must make sure that the government proves every element of every charge against a defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the defendant's constitutional rights are protected.

 

[aprilheeler]

Portland-area lurker here--I just mentioned to a coworker who is also interested in this case that SM had retained a high-powered criminal defense attorney. Imagine my surprise when she told me that not only had she heard that, but that an acquaintance of one of her (my coworker, not SM) relatives had once hired him to defend on some serious drug charges. According to my coworker's relative, Mr. Houze is *very* expensive (something like a $30k retainer), and *very* good (got the client essentially a slap on the wrist for what might have otherwise been serious prison time).

Obviously I don't have a link for this info, as it comes from a coworker, but IMO SM is in good hands should charges be filed.

Moderators, if post is not OK due to lack of link/non-verified local let me know and I'll delete, but I was just agog when my coworker told me what she had heard regarding this attorney.

 

[TxLady2]

But I think it makes a difference in the way that the lawyer can defend the client. If the client has confessed (privately) and the lawyer knows s/he is guilty, I believe the lawyer is not allowed to assert otherwise. If the lawyer does not know for a fact that the client is guilty, I think the lawyer *can* say the client didn't do it. Anyway, that's how I understand it.

Correct. But an accused person still has the right to an adequate defense, regardless if they are guilty or not.
However... high profile attornies do not usually agree to represent anyone unless they believe 100% in their client's innocence. Once they do agree to represent the accused, they then have the legal right to know what evidence the prosecution has against them. Since Terri has not been charged yet, that we know of, I am not sure if LE or the DA would tell him at this point. This attorney might just be going on his gut instinct and believes Terri is innocent. He would have questioned her before agreeing to take the case, I feel certain. She must have convinced him that she had nothing to do with it. I doubt he would have agreed to represent her if she admitted she was guilty, but that's just MOO.

 

[sofia76]

Correct. But an accused person still has the right to an adequate defense, regardless if they are guilty or not.
However... high profile attornies do not usually agree to represent anyone unless they believe 100% in their client's innocence. Once they do agree to represent the accused, they then have the legal right to know what evidence the prosecution has against them. Since Terri has not been charged yet, that we know of, I am not sure if LE or the DA would tell him at this point. This attorney might just be going on his gut instinct and believes Terri is innocent. He would have questioned her before agreeing to take the case, I feel certain. She must have convinced him that she had nothing to do with it. I doubt he would have agreed to represent her if she admitted she was guilty, but that's just MOO.

Bolding by me. First, I don't think that's true in general. Secondly, I don't think it's true in the case of Houze, either. He has represented plenty of people who had committed the acts they were accused of. But he understands the system well and tries to do what's in the client's best interest. Sometimes his clients plea to really good deals (where they serve no time).

 

[JBean]

remember itis not the job of the defense to prove innocence, but rather it is the job of the state to prove guilt. The defense lawyer only has to show that the state has not proved their case, once they go to trial of course.

 

[RoughlyCollie]

However... high profile attornies do not usually agree to represent anyone unless they believe 100% in their client's innocence.

I disagree with this. Every attorney I have ever known, high profile or not, will take a case if the client can pay his or her fee. Of course, a high profile attorney can pick and choose the cases they want -- but if they take only those of defendants they believe are factually innocent, they will won't be taking many cases. Usually, it doesn't matter whether a client is in fact innocent or guilty -- that has no bearing on the case at all in terms of the zealous advocacy provided by the attorney. Once in awhile, they will take interesting cases in which they think the defendant deserves their expertise or which benefits the attorney in some way (very interesting case, more publicity, as a favor to someone). Sometimes they reduce or waive their fees. But I would never think an attorney would take a case merely because they believe someone is factually innocent. No matter what, there is no way to know for sure unless they have proof positive, and the attorney's beliefs don't matter.

I have met a whole lot of criminal defense attorneys and I have never met one who believed 100% in their client's innocence either before or after trial. Rarely, a client who has been convicted will have seemed to be factually innocent to the attorney all along, but the attorney doesn't know that for sure. Even more rarely, the convicted defendant will actually be factually innocent. In cases like these, the attorney, like everyone else, has opinions, but they are never 100% sure. The cases in which they think a convicted client was innocent haunt them -- mostly because there is no evidence available to absolutely prove that, so the facts found by the jury stand.

Two cases like this stand out in my mind, both defendants were convicted of first degree murder. In one, the attorney believes (but does not KNOW) that the defendant was convicted based on evidence that was the result of a shoddy investigation by LE. The appeals are over and there has never been absolute proof that the defendant was factually innocent. The attorney thinks the defendant is innocent (not 100%) and the defendant still says he is.

In the other, the attorney believed that the defendant was factually innocent *and* appealed the conviction based on insufficient evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, every element of the crime charged (first degree murder). In this case, after the appeals were over, the defendant told the attorney that he was in fact guilty, and the hitherto hidden back story was told in full detail to the attorney. It is still arguable, for the sake of discussion only, that there was insufficient evidence of guilt -- but the appellate courts did not agree.

 

[akashana]

Correct. But an accused person still has the right to an adequate defense, regardless if they are guilty or not.
However... high profile attornies do not usually agree to represent anyone unless they believe 100% in their client's innocence. Once they do agree to represent the accused, they then have the legal right to know what evidence the prosecution has against them. Since Terri has not been charged yet, that we know of, I am not sure if LE or the DA would tell him at this point. This attorney might just be going on his gut instinct and believes Terri is innocent. He would have questioned her before agreeing to take the case, I feel certain. She must have convinced him that she had nothing to do with it. I doubt he would have agreed to represent her if she admitted she was guilty, but that's just MOO.

MY BOLD

I think it would be more accurate to say that they don't agree to represent anyone unless they believe that they have a winnable case. Most attorneys are realists who are comfortable dealing with logic and facts. Guilt or innocence is less of a factor than one would think.

MHO as always.