Prosecutors say that 18-year-old William Innes, who was charged with first-degree murder in the killing of 68-year-old Annette Pershal, sent the text to a group that includes his co-defendant, 19-year-old Ryan Hopkins, reported KNSD-TV.
Prosecutors say that 18-year-old William Innes, who was charged with first-degree murder in the killing of 68-year-old Annette Pershal, sent the text to a group that includes his co-defendant, 19-year-old Ryan Hopkins, reported KNSD-TV.
He is “a good kid with a warm heart” he lawyer says.
His lawyer needs to be Locked up with him.
Lawyers have a job to do, and it’s provide the best possible defense, to even the most disgusting of criminals, because our justice system relies on everyone having a right to an adversarial defense.
This is not a defense. This is pandering to media.
It’s in his client’s interest to speak kindly of him in the media before jury selection. He’s still doing his job.
Sure, his job just happens to perfectly match his personality of being a lying asshole.
Sorry but managing media is part of defense.
Because good kids with good hearts definitely launch unprovoked deadly attacks against the vulnerable /s
But he wasn’t meaning to murder, this good kid was just trying to quell their boredom by causing bodily injury to people they they perceive as less than a person. /s I’d bet money that if this kid isn’t charged, they’ll become a cop.
I mean…. In the USA you’re entitled to a vigorous defense.
Vilifying the lawyer isn’t going to do any good. He’s doing what he’s supposed to be doing.
This kid, if he did it, is a shitbird. The lawyer is doing what they’re supposed to do.
I’m not a lawyer but I went and checked the ABA because I was pretty sure the term “zealous advocate” was in the duties and responsibilities. Here’s what I found on the ABA site, “As advocate, a lawyer zealously asserts the client’s position under the rules of the adversary system.”[1]
Lawyers, especially defense lawyers, get a lot of hate for being zealous about even the most vile client’s defense, but I promise that if anyone reading this ever needs a lawyer you’ll be glad as fuck that they are duty bound to not half ass your defense.
[1]https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_preamble_scope/
You all keep acting like he was forced to take the case. He wasn’t. He did it for the money, knowing full well what a scumbag his client is. I’m not about to sympathize with someone who’s making a fuckton of money by literally shilling for an actual psychopath.
Say you were accused of killing a baby. A news article ran that said you texted, “Lol about to go eat some babies!” You look like an absolute psychopath. Do you deserve representation?
Going further you know you didn’t kill the baby. The message was an unrelated tasteless joke about religion. You’ve been convicted in the court of public opinion by the aforementioned article about your deeds though. Do you think it would be fair to you, in an adversarial justice system, to not have the absolute best representation? Do you think, in those circumstances, that you should only be allowed to hire a lawyer that will half ass your case?
The trigger puller was Innes but that line was about Hopkins. He’s being charged because he supposedly drove Innes there.
I’d also argue that at 19 he is no longer a “kid”.
The driver is as guilty as the trigger puller.
I didn’t say he wasn’t, I was just clarifying the names involved and who that line was about.
is a good way to describe a psychopath if you never actually dealt with one.
Warm like brimstone warm ffs