I know who Gerald Shargel is but Im not that familiar with his style. As far as NY lawyers, Im much more familiar with Bruce Cutler and Ron Kuby.
I have a theory about most of these high profile lawyers (not necessarily the ones above) who defend obviously guilty clients on a pro bono basis or at a drastically reduced fee - they take the high profile cases simply to be in the media for the colossal publicity and to serve their own pecuniary interests more so than the client's legal interest. The ostensibly guilty client is simply a means to a longer term end and the end is making money.
Take this Ellis Rubin character from down here in Fla (he's now dead so there can't be any defamation claim). He defended a prostitute and came up with the nymphomaniac defense, defended some kid who murdered someone and came up with the "TV intoxication" defense trying to say that all the violence on tv made him crazy and not realize he was killing, and a shitload of other theories which dominated the news for months each time there was a trial. Meanwhile, everyone could see that the clients were guilty and what he was saying was undiluted horse shit.
Never mind that he lost every single one of those high profile cases and probably got paid very little for them, because he was on the news and on courtv every day, the public thought that he was some kind of brilliant, ace litigator and flocked to him for his services after the high profile trials which invariably ended in convictions. The key being that it was the
paying public shelling out $600, $700 or who knows how much per hour in order to have this guy tell them in the end something like,
don't worry, we'll file an appeal.Back to the Letterman case, it sounds like the evidence is overwhelming - a phony check, items provided as proof of the extortion attempt, probable govt wiretaps, etc., and it's only the beginning. Most of the good stuff is not going to be released publicly until later when motions in limine or to suppress are filed.
If it looks this bad now then, im my opinion, the defense lawyer would be serving his client's interest much better by trying to negotiate a plea for him and avoiding a trial instead of having some kind of Ellis Rubin type of theatrical trial where the end result will be a statement to the client to the effect of - "don"t worry, we'll appeal". Meanwhile, the phones at the law offices will be ringing off the hook for weeks as they prepare the appeal.
