There’s a wonderful passage in Balzac’s The Black Sheep where the lawyer Desroches counsels his client Philippe as Philippe leaves prison and undertakes his nw life on parole:
I thought of Deroches yesterday as I listened to David Roth speak for Mark Foley: “There was absolutely no inappropriate sexual contact with any minor ... and any suggestion that Mark Foley is a pedophile is false."
I’ll leave it for others to parse the meaning of “pedophile.” What I’d love to know is what kind of conversation lay behind “absolutely no inappropriate sexual contact.” A lot of lawyers would not stick their neck out that way—not as a matter of principle, but purely for reasons of tactics. If it turns out to be false (and I can barely imagine the hordes of investigators and reporters that must be crawling all over this one already [Cf. update fn infra)—if it turns out to be false, then he emerges not just as a pedophile, but as a lying pedophile to boot.
Under the circumstances, a lot of good lawyers would have tried not to know anything about Foley’s past. “I just ask them—what is your defense?” an old-time criminal lawyer told me when I was young. It’s primitive and often unsound, but I know what he was driving at.
Roth sounds like a pro. He knows all this. One can only imagine:
Foley: I want you to know that I never…
Roth: Wait a minute, Mark, I am your lawyer and I am bound to keep your confidences, but there are some matters on which, if I am fully informed, I may find I have lost my freedom have motion…
Might be a good time to review the coverage of “I … did not … have sex … with … that woman.” (For anybody who happened to go through the
No comments:
Post a Comment