I cannot agree that Mr. Cole did any disservice to ultimately befriend Rick after all hope was gone and the death clock tolled. Mr. Cole is my friend and in my opinion he could not and would not disserve his profession. Nor would he disagree with anything you or I say about how horrific this crime was.

But I admire him for stepping in to befriend the friendless to the end and beyond. Because I wonder where we will find the answer to stopping these crimes if we do not get to know and embrace the ugly part of our humanity from which this evil you speak of springs. Where is the seed fertilized, how does it germinate and bring utter destruction if it’s host and the victims of its host. How arrogant are we to pronounce judgments so right, so incapable of human error, so untainted by the corruption that otherwise pervades our government that we dare do what Rick Cooey did and pronounce a sentence of death? If absolute power corrupts absolutelyas Mr. Jefferson and others said, then doesn’t the absolute power exercised in the death penalty, the absolute power to extinguish a life, absolutely corrupt us all? And isn’t the antidote to the absolute power to defend and befriend the accused? For the accused there is NO friend other than the defender. And when we truly defend and not just show up at yrial but truly defend, we DO befriend, whether we acknowledge the truth of the befriendment as Mr. Cole has done or deny it by wrapping it up in technical terms.

Thanks for your response. I don’t think you and I will get much further in discussions. We have a fundamental disagreement about life and philosophy, really.

I think some actions are evil, not people. There are very, very, very rare circumstance where I think “evilness” resides in the fundamental fiber of a person. Cooey is not one of those cases. Such a case would be much closer to a Dahmer–and even there I would probably say such a person is really too sick to be “evil.” There actions, no doubt, are among the worst and most vile, but their souls, if they exist…well, maybe that’s not for me to say.

For me, to view any person as evil forecloses the chance that that person could ever change or grow. I would argue that our entire criminal justice system does not even view the accussed or convicted as evil, themselves. Our system is (purportedly) based on the concept of rehabilitation. If people are “evil” they cannot be rehabilitated. Our punishments and systems do not really support your idea that Rick was, as a person, evil.

Maybe you do believe that people who carry out evil actions are evil people. Maybe you think people who are “evil” should be punished differently than people who are not evil, but just sometimes do bad acts. If that is the case-maybe you should review the rules of character evidence. Even IF Rick or anyone else is an “evil person” that is not justification for state sponsored murder.

On a side note–I wouldn’t usually use the word “evil” anyways. The religious connotations go far beyond what we are really trying to talk about. I think you mean you view some people as “perverse” or beyond help or “fundamentally flawed.”

I am not going to argue the facts with you. The shoelace Rick used on Wendy did not cause her death nor was it used tightly enough to do so. Rick admitted to strangling Wendy to keep her from screaming. He also moved the car in an attempt to leave, but was blocked by Dickens who was moving Dawn’s body. [Dawn was also dead by the time the shoelace came into use--Dickens left deep marks on her neck that suggested the lace would have killed her.]

Even if Rick’s actions were evil, I don’t think they justify the state’s commission of another evil act (killing Rick). Dickens’s actions were just as evil and he was not punished similarly (because of his age). Should some evil people be spared? If they are evil and cannot be fixed, what’s the point? If some actions show that a person IS evil, then we best kill all people who do those actions, right?

The record reflecting Cooey’s supposed unyielding coldness is absolutely wrong. The Summit County Prosecutor knows as well as I do that Cooey’s apology letters to the family were submitted to the Court five years ago. She was present when it was read into record. Rick apologized to the families but did not ask for their forgiveness because he recognized that it was “too much to ask.”

In any case, I simply disagree that befriending a client is the road to their demise. Some clients will be convicted and incarcerated or killed no matter what. At least they can have a friend. I am not saying I will become best friends will all clients I have. Of course not. But, I am not going to label someone as evil BEFORE meeting them, BEFORE OR WITHOUT reviewing the evidence. I just don’t think that’s right.

I do not think I will be any more or less mentally or morally isolated than anyone else. I will choose to view all my clients first and foremost as humans, and the other side will choose to view my clients as heathens, monsters, and evil beings. We will each have our blind spots in our approach. Mine will likely cause me hurt and pain when no matter my efforts, I cannot save someone I feel deserves mercy. My opponents’ are more likely to incriminate innocents and feel justified in doing so because they are convinced they incriminated deserving monsters.

Being a friend to someone does not mean you convince them to act against their interests. It’s not bad lawyering on my part. It is a choice. It will have consequences, and I will own them.

Its not a sacrifice–its bad lawyering and it its certain to lead to defeat for your clients.

As Herb Cohen says, “I care . . . but not that much.”

I have alsolutely no problem knowing that a person is evil, without ever meeting them. You need to develop that judgment, fast, if you want to survive in the criminal law business. Become friends with an evil client and you can wind up broke, in jail, or worse. If you think not, read the 7th Circuit Opinion in US v. Cueto sometime.

The first rule in life, and any court room, is that actions speak louder than words. I have absolutely no trouble saying that Cooey was evil, based entirely on his actions. Anyone who doesn’t recognize Cooey as evil is wholly lacking in judgment.

Here is what the Cooey did:

On the night of August 31, 1986, Wendy Offredo, twenty-one, and Dawn McCreery, twenty, finished their shift at the Brown Derby Restaurant in Montrose, Ohio. Sometime after midnight on September 1, they left for the Harbor Inn, located in Portage Lakes. They never arrived.

Their course of travel along Interstate Route 77 took them underneath the Stoner Street Bridge in Akron. Appellant, Richard Wade Cooey II, on leave from the United States Army, was standing on the bridge with two friends, Clint Dickens and Kenneth Horonetz. They were amusing themselves by throwing things off the bridge. Just as Wendy and Dawn passed below, Dickens threw a large chunk of concrete over the side. The concrete hit Wendy’s car, forcing her to pull over.

Cooey and his two friends went to offer assistance to Wendy and Dawn. All five of them got into Cooey’s car, and Cooey drove to a shopping mall, where they found a pay telephone on which Wendy called her mother.

While Wendy was talking to her mother, Dickens saw money in her purse. He suggested to Cooey and Horonetz that the three of them rob Wendy and Dawn. Cooey replied, “I’m game if you’re game.”

Everyone got back into the car, and the group left the mall. When they realized Cooey was not returning to the site of the “accident,” the women asked Cooey where he was going. He pulled out a knife and ordered them to “shut up.” He then gave the knife to Dickens, who opened it and held it on the women. Dawn gave up her purse, while she and Wendy asked their assailants not to hurt them. Cooey told Horonetz to tie Dawn’s hands, whereupon Horonetz demanded to be let out of the car, and Cooey let him out.

After letting Horonetz out, Cooey drove to an isolated wooded area in Norton, Ohio, where Dickens raped Wendy. Cooey later admitted to police that he tried to have sex with Dawn, but claimed that he stopped. However, the coroner’s examination indicated that Dawn had oral and vaginal intercourse before death.

After he was finished with Dawn, Cooey had oral and vaginal sex with Wendy. While he was with Wendy, Cooey said, “Hey, Clint, put on the Bad Company tape.” After Cooey was finished with Wendy, he and Dickens put the women back into the car. Dickens then told Cooey that he had not been “really worried,” although the women knew what he and Cooey looked like; however, now that they knew Dickens’ first name, they would have to be killed.

Dickens and Cooey brought the women back outside. Dickens began to beat Dawn with a nightstick belonging to Cooey. Meanwhile, Cooey grabbed Wendy in a choke hold, rendering her unconscious. He tied his bandanna around her ankles to keep her from kicking him. Dickens then tossed Cooey a shoelace, and Cooey strangled Wendy with it while Dickens strangled Dawn with his other shoelace. Cooey also beat both women with the nightstick.

Cooey and Dickens then stole Wendy’s jewelry, dragged the bodies away from the road, and hid them in the weeds. After brushing away their tire tracks with branches, they went to a car wash to get rid of the bloodstains on themselves and the car. Finally, they discarded the purses.

Thus, the proposition is how to effectively represent an evil person. One doesn’t do that by becoming friends with one who is evil. Ones does such with emotional intelligence and social perception, both of which compel detachment.

Detachment, by the way, does not mean that one doesn’t learn the client’s name. Social perception means the opposite; one professionally measures how to effectively communicate. That is our business—we are professional communicators, whether we are good, bad, or indifferent.

To the point, the proposition not disputed was my basic thesis—that friendship actually creates a conflict of interest in the relationship, for it leads to misjudgments, such as what may have happened in this case. The reporting of Cooey’s pardon application strongly implies or suggests that Cooey might have been pardoned, had he confessed to his proved crimes. The proposition was demonstrated that the friendship could have interfered with getting Cooey to admit his guilt. No one disputes the point.

Last, it bothers me greatly that you and the others who post here are so lacking in the fundamental psychological propositions of Winning and Losing. Again, I would suggest you read John Boyd with care. Here is a link. http://www.d-n-i.net/dni/john-r-boyd/ At page 36 in his seminal presentation, The Strategic Game of ? and ?, he describes mental or moral isolation and thereafter its central role in Patterns of Conflict.

A simple, but effective, example of mental or moral isolation are the statements of fact in many criminal opinions written by conservative supreme court justices

John Boyd would likely say that everything Mr. Spence teaches about trial technique is directed toward combating the mental or moral isolation of the defendant from the jury. On the other hand, one who takes on evil as a friend is going to suffer mental and moral isolation, as Boyd explains.

Moe

Thought you might find this of interest:

“The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it ultiplies it… Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate… Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out hate; only love can do
that.” — Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. – (1929-1968),
US civil rights leader
===

Love “Light” and Energy

_Don

http://www.theominousparallels.blogspot.com/

I just wanted to say that you maybe should refrain from choosing the label of “evil” for a person that you never met. For a person who, in fact, had you represented, you never would have gotten to know. If a lawyer should not befriend a client, nor should he seek so quickly such a harsh label.

For me, your vision of the law is a cold and calloused one. It’s one that no doubt operates everyday. I do not intend to practice that way. If it results in my suffering because I dared to care for someone– so be it. I, unlike too many, am willing to make that sacrafice.

Also, note–Professor Cole does not complain of his suffering. He says he would do nothing differently. In the last five years of Rick’s life, he had few people near him. For you to suggest that the only care he ever knew be withheld for him because Professor Cole was his lawyer is just cruel.

When I am admitted to the Bar, I will swear to uphold the rights of my client and to represent him or her zealously. No part of that promises not to care for my client, or his soul.

Before Professor Cole came onto the case, the lawyers didn’t even call Rick by his name. (They used Richard.) How or why would anyone trust people who don’t even bother to learn their name?

~Jess

Thanks from Illinois. Ideas such as those we encounter in favor of the death penalty take on a religious character — which is to say that your comments, as true as they are, become irrelevant to proponents of the death penalty because their BELIEF in the death penalty cannot be overcome by reason, logic or truth.

Your questions, if answered honestly, would eliminate the death penalty. Thank you. Gerry