Exclusive Interview: Lawyer on defending Michael Rafferty
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 лис 2024
- Dirk Derstine, defence lawyer for Michael Rafferty, sits down with Global's Kris Reyes to discuss what it was like to defend Michael Rafferty - convicted killer of Tori Stafford. Derstine discusses the trial, its impact on his life and how a lawyer has to get the job done whether or not they believe their client is guilty or innocent.
Someone get the camera person a tripod or take the camera because it seems he is in the middle of a dance class?
He is not the killer he is a lawyer and everyone deserves a fair defence that's the law
and the victims deserved their lives - these are the devils lawyes
@@AT-cy7im Grow up!
@@AT-cy7im They are the Devil's Advocate. For real.
@@AT-cy7im Nope, these lawyers are what makes us better than monsters like Rafferty. Everyone deserves a defense
@@weirdthingstoeat7198 agreed
such hostile interviewers. He's just doing his job!! Do you want to live in a country where you don't have legal counsel if you are accused of a terrible crime???
@@nikolh7412 what if you’re wrongly accused ? Happens all the time.
@@ditay8208 In my opinion, you shouldn't be defended after you admit you did that horrible crime or evidences are clear. I live in a country (Czech republic) where peoplo who rape and murder get like 10 years sentences besause of a good lawyer 🙁 it's very sad
@@nikolh7412 unfortunately in order to have a system that works it absolutely with out a doubt must be this way. You can't look at the crime more in how the systems work, to protect us....I promise you it works to keep you and all safe from the massive machine..
@@nikolh7412 I hear what you’re saying, and I get it. Especially heinous crimes (like the one in this particular case) make me want to reactively agree with you. Throw away the key type deal.
But then you realize there are simply too many variables... false confessions or worse coerced confessions happen all the time. If we say we’re going to throw the book at a certain individuals who may or may not have been involved in these crimes, we forget there’s always the possibility these same people could have been unfairly targeted by LE, criminal prosecutors, or even larger enforcement agencies like the FBI or the CIA. Rarely do we as society ever have the entire picture - rather we hold a snapshot of what we’ve been fed by news outlets and tabloids. I like to think a defense attorney is there to present the all the facts, A-Z, make sure there’s no foul play involved, no coercion, and that the state is fairly and justly prosecuting his/her client. I don’t know if this fella described it as I would have, considering he actually remarked the case, when viewed a certain way, could be viewed as a ‘loss.’ He did make a good point about doctors though; if a convicted man guilty of a terrible crime is brought to the hospital on the verge of death, would they cease to practice medicine at the standard they’ve always held themselves to? Of course not! And that’s how it needs to be looked at.
It's not adversarial. She's just asking questions.
That guy off camera is extremely rude. there is no way he should be allowed to throw his questions in there too ...it seems demeaning to the interviewer.
Does the camera need to keep moving around
Lol
Comm on he's a defence lawyer it's his job!
He's a child rapist defender... there, fixed it for ya
That lawyer is highly intelligent.
Um do people not understand what a defense lawyer is ? That his job and it’s honestly refreshing becaUe sometimes mixing emotions with a case can make the trial not be fair
I always tell people that question how attorneys like us could defend a person the world considers a monster that the more you hate a person, the better an attorney you want them to have.
It sounds backwards, but good defense attorneys in cases where there’s no way you’ll win actually make sure that the person they’re defending stay in prison. When you do a great job defending your client and he’s still found guilty, there’s nothing the person found guilty can do to get out of prison. That person can’t go file an appeal and claim that they were found guilty because their attorney didn’t do a good job defending them. The appeals court will see that his/her attorney did everything in their power to defend them, so the original verdict will stand. However, on the flip side, bad defense attorneys get cases overturned. I’ve seen many cases where a person is guilty of murder and originally sentenced to life in prison just to have the appeals court overturn it because the defense attorney didn’t do an adequate job, and instead of that person spending life in prison, they take a plea bargain to a lesser charge and only serve a fraction of the original sentence in prison. Then the family of the victim loses again because justice wasn’t served.
The last thing I will say is that we live in a world where prosecutors often care more about their conviction rate than they do about the truth. You don’t want the level and quality of defense to go down because one day a serial killer is on trial, but the next day it could be you on trial being wrongfully accused. If you let emotions cloud your judgement, an innocent person could spend the rest of their life in prison all because people had so much emotions about the case that the facts didn’t matter.
I am confused. A bad defense attorney equates to lesser charges and convictions? Are you saying that deep down defense attorneys are trying to screw over their clients for their own moral reasons?
@@orlonarsino6729 he's saying that if a defendant receives a proper defense, a clean trial with no shenanigans, there is less of a chance that the outcome of the trial can be subject to appeal or reversal due to technicality. With a proper defense which adheres cleanly to the rules and boundaries of the law, then the jury is able to deliberate on the facts of the matter asserted and the evidence alone; and if the evidence does indeed point to the defendant's guilt, then they will very likely be convicted.
This is how our legal system (well, I'm American but it's similar) works, and both defendants and plaintiffs must be entitled to rigorous counsel in order to achieve the best outcome, i.e. justice, in a trial.
@@sonmi2246 ohhh I see
Completely agree with you. Defense Attys are absolutely vital. I think people only get outraged or question the need in cases like this. People don't like the idea of these monsters getting any sort of help. I feel bad for the court appointed attorneys. Look at the defense atty for Jodi Arias...Mr. Nurmy. I agree with you slightly that we don't want these monsters being able to appeal, but it seems like there's soooo many grounds for appeal that it's a joke. If a witness giving testimony sneezes it seems like it could be grounds for an appeal nowadays. Look at OJ Simpson. Yes, I think he's guilty 110%. So, like I said, I agree slightly with you, but on the other hand, sometimes the attys are getting these monsters off the hook and back into the public. The defense attorney is there to get a lesser sentence/conviction for their client, not to help the general public by making sure their client can't appeal. Inmates on death row can appeal for decades and even die of old age before ever being close to their punishment.
How long did it take you type all that out ……
The thing many lay persons are confused about (and at one point included myself) is that a lawyer's job isn't to personally prove someone is guilty or that they condone the behavior of the person they are defending. A defense attorney's job is simply to present the evidence on the assumption that the accused person is innocent, which is a right of all citizens. If it were not for that right, we would be back in witch hunt territory. The defense attorney doesn't have to believe his client is guilty or innocent. They just have to present the evidence and let the court come to their own conclusion. It is true that some go to great lengths to defend their clients to the point of illegal tactics, but the majority don't do that. Basically, the point here is that they have to assume their client is innocent, regardless of the evidence against them. They aren't trying to disrespect the lives of the victim or their families.
What irritated me about this interview was that the reporter asked "How do you deal with this? This isn't the first murderer you defended" as if he takes pleasure in defending murderers. No, lady. He wasn't defending murderers, he was defending people accused of murder. They only become murderers after they are tried and found guilty.
Exactly! And there would be a lot more innocent people in prison as well.
I found this video informative. I've always wondered what goes on in the head of defense lawyers.
Not much, just dollars.
lol, he seems very similar in speech to Ben Shapiro
The interviewer asking if they could read some of the hate mail is pretty sleazy journalism
How did this woman become a journalist
Her questions were on Point 💯
😂😂
It's odd just how many people don't realize how the justice system works. Mr Derstine's job is to defend his client, plain and simple. Every Canadian is entitled to a good defense, regardless of the alleged crime. What is Mr Derstine supposed to do? Address the judge and the court thus: "Your honour, I believe my client is guilty as hell and so therefore I'm going to do as lousy a job as possible to make sure he's convicted" . I wouldn't be surprised if a lawyer could be disbarred for doing a deliberately lousy job. Marie Henein endured the same kind of public abuse defending Ghomeshi. Does she owe it to femaledom to make sure Ghomeshi got convicted?? Mr Derstine is to be commended for taking on such a case, and enduring the ignorant public nastiness so stoically
If he isnt allowed have a Lawyer then he cant be convicted, the guy was literally doing his job unlike this hostile biased interviewer
How is she hostile....?
@@ramonnewell9312 Over the course of the interview, every third question she asked was a rephrasing of "How can you sleep at night?" It was fairly hostile.
FYI, doctors and surgeons in iserl often "forget" to attend to the wounds of Palestinian patients. There were several times where there was enough evidence to convect them but they got community service at most, even when patients were dying of negligence.
Had the laptop come in, Rafferty would have been able to cite that on appeal since it was illegally obtained. People don't get that defense lawyers do the best to get the best outcome but if they didn't, the defendant would be able to use it upon appeal. He HAD to get the laptop excluded - otherwise it would have been a successful appellate issue. Defense attorneys usually get into that line of work because they believe in the right to everyone having a fair trial and many people defense attorneys defend ARE innocent. As a defense attorney, you get all kinds - guilty monsters like Rafferty and innocent people that he's probably defended. The surgical analogy is correct. If the guy comes in shot up because he robbed a bank, the surgeon can't go: I don't care about this bank robber. Everyone deserves the best defense they can get. I wish people GOT THAT and let defense attorneys alone. They have a job to do and they ascribe to an ideal that no matter how trashy the defendant, they deserve a fair trial and a good defense equals a bad appeal. A good defense attorney locks it down - gets a fair trial below and that keeps an appeal from being successful. Let a good defense attorney do his/her job and you will see the defendant get the result they deserve and an appeal will not be successful.
i have actually heard of doctors abusing people who were perceived as bad. It was on The Nine Club skateboarding podcast. I don't recall which episode. It was a car crash victim & at first he was thought to have been at fault & a DUI. Neither was true. i guess lawyers' rules can be more stringent than Drs.'
That laptop issue was a load of crap. This lawyer was good and he was clever enough to get Michael Rafferty to paint himself into a corner.
I wish the camera man would zoom in more...
I understand that, I just let me emotions get the best of me. It would be hard to defend someone like that, is all I meant.
Spending time with any other person.... come on
How many times does this guy have to say he tries his best to stay detached from it, its not easy but he is doing his job to the best of his abilities and that he believes what he does is crucial to our society as a whole. Just because she can't understand him she just rails and rails and rails on this guy. What does she expect him to say as well, anything he says that he would probably admit to in a private conversation with his wife or friends would likely put him at risk of penalties or other issues..
Well said ..if he would speak negatively of his client, his career would be over instantly.
Great and smart man, not emotional like judges
Extremely intelligent lawyer.
The surgical analogy was very good....
.
But she STILL DOES NOT GET IT!!,!,,
What an annoying interviewer!
How many times can she say "You're a dad." He has a JOB TO DO and you don't go "OMG, I'm a dad! I can't defend a child killer!" which is what she seemed to be going for. No matter how many times he explained the same thing she came back to "You're a DAD!"
I thought that Terri actually did the murder, that she confessed?
All of them did. Worthless drug heads that the government will support till they die.
@@robertdavis2373 I know this was a long time ago but they didn’t kill because they were addicts they killed because they were sikkk with much more than an addiction.
Who's that random (invisible) voice that chimes in? Lol.
PS Thats the voices in your head :)
Yeah, but, as much as people should understand that defense attorneys serve a valuable purpose, it should immediately be understood why anyone would react with anger towards one, most especially in a case like this.
What surprises me about the lawyer here is he doesn't even seem to have any inkling at all why people would be angry in the first place. Really, are you so disconnected from human existence that you can't at least comprehend where the emotion comes from?
And putting that aside, the emotional responses are less to do with his being a defense lawyer in general and more that Rafferty is clearly and beyond a reasonable doubt guilty. And not just guilty but guilty of one of the most disgusting, truly awful acts imaginable. Sorry, but it really does make me wonder why anyone would take this case.
No, there's no good reason for anyone to be angry at the defense lawyer. You really need to understand how the legal system works. Sure, people have a right to be mad at anything they want, but it doesn't make it sensible. If that defense lawyer does a bad job because he lets his emotions get the best of him, there is a much greater chance that the defendant can win appeals and drag this out forever. If the evidence is overwhelming against the defendant, the defense lawyer actually does everyone a favor by doing a good clean job in his defense. The public anger should be directed at the child murderers not the defense lawyer. All this being said, I would literally torture and beat these two to death if I were in the same room with them.
@@jlowe8059 because most people are NOT learned in the field of law, they will understandably not see the bigger picture and not see why defense lawyers are s good thing for society. Therefore, it's understandable that many people will immediately be angry here. I'm not saying their anger is justified, I'm saying you can't be surprised why they would be angry. And for this lawyer in particular not to get that demonstrates a lack of general awareness in human psychology.
I also find him (the defense lawyer) kind of creepily avoiding pointing out that Rafferty is one sick puppy. I think cognitive dissonance is playing a role here.
A very intelligent person indeed. Everyone deserves a good defence. He knows he's guilty as much as the next person but he is doing his job. Very well infact
How is he paying for a defense?
The good old Ontarion taxpayers, unfortunately.
I've seen a few videos featuring Canadians. Is it normal to speak fast up there?
we speak the same... are u thick... this is one man. a big handful of Americans are so uncultured wow
+Lord Of the Rins well you're the thick one automatically assuming I'm American!
OmegaRage we are just smarter than Americans
Omg. Really are you serious
Us Canadians talk like everyone else. Lol
I could only listen to 5 minutes of this fast-talking awful lawyer. Gives me the chills even to look at him.
why
That's because you are an ignorant tool.
I feel I have to say something about lawyers: no matter how futtel or heinious a crime is one needs formost to know that we live in a rightious state. Prossecuters and devencelawyers have the same profession and do the same thing. There is no side but de side of the law! If Rafferty had no lawyer the court would apoint one as a frind of the court and not to befrind the devendant. One "call`s it his or her lawyer" but in realaty "there is no a for him (or a for her lawyer." To devent a case is to upholt the law when morals and anger is on everybody`s mind. A lawyer is to remind to not let feelings overcome the crime. It would be pretty silly (STUPID) if you had to go to jale for a trafic viaolation becouse the local police is o so passionat about speeding parking etc. And ofcourse; one could expect Rafferty to go to jale. Rightfully so!!
What is futtel?
I think this is how I come off when I post in Russian. я могу говорить по русский, но мои русский ето еще не хорошо. можебыт русский люди думять я тоже очень сума. Yeah I am not at all sure about the second sentence, I did it all by myself and no cheating with google translate.
Righteous state Lol
I wonder how well it would sit with him if he won and Rafferty was released back onto the street. If he knew personally that he was guilty and succeeded in getting him off. If he killed again, would he sleep easy feeling that it was the fault of the Police for not presenting the case as well as they could have.
Dude, youre so dense it hurts. His job isnt to get him back into the streets. Even if everyone knows the criminal is guilty, the lawyer still has to fight for him in order to help prove that the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
@@vladorsomething8147 I bet it hurts, thinking is hard. No one is disputing the role of the Defence Lawyer you simpleton. The fact that you struggle to grasp the nuisance in my comment is not helped by you suggesting others are stupid, that won't make you intelligent.
this lawyer talks like ben shapiro
Waste of time, this guy talks like a sales man, a job, that it's all it is is to him
that's all what every case should be to a good lawyer - a job.
He has to speak like that because anything he says could hurt the trial.
Its supposed to be a job to Lawyers, what's your point here?
@@superbad3591 well I suppose at a plus forty person I have never held a job for more than a week that was a "job" to me. I love what I do. It's not a job. Unfortunately not all people find that.
That’s the POINT. It’s a JOB. JESUS CHRIST.
Is camera man doing pee pee dance
This lawyer new it wasn't in anyone's best intrest to do to good of a job in this case.
Least of all his.
He sucks at being a lawyer! I would stand a better chance representing myself!
16:59 She has a crush on the defence lawyer.
Nah she's probably only interested because he's a lawyer.
Nooo, she is just being nice.
I think the whole chat was an aha moment for her. She now understands why and how defence lawyers do what they do.
just saw ...what you saw
I don’t think you know how to read people.
I think she believes that the defense attorneys' only job is to get their clients out of the jail
He reminds me so much of Ben Shapiro
He sounds like a broken record
He S just making money. Money minded person .
Nope, this kind of work is low pay compared to many other legal jobs.
I doubt he would feel the same if it were one of his children. Yes all deaths matter but when it is an innocent t child - well. I dont think that needs any explanation.
That wasn't his point. He's arguing against quantifying murder.
I feel more sorry for his wife and kids. When his kids are at the age where they will understand and can scroll the internet and all the information I think they would think, man, dad would defend someone who rapped and killed me.
I think that would be extremely difficult. And when they have kids of their own, I think there would be some anger there. Like well dad, if someone did this to my child you would be standing up there hiding evidence and trying to get them off.
Very hard to understand. But like anything it’s a job and it’s what has gotten his kids through school and university.
Put him in isolated island 🏝️
She not a very good interviewer
The moment the camera man pans out the window 😄 This lawyer didnt defend himself well. He defends law not a person. What if he dug up evidence that pointed to Toris mom as the brains behind the murder? Toris mom is weird btw. Christians forgive and hope the killer becomes saved through this but she said she never will. Also, she tattoos Toris face on her like some kinda bar hag. Tacky imo. Also, its very strange that a tatted up mom knew the killer. How many people would let their 8 year old walk home from school? How many people have known this since the 80's?
@MissGuided Me Her wack mom has seen missing kids on milk cartons like everyone else. Just walk home from school lil darlin.. Everything will be just fine..
Ben Shapiros brother??
Shouldn't even have a lawyer for murders
Chris Mcdonald you're a complete idiot.
That's a dumb thing to say