There are a number of reasons I did not become a criminal defense attorney when I left the government. One of them is lack of imagination. Hence, from the Chicago Tribune, "Accused of assaulting 3 young girls, man says he's boy tapped in adult's body."
A Chicago man accused of sexually assaulting three young girls told prosecutors he considered himself a boy in a man's body, according to Cook County court documents.Joseph Roman, 38, is charged with predatory criminal sexual assault stemming from repeated attacks on three girls who were 6 to 8 years old at the time, according to prosecutors. Roman was a friend of the girls' families at the time of the attacks between 2015 and January of this year.
During a hearing Wednesday, prosecutors said Roman admitted to some of the attacks and told Chicago police "he is a 9-year-old trapped in an adult's body." He was ordered held without bail
My wife says I'm a eight year-old trapped in a law professor's body. What I would like to be is anything at all trapped in a 21 year-old's body.
What does this have to do with the imagination of defense attorneys? The defendant made this statement to police, presumably before talking to an attorney, and his lawyer is not even mentioned in the article. It appears that your imagination is just fine.
"It appears that your imagination is just fine."
No, no, it's falling apart. I had, for example, imagined that a defense lawyer looking at this story might express at least a smidgen of distaste for Mr. Nicey's behavior. Oh, well.
I'll also bet that the defense lawyer's stance in this case will take firm root in Mr. Nicey's assertion that his mental state (still being a child) provides at least mitigation, if not outright exculpation.
Are we on?
Maybe you should have been a farmer given your skill at constructing straw men. Wheat did I say that suggested I did not find Mr. Nicey's behavior distasteful? Must I signal my virtue in every comment even if it is irrelevant to the topic? Just to clear it up for you, his alleged behavior is appalling.
My point, which you ignored, is that you used this case to attack defense attorneys when the story has nothing to do with defense attorneys.
As to Mr. Nicey's ultimate defense, I have no idea whether his mental state would provide a basis for any defense or mitigation. The article simply does not provide enough information.
My offer of a bet is still on!
One other question, since you seem so (wisely) disinclined to take the bet.
If the physical evidence overwhelmingly shows that the defendant did it, and the defendant nonetheless insists on going to trial and defending himself with the idea that he thinks of himself as a nine year-old, would you refuse him your services as a defense lawyer, or would you do your best to convince the jury of his mental state defense?