Reader comments
Lawyer: Colo. balloon boy parents to plead guilty

This is shocking! Tell me it is not true.

They should at the very least pay the costs of the police and other public safety resources who helped.

And thus we see why lawyers are held in such disdain by honest Americans today. As if the prosecutor was pulling some sneaky maneuver, Lane laments the fact that the father had to admit any wrongdoing when he could have possibly escaped punishment for his crimes in the absence of a deportable wife. No thought whatsoever for justice, let alone gratitude for a fair and prison-free resolution - just "how can I help my client avoid any accountability for whatever he has done."

Then, he glorifies the mother as a loving, compassionate, caring wife and mother, when it's clear she is a lying, deceitful, manipulative actress who is actively teaching her children the same despicable character traits.

The unfortunate truth is that by negotiating such a lenient deal for his client, this lawyer will probably increase his clout and standing as a lawyer.

I'm so glad they are pleading guily. Now let's keep them out of the spotlight they so crave and be done with this family.

Yes - how sad that someone cannot be convicted without any evidence! Darn that lawyer!

They should be made to pay for the rescue efforts. Having others place their lives at risk in a false emergency is a serious crime.

No evidence? Based on your post, I assume you have sight to read current events, even if you are deaf to the innumerable TV accounts. BTW, they have closed captioning now so you can still read what's being said.

Anyway, thanks for making my point. No thought whatsoever to justice, or gratitude for the generosity of the prosecutors in the deal they got. A truly dishonest and corrupt legal system whereby it's not good enough to provide a diligent but honest defense - the goal is to get clients absolved of any accountability for their crimes.

And, I think the corruption, dishonesty, and manipulation is equally present on the other side, with prosecutors often more concerned with sticking a conviction on the easiest person to convict, regardless of guilt or innocence, in order to build the career and winning percentage of the prosecutor.

I'm just very disappointed that our legal system seems to be more of a game between highly competitive opponents rather than an honest effort toward justice, fairness, and reasonable compassion when deserved.

I hate to break this to you, but it's not the defense lawyer's job to play the judge, jury and prosecutor. His only job is to help his client "avoid accountability," as you put it, by giving his client the best defense available.

If you don't like defense attorneys it's likely because you're clueless about the adversarial system. It's the defense attorney's job to paint his client in the best light possible. While I agree that some of the rules of evidence which are designed to protect people's right to a fair trial go a little too far, the defense lawyer has to exploit those rules to his client's advantage. To do otherwise would be malpractice.

The prosecutors job is to do the opposite, the judge oversees the process and the jury decides innocence or guilt (except with plea bargains such as this one where the parties come together).

Well it's clear to me that you're clueless about how to read a comment with context and meaning. I've seen many defense attorneys, after a fair settlement, offer a gracious acceptance of the offer, glad to put the matter behind them. THE LAWYER IN THE STORY, who is specifically being referenced, made comments about how "unfortunate" it was that his client had to accept the offer under the circumstances, as though it was SO unfair that he had to accept any responsibility and accountability whatsoever in this case.

THAT'S the kind of legal people I'm talking about, who compete to WIN at all costs, with no thought to justice and fairness. It wasn't about reaching a FAIR settlement, and that he got a generous settlement for his client was not good enough. He could only be satisfied if his criminal client went completely free of any accountability at all.

If you're happy with a system that's more about competition and winning rather than justice and fairness, good for you - you've got it. If you think our current system IS about justice and fairness, I think you're beyond clueless.

The only "proof" they have against the father is the word of the mother and, as his wife, she cannot testify against him.

The rest of it is mere speculation.

Even if it's the lawyer's job to paint his client in the best light possible, it's still a huge insult to good parents everywhere to characterize Mrs. Heene as a "loving, caring, compassionate wife and mother." I don't know a single woman I consider to be loving, caring, and compassionate toward her children who teaches them to lie for money.

Sorry, the lawyer's scummy.

To @DSB 1:48 - I don't recall saying the prosecutors had enough evidence for a full conviction of anything. So, regarding my argument that the lawyer was an ungrateful legal competitor with no concern for justice and fairness, who deserves the derision of fair-minded people, what's your point?

Maybe you think people who can't be technically convicted to the absolute fullest extent should suffer no consequences for their nonetheless illegal, dangerous, reckless behavior. Maybe you think even the sentence given was inappropriate, since there was no "proof."

I do have the feeling that if there was NO proof other than inadmissible testimony, the lawyer would not have accepted the plea bargain. To do so would have been malpractice, wouldn't it?

The leverage for the plea bargain was the deportation of the mother - her testimony cannot be used against her husband, but it can be used against her.

"Maybe you think people who can't be technically convicted to the absolute fullest extent should suffer no consequences for their nonetheless illegal, dangerous, reckless behavior."

Yeah - I kind of think that if there is not enough evidence to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt they should not be punished for something they may or may not have done. That is, after all, the root of our justice system.

So, to be clear, do you think the plea agreement was inappropriate, and that they should have no legal consequences for their actions?

I think the plea bargain was appropriate - I also think the lawyer did what was required of him which is to represent his client fully.

I think if the prosecution had a better case, they would have gone for a steeper plea deal.

In the absence of any evidence that can be used in court - yeah, the father got a harsher punishment then he would have otherwise gotten.

I think people who break the law should face legal consequences for their actions - I also know that all too often prosecutors are willing to look for a deal instead of looking for facts.

I don't think we should be disparaging lawyers who do their job just because we don't like the outcome.

Didn't seem to me that DSB was disparaging the lawyer because he didn't like the outcome. Seems like he was disparaging the lawyer because the LAWYER didn't like the outcome, even though those shysters got a pretty sweet deal IMHO.