Satan's Lawyer

I have the utmost respect for the work that defense attorneys do. In order for our legal system to work, I think it's important for even the most heinous criminals to have an effective and vigorous defense. That being said, Katehis's attorney in this case, Jeffrey Schwartz seems completely unethical, all too willing to bend or ignore the rules or the law and someone who will do anything at all in the pursuit of publicity or a headline.

When the trial began, I asked two of Schwartz's colleagues about him to see what his reputation was. One prominent defense attorney who has represented both murderers and child molestors described Schwartz in this manner, “He’s a notorious bottom feeder. Totally dishonest, classless.”

Another attorney, who is quite famous in his own rite for representing what many would describe as the dregs of society said that Schwartz was a "vile pig".

This has been my experience for the last week or two in observing Schwartz as well. He seems to either not know or not care about the law on everything from "Dunaway" issues about evidence to "Sandoval" information about prior bad acts. He openly defies the Judge's instruction on a regular basis and repeatedly fights with him. As one court observer remarked to me yesterday, "he doesn't seem very bright".

Forget about the fact that he began this trial by telling the jurors that one of my closest friends was "a drunk predator", ror me, what really took the cake was during his cross examination of a medical examiner yesterday in which he referred to George's apartment and the place he was murdered as "the so called" crime scene.

The Judge frequently sustains objections to his questioning of witnesses and seems to realize exactly what kind of a lawyer he is. Perhaps that's why last week, on October 14th, Schwartz asked Judge Neil Firetog to recuse himself in this case.

Not surprisingly, Judge Firetog denied his request. In arguing with Firetog, who has a remarkably good reputation and was formerly the Chief Administrative Judge in this court, Schwartz (who formerly represented Darryl Littlejohn in his murder of Immette St. Guillen), said that he couldn't function "with a blade held over my throat". Why Schwartz would choose to use that metaphor on a legal motion, in a trial where his client is accused of stabbing a man repeatedly in the throat is beyond me. It seemed like he was trying to be cute in using phrasing like that. It struck me as utterly tasteless and completely insensitive.

Schwartz took this case pro bono (most likely for the publicity), recently though he told the Judge that this case was taking up more time than he'd anticipated and asked the Judge to assign him so that he could get paid. The Judge told him no. From what I've heard, the Judge indicated that he'd be happy to assign an attorney to this case, but that it wouldn't be Mr. Schwartz.