When some U.S. Senate critics of the nominee for a top Justice Department post recently criticized his having represented a defendant convicted of killing a police officer, Justice at Stake spoke out about the resulting dangerous implications for citizens’ access to justice (see Gavel Grab).
Now a similar controversy is generating news headlines and debate. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has come under attack from some critics for her representation in 1975 of an indigent defendant accused of raping a 12-year-old girl. Regarding this criticism, attorney Jonathan Adler writes in the Washington Post, “It seems that election season is open season on defense attorneys.” Adler elaborates:
“What should we make of this story? Perhaps nothing more than that Hillary Clinton represented someone in need and fulfilled her duty as a member of the bar to provide a zealous defense of her client. This is not something for which she should be attacked. We are all the worse off if the message sent to young lawyers is that representing guilty or unpopular clients is likely to be a political liability down the road. Ably and effectively representing a criminal defendant – even one you believe to be guilty – is not ‘scummy’ or inappropriate. Forcing the state to prove its case before it deprives an individual of their life, liberty or property is a noble endeavor.”
A Media Matters piece examines both the attacks on Clinton and varying reactions to the attacks.