Click here
ATTORNEYS LAW STUDENTS PUBLIC
TOP POSTS ALL POSTS SUBMIT POST
Share | Print | Report Post Attorney Chatboard


Hot Now...
• Attorney Chat Center
• Attorney Classifieds
• Attorney Chatboards
• Practice Areas
• Law Students
Most Popular
• Set Your Quick Links
• Chat Center
• All Chatboards
• Classified Ads

Re: Why Nancy Grace Should be Disbarred
Posted by Stanford J. Schwarzenberg on 7/06/05


    Frankly, I like Nanch Grace. I like Dr. Kennedy from Forida, the Presbyterial
    preacher who is always preaching about how the U.S. is going to the dogs. I also
    like Rev. John Hagee (the guy from San Antonio), who has the show on T.V. He is a
    good Republican and preaches a good Republican message. Frankly, Republicans are
    the better Christians. Also, I like Dr. James Dobson and Rev. Pat Robertson. They
    are all Republicans, and, as I say, Republicans make better Christians. They don't
    waste their time worrying over the poor. The poor are poor for a reason: they're
    lazy and won't work. Christians work, so Christians have money.

    Stan Schwarzenberg - Mobile


    On 6/28/05, No Name Necessary wrote:
    > Yes, I can understand this. Nancy Grace isn't a religious leader and does not
    > confess to be one. Her show isn't a religious show. She's a former prosecutor.
    > Again, her show isn't about the bible's view point on the issue, but the legality
    > of the issue. So,if she has a guest on her show who is going to give a religious
    > view point from the bible - she should be able to control by restricting the bible
    > view point. Nancy Grace knows her viewers watch her show not for spiritual
    > enlightment, but what the legal experts will say about the legal issues of the
    > case. Their legal opinion.
    >
    > The Freedom of Speech. For the person who wants to preach about the bible on TV
    > has the right to have their on TV show, as long as their in compliance with the
    law.
    >
    > It's just that simple!
    >
    > On 6/25/05, Lanz wrote:
    >> To: No Name Necessary,
    >>
    >> Exactly !!
    >>
    >> Those that want to hear what the Lord is saying will hear and those that don't
    >> want to hear can cover their ears, but Nancy stop someone from excercising their
    >> right to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion, can you understand this?
    >>
    >> Free Country
    >>
    >> Freedom of Speech
    >>
    >> Freedom of Religion
    >>
    >> Freedom of Press ...
    >>
    >> ... all these are some of the freedoms we have in America
    >>
    >> Thank God for America, we have the FREEDOM to hear or not and to make our own
    > choices
    >>
    >> Lanz
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> On 6/25/05, No Name Necessary wrote:
    >>> Dear Bible Cry Baby:
    >>>
    >>> Grow up! Nancy Grace has the right to tell someone to SHUT UP if she doesn't
    >>> want to hear a bible verse. She knows her "viewers and other guests" are
    >>> watching her show - for the legality of the issues and not for religious
    >>> discipline from the bible on the issues.
    >>>
    >>> You sound like a "young lawyer" who needs to understand that - not everyone
    >>> believes in an ALMIGHT GOD and YOU need to LEARN TO RESPECT - others
    >>> beliefs and rights. I'm NOT saying believe the way they do, but RESPECT, and as
    >>> a lawyer YOU know under the United States Constitution - people have the right
    >>> to believe in God/Religion or NOT.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> On 6/24/05, Lanz wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> I used to like her knowledge and wisdom about the Law in general, but after
    >>>> watching her show tonight where she denied a guess to quote a scripture from
    >>>> the bible, as if she felt threatened by God, I can't do without her truly
    >>>>
    >>>> Without God we are nothing!
    >>>>
    >>>> Because the secret of my success as a Lawyer is my trust in HIM
    >>>>
    >>>> Lanz
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> On 6/24/05, Hardy Parkerosn, Atty. wrote:
    >>>>> I am no fan of Nancy Grace's, but I wonder why it took the 11th Circuit
    >>>>> fifteen years to get around ruling on the case she was reprimanded in.
    >>>>> According to the post I am responding to, the "unethical" act or acts took
    >>>>> place in 1990, but the 11th Circuit did not issue its ruling until 1995.
    >>>>> That's incredible to make such a judgment fifteen years after the fact.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> HMP
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> On 6/24/05, DC Attorney wrote:
    >>>>>> Let me guess - you got those stats from Nancy's own website?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Well, I am an attorney, licensed in three states, including GA, and
    >>>>> Nancy
    >>>>>> has one claim to fame that I do not share. She has been reprimanded by
    >>>>>> the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for unethical behavior as an attorney
    >>>>> by
    >>>>>> 1) "failing to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant";
    >>>>>> and 2) "playing fast and loose with her ethical duties as a prosecutor";
    >>>>>> and
    >>>>>> 3) "failed to fulfill her ethical duties as a prosecutor."
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> She has also been reprimanded by the Supreme Court of Georgia for
    >>>>> similar
    >>>>>> antics during two other cases, one of which was reversed.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Maybe I will print copies of the opinions and forward them to the State
    >>>>>> Bar of Georgia for disbarment proceedings.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Fancy Nancy should learn that nobody - not even her Peroxidness is above
    >>>>>> the law. As this opinion shows, there is a big difference between being
    >>>>> a
    >>>>>> real attorney and prosecuting someone for a traffic ticket.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Anyone who is a booster of Nancy's obviously is not an attorney and is
    >>>>>> deluded by her self-serving and highly inaccurate press. Real attorneys
    >>>>>> behave ethically and honestly, not like FancyNancy.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> DC Attorney
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://legalethicsforum.typepad.com/blog/2005/05/laura_i_applema.html
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I’ve been following the Nancy Grace case with much distress. For those
    >>>>>> who haven’t been following the incident, Nancy Grace, the host of a
    >>>>>> epononymously-titled legal show on CNN and CourtTV, was recently
    >>>>>> chastised by the 11th Circuit as having "played fast and loose" with her
    >>>>>> ethical duties as a Fulton County, Georgia prosecutor in 1990. See
    >>>>>> Stephens v. Hall, No. 03-15251 (11th Cir., May 2, 2005).
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> On her Court TV biography page, Grace lists her perfect record of nearly
    >>>>>> 100 felony convictions at trial and no losses. This record is slightly
    >>>>>> less impressive, however, when you review the 11th Circuit’s decision,
    >>>>>> which, while upholding the conviction, criticizes Grace for failing to
    >>>>>> follow her obligation to disclose information about other potential
    >>>>>> suspects to defense counsel, as well as knowingly using a detective’s
    >>>>>> false testimony that there were no other suspects. And this wasn’t the
    >>>>>> first time Grace was criticized for her unethical behavior as a
    >>>>>> prosecutor. In 1997, the Georgia Supreme Court called her improper
    >>>>>> summations and her withholding evidence from the defense "inexcusable."
    >>>>>> Carr v. State, 267 Ga. 701 (1997). And in 1995, the same court reversed
    >>>>>> one of Grace’s convictions because she "exceeded the wide latitude of
    >>>>>> closing argument" by referring to the defendant’s prior convictions,
    >>>>>> which were not relevant to the case. Bell v. State, 263 Ga. 776 (1994).
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I don’t think it’s going out on a limb to say that achieving victory for
    >>>>>> your client, whether complainant or defendant, must be done ethically.
    >>>>> In
    >>>>>> Stephens, Grace failed to follow her basic ethical obligations to
    >>>>>> disclose relevant information to the defense. This was not just a
    >>>>> mistake
    >>>>>> on Grace’s part, but a purposeful and egregious tactic done to ensure a
    >>>>>> conviction.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Grace is completely unapologetic about her actions, saying only that the
    >>>>>> case was one of 100 that she successfully prosecuted. This attitude is
    >>>>>> completely unacceptable, however. The defendant in this case was denied
    >>>>> a
    >>>>>> fair trial due to the trickery and deceit of a state actor, which is bad
    >>>>>> enough. But to have that state actor now star on her own legal talk show
    >>>>>> and suffer no consequences? I am hardly the first to suggest this, but
    >>>>>> let me add my name to those calling for Grace’s resignation from CNN.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Any lawyer can make mistakes or ethical violations in the heat of trial,
    >>>>>> but Grace’s systemic abuse of her power as a prosecutor brings shame on
    >>>>>> the profession. That we are currently rewarding her with national
    >>>>>> television exposure is distasteful. If she does not resign on her own
    >>>>>> accord, then CNN should take action and remove her itself.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Laura I Appleman
    >>>>>>

     
     

 
Google
 
Web Counsel.Net
  Site Map: Home Search Legal Jobs Classifieds Law Students Contacts Practice Areas Advertise
  © 1996 - 2008. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.