He confessed. Free him!

Jesse Montejo's trial attorneys tried to have his videotaped confession to murder supressed, claiming that police continued to question him after he'd requested an attorney.

However, minutes later, as the police were leaving the room, Montejo said, "come in, come in, I don't want an attorney."...he then withdrew his request and admitted to the murder.

The judge ruled that the confession could be used as evidence and shown to the jury, and also that prosecutors could present evidence from Sept. 10, 2002, when Montejo showed detective Jerry Hall, the case's lead investigator, where he allegedly threw the murder gun into Lake Pontchartrain.

This annoys the crap out of me. He admitted on videotape that he committed cold-blooded murder, and his lawyers are trying to get that confession suppressed.

This is the kind of murderer I'm talking about when I say I could pull the switch. Not only does he have a 24-page rap sheet, he admitted to committing the murder. There is no doubt. FRY him.


Um...Confessions, anyone?

I found the the little stains removal tidbit under the main story very helpful.:D

Sidhe, are you saying that his attorneys should do a less than thorough job when they defend him?

The system worked here. The defense attorneys tried to protect their client, and the judge ruled against them.

What's the problem?

Originally posted by glatt
Sidhe, are you saying that his attorneys should do a less than thorough job when they defend him?

The system worked here. The defense attorneys tried to protect their client, and the judge ruled against them.

What's the problem?

I think that she's more annoyed with the disingenuousness of the attourneys actually.

They tried to lie to the judge apparently.

A confession doesn't necessarily mean much. The Philadelphia police can certainly get confessions out of innocent men.

That's one big reason for the need for the attorney to be there. An analysys of the videotape, if any could somewhat obviate that need, if it shows the attitude of the confessor. And that was apparently the opinion of the judge in this case.

Originally posted by russotto
A confession doesn't necessarily mean much. The Philadelphia police can certainly get confessions out of innocent men.

TS is correct.

Also, in regards to the confession, they were leaving the room. he called them back, waived his rights, then confessed. Now he's trying to get out of it.

wouldn't it be easier to just fall down the stairs? repeatedly if that is what it took for him to die.

i understand and greatful that there are defense lawyers, but i don't know how they can look themselves in the mirror when they know they are representing a guilty person. leaches on society, just waiting to be promoted into public office.

Aren't you the one who hired a lawer to defend you agaist a bogus drunk driving charge? You turn to them for help, but you call them leeches?

ooh, got me. just a generic term. but like i said i see the value in them, i am glad they are there. i have difficulty comprehending how they make peace with helping guilty people (i'm only talking about the ones that they KNOW are guilty) get off.

but hey let's face it - i vote for politicians and i wonder how many of them can sleep at night too.

edit: i guess i should point out that i am being humorous. (in my own lame way)

They killed him for $800.:rolleyes: :mad:

Originally posted by lookout123
i understand and greatful that there are defense lawyers, but i don't know how they can look themselves in the mirror when they know they are representing a guilty person. leaches on society, just waiting to be promoted into public office.

A mistake that most people make is that they see defense attorney's jobs as to get their client off. That's not true. Their job is to see to it that the client gets the best defense possible.

There are a few, naive, young lawyers out there who still try that.

That being said, the sleazy ones who specialize in getting the criminals a walk are the ones we should be mad at.

Originally posted by Troubleshooter


A mistake that most people make is that they see defense attorney's jobs as to get their client off. That's not true. Their job is to see to it that the client gets the best defense possible.

There are a few, naive, young lawyers out there who still try that.

That being said, the sleazy ones who specialize in getting the criminals a walk are the ones we should be mad at.

But aren't the sleazy ones who get their clients a walk simply providing the best defense possible? It's a little screwed up, but in an adversarial system like the one we have, defense attorneys should always play hardball. The prosecutors do too. Hopefully, justice will be served if everyone does their job to the best of their ability.

I don't think we should be mad at any criminal lawyers, as long as they follow the law and the code of ethics.

Originally posted by glatt
...as long as they follow the law and the code of ethics.

The last word of that statement is the issue.

It's the issue ethics that seperates the good attorney from the bad.

Getting a client freed because his person or effects was improperly searched, while frustrating, is just.

Getting a client freed because of a typo on a form is bad.