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 Legal Beagle on 8/13/05

    Stan: well, you pitch a valiant effort for "christians" considering your name sound s
    little Hebrew-ish...no? Jews have all the money and that is because of greed, not work
    ethic. So deal.

    On 7/06/05, Laughing in my shoes wrote:
    > You make me laughm, Stan! Keep up the good work! Yes, Democrats are un-Christian,
    > most of them.
    >
    > Republican in Nacogdoches
    >
    >
    >
    > On 7/06/05, Stanford J. Schwarzenberg wrote:
    >>
    >> 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.