[sixties-l] Lawyers: Einhorn's fate was in his own hands (fwd)

From: sixties@lists.village.virginia.edu
Date: Mon Oct 21 2002 - 14:56:12 EDT

  • Next message: PNFPNF@AOL.COM: "[sixties-l] Re: we are part of the problem"

    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 11:59:22 -0700
    From: radtimes <resist@best.com>
    Subject: Lawyers: Einhorn's fate was in his own hands

    Lawyers: Einhorn's fate was in his own hands


    Legal experts said it was clear he controlled the defense strategies. His
    biggest problem: His ego.

    By Jacqueline Soteropoulos
    Inquirer Staff Writer
    Oct. 18, 2002

    Ira Einhorn's defense was an impossible mission - even for such a highly
    regarded attorney as William Cannon.

    In the end, it is always the client who has the final word on the defense
    strategy. And top lawyers in this city say this particular client did
    himself in.

    "It was predictable that Ira Einhorn was going to insist on his own defense
    theory. It was predictable that Ira Einhorn was going to insist on an
    antagonistic defense," said Brian McMonagle, a criminal-defense lawyer and
    former Philadelphia homicide prosecutor.

    "That's how he led his entire life. He always thought he was smarter than
    everyone else. But in the end... that wasn't the case," McMonagle said.

    Criminal-defense attorney Tariq El-Shabazz said he believed that Einhorn
    simply refused to follow Cannon's sound legal advice.

    "Sometimes you have clients who don't want to listen to what you say... and
    sometimes it blows up in their face," El-Shabazz said yesterday.

    Common Pleas Court Judge D. Webster Keogh, supervising judge of the criminal
    division, appointed Cannon last year to represent Einhorn because of the
    lawyer's vast experience with homicide cases. Einhorn could not afford to
    hire a lawyer.

    This week, legal experts called the Einhorn-Cannon pairing a "surreal"
    match - the former long-haired rabble-rouser and the starched Republican
    lawyer who once ran for district attorney.

    Cannon's colleagues believe the case was one of the most difficult of his
    career, given the volume of evidence, the personality of his client, and the
    client's desire to base his defense on such theories as "psychotronic" mind

    "I put the case in Ira's lap to win it or lose it," Cannon told reporters
    after the verdict. "It all came down to Ira's ability to sell Ira to the
    jury... . And the jury obviously rejected his testimony."

    Defense attorney Jules Epstein, an adjunct professor of law at the
    University of Pennsylvania, said Cannon faced a lot of difficulties.

    "Number one, he has a client with a very strong ego, and that's a very
    difficult situation for any lawyer. Number two, whether guilty of innocent,
    there's a lot of damning evidence, and you're forced to explain away many

    "Number three, obviously this is a case where the jury has total sympathy
    for the victim and no reason to sympathize with the defendant because of his
    grandiosity, because of his life as a fugitive, and because of what many
    will perceive as his arrogance."

    Finally, since Einhorn would not compromise on his innocence and allow his
    attorney to argue for a lesser degree of murder, his options were limited,
    Epstein said.

    McMonagle believes the Einhorn defense team should have built the case
    around a voluntary-manslaughter theory - that Einhorn committed the slaying,
    but that it was done in the heat of passion during an argument, and that he
    never intended to kill Holly Maddux, his girlfriend of five years.

    Cannon said his strategy was to try and show reasonable doubt by attacking
    the forensics and presenting three witnesses who testified they saw Maddux
    alive in 1978 - the year after prosecutors said she was slain.

    Lawyers and prosecutors also believe that Cannon's aggressive interrogation
    of some witnesses - including suggestions that extended to lesbian
    attraction to Maddux - was likely at Einhorn's insistence.

    "I think the questioning was to some degree affected by his client," said
    Assistant District Attorney Joel Rosen, who won the conviction.

    McMonagle more bluntly called it "witness-bashing."

    "I was rather shocked by it, but I think Bill was instructed to do that by
    his client," McMonagle said.

    Because Einhorn maintained his innocence, Rosen and other attorneys agreed,
    he needed to testify.

    "The circumstantial evidence offered in that trial... was so heavy and so
    immense," Cannon said. "There was no chance in the world that he would be
    found not guilty if they didn't hear from Ira."
    Contact Jacqueline Soteropoulos at 215-854-4497 or

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 21 2002 - 15:19:04 EDT