Came across your link by googling "Allan Stokke" and felt like contributing: The manner in which Allan Stokke "defends" his clients shows a blatant disregard for justice, in my opinion. In the case with the stripper, he managed to convince a jury that the fact that this cop had run the license plates of nine other strippers from the same club was just a coincidence, whereas the idea that a stripper always wants to manipulate men through sex even in off hours made perfect sense. He routinely uses vicious personal attacks on the plaintiff (see also: the infamous Orange County gang rape case), perpetuating the idea that sexual women can't be sexually assaulted. I believe as much as anyone that the accused have a right to attorneys who will defend them to the best of their abilities. But I vehemently disagree that Allan Stokke had a "moral obligation" to convince a jury that any woman's sexual history cancels her right to consent, which he has done or tried in at least two cases that I know of.

Regarding this: "We cannot use his words in the context of defending the accused as a window into his own personal thinking. " He also defends this idea outside the courtroom, even after David Park was acquitted. Here's a link: http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/readerrebuttals/article_1575149.php . To get an idea of all the facts he disregards as coincidences: http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/illegally-park-ed/26661/ is a big summary of the case.

I believe, as you do, that defense lawyers should not be judged for defending their clients as best they can. I also believe, after having followed the Haidl gang rape case and this one, that while Allan Stokke may not be a monster (who am I to judge?), he's pretty damn close.

Thanks for your response, Andi! I admit to knowing little about the cases; my comments reflect only my reaction to the post at Feministing.

Your use of the word justice implies you think the accused is guilty. It's worth remembering that justice could also be served by persuading twelve jurors of an innocent person's innocence.

I can only reiterate that it is not the defense attorney's job to seek justice but to defend his or her client. It is the jurors' collective responsibility to seek justice, and the judge's role is to maintain an environment consistent with the execution of that justice.

I agree that 'a sexual woman always deserves it' does not follow, but if you suspect a guilty man went free, then you should be blaming an incompetent jury who decided the verdict or judge for allowing bad evidence.

Defense attorneys defend the accused using any type of persuasive logic allowed by the courts, regardless of guilt or innocence. On the whole, I think that is a good thing.

I am looking for a general profile of Allison Stokke: date of birth, weight, height, family members names, UC Berkeley News and any other info you can provide: send it to: pointed@earthlink.net

By the way I think in general the people talking about her on the web are fans and not pervs or stalkers. I think her father needs to relax and have a look at how Kournikova became famous and very rich.

"I agree that 'a sexual woman always deserves it' does not follow, but if you suspect a guilty man went free, then you should be blaming an incompetent jury who decided the verdict or judge for allowing bad evidence.

Defense attorneys defend the accused using any type of persuasive logic allowed by the courts, regardless of guilt or innocence. On the whole, I think that is a good thing."

You contradict yourself in a big way. So defense attorneys should employ any type of persuasive logic, even if it does not follow? Stokke makes a claim which does not even stand up to us online. Yes, it is job to defend his client, but he should not lie to defend this person. The end does not justify the means, in other words. If a cop masturbated on a stripper, Stokke should assist in placing a guilty plea and trying to secure favorable sentencing for his client. Instead, Stokke uses his client's position as a law enforcement officer and the woman's stigmatized profession of stripping to circumvent a more fair result. So, he is doing his job, albeit dishonorably.

Had the police officer not committed the act in question, that's another story. In that case, the defense could state reasons why he did not sexually assault the woman.

Response:
Thanks for the response, although I still see no contradiction. I also am disturbed that you think a defense attorney ought to persuade his client to plead guilty if he thought his client was guilty. Forget the guilt or innocence of a defendant for a moment; if you were charged with a crime, would you expect your attorney to pull out all the stops to defend you? How would you feel if you were in fact innocent, but your defense attorney pressured you to plead guilty? Where would you go?

My issue with your point-of-view is that you're assuming the defendant is guilty, whereas I think that every defense attorney has a moral and legal obligation to do everything they can to defend their client. This means they must presume the innocence of their clients in all legal proceedings. If the issue is instead that you don't like defense attorney tactics, then ask yourself if the same tactics would be the right thing to do if yourself or an innocent family member were on trial.

"Forget the guilt or innocence of a defendant for a moment; if you were charged with a crime, would you expect your attorney to pull out all the stops to defend you? How would you feel if you were in fact innocent, but your defense attorney pressured you to plead guilty? Where would you go?"

Yes, I would expect the attorney to work for me. If I committed the crime, however, I would not try to subvert the justice system and get off scott free. I am not assuming the cop was guilty. However, if he was, he shouldn't lie about his innocence. I think you're throwing ethics out. At attorney only has to go on the client's story. If he or she didn't do the crime, so be it. Defend away. The victim's history is in no way appropriate to discuss. So, "going to all costs" should stop at irrelevent matters that cloud the issue at hand. The victim was not on trial as a person. The cop was on trial as a possible rapist.

Defense attorneys persuade people to plead guilty all the time. Public defenders, or 'prison deliverers" as some call them, have a conflict of interest between working for the state and trying to defend a client. They must keep the trials moving through an overcrowded justice system. So, they convince these parties to try and secure a favorable plea rather than fight a charge which they will probably lose. If that happened to me, I would be very upset. That situation isn't at issue in this case, however. The accused's innocence is unknown.

"If the issue is instead that you don't like defense attorney tactics, then ask yourself if the same tactics would be the right thing to do if yourself or an innocent family member were on trial."
Were I innocent of a rape I was accused of committing, the accuser's sexual history would not be an acceptable thing to bring up in the court. The ends do not justify the means, I am afraid. If the cop was innocent, Stokke really failed, because he couldn't get his client acquitted without resorting to the lowest common denominator in such an antiquated form of defense.

It seems like your defense attorney who has a "moral and legal obligation" to defend the client has such a moral obligation to stop at nothing, including actual morals, to defend someone. So, the attorney should be immoral in defending the person.

Response:

Will, thanks for your comment; you have several good points. I agree with your criticism that I have ignored ethics. This is deliberate, because at no point does our system decide guilt before or during the court proceedings, so I believe it best to assume the defendant is innocent until proven otherwise. Because of that, I believe the defense attorney has an obligation to work as if his client is innocent, which means they shouldn't hold back anything.

In particular, the tactics used by the defense attorney shouldn't be limited by social mores. They should be limited only by law and, ultimately, by the presiding judge. If, for example, the supposed victim's previous sexual history were not related to the current trial, then it shouldn't be allowed. If, on the other hand, the accuser's history were relevant and it provided supporting evidence of the defendant's innocence, then the defense attorney has an ethical obligation to present that history. I think criticism of the defense attorney in this case is misguided; if one thinks that previous history should never be considered evidence, then the judge is ultimately to blame, not the defense attorney.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love learning more on this topic. If possible, as you gain expertise, would you mind updating your blog with more information? It is extremely helpful for me.

ic. If possible, as you gain expertise, would you mind updating your blog with more inform

uss this, I feel strongly about it and love learning more on this topic. If possible, as you gain expertise, would you mind updating your blog with more information? It is extremely

Very true! Makes a chnage to see someone spell it out like that. :)