Were Judge Skinner and Facher acting in collusion?

Excerpts from OUTRAGE
By Vincent Bugliosi, former Los Angeles District Attorney,
Lead prosecutor of the Manson murder trial and
Author of “Helter Skelter”


A word about judges. The American people have an understandably negative view of politicians, public opinion polls show, and an equally negative view of lawyers. David Kennedy, professor of history at Stanford university, in writing about politicians, says: “With the possible exception of lawyers, we hold no other professional in such contempt. Who among us can utter the word ‘politician’ without a sneer?” Conventional logic would seem to dictate, then, that since a judge is normally both a politician and a lawyer, people would nave an opinion of them lower than a grass hopper’s belly. But on the contrary, a $25 black cotton robe elevates the denigrated lawyer-politician to a position of considerable honor and respect in our society, as if the garment itself miraculously imbued the person with qualities not previously possessed. As an example, judges have, for the most part, remained off-limits to the creators of popular entertainment, being depicted on screens large and small as learned men and women of stature and solemnity who are as impartial as sunlight.
As to the political aspect of judges, the appointment of judgeships by governors (or the president in federal courts) has always been part and parcel of the political spoils or patronage system. For example, 97% of President Reagan’s appointees to the federal bench were Republicans. Thus in the overwhelming majority of cases there is a nexus between the appointment and POLITICS. Either the appointee has personally labored long and hard in the political vineyards, or he is a favored friend of one who has, often a generous financial supporter of the party in power. Roy Mersky, professor at the University of Texas Law school, says: “To be appointed a judge to a great extent is the result of one’s political activity.” Consequently, lawyers entering courtrooms are frequently confronted with the specter of a new judge they’ve never heard of and know absolutely nothing about. The judge may never have distinguished himself in the LEGAL profession, but a cursory investigation almost invariably reveals a POLITICAL connection.. Incredibly, and unfortunately, the political connection holds true all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, where, for instance, the last three chief justices- Earl Warren, Warren Burger, and to a lesser extent William Rehnquist -have all been creatures of politics, like so many of their predecessors in history.
Although there are many exceptions, by and large the bench boasts undistinguished lawyers whose principal qualification for the most important position in our legal system is the all-important political connection. Rarely, for instance, will a governor seek out a renowned but apolitical legal scholar and proffer a judgeship.
It has been my experience and, I daresay, the experience of most veteran trial lawyers that the TYPICAL judge has little or NO TRIAL EXPERIENCE AS A LAWYER, or is POMPOUS AND DICTATORIAL on the bench, or worst of all, is CLEARLY PARTIAL TO ONE SIDE or the other. Sometimes the judge displays all three infirmities.
It’s always a great relief and pleasure to walk into court and find a judge who has had trial experience, knows the law, is completely impartial, and hasn’t let his judgeship swell his head. There are, of course, many such admirable judges in this country, but regrettably THEY ARE DECIDEDLY IN THE MINORITY.

I start out with the assumption that a lawyer in a criminal case is going to be incompetent, substantially so. I find my assumption to be rarely wrong. Yet society starts out with the very opposite assumption. I happen to know society is wrong. Dead wrong. The reason I say this is that not only do the facts and the evidence show society is wrong, but common sense does. Here’s why. Incompetence is rampant in our society, from presidents on down. It is every where. In fact, it is so prevalent and so bad that the only adjective I’ve ever been able to come up with in the lexicon that adequately describes it is “staggering.”
If the reader isn’t aware of the prevalence of incompetence, I certainly won’t be able to disabuse him of his sheltered view in a few paragraphs. But people can’t do the simplest things right.
How about all the consumer products that are difficult to operate because whoever manufactured them was too incompetent to make it easy? Or the instructions that are hopelessly confusing and sometimes flat-out wrong? Or “easy-to assemble” products with parts missing from the box?
If incompetence is so endemic in society, even among people doing simple, repetitive things with a lot of time in which to do them, doesn’t common sense tell you that the incompetence is going to be even more common and pronounced with trial lawyers who deal with different witnesses in every case, with different facts and evidence, who are constantly forced to think on their feet under pressure of time, and who have an opponent who is trying to thwart and negate their every move? Yes, common sense tells you this. But this is not the way society sees it.
The reason is the extremely strong myth in our society- the genesis, I imagine, being from novels and films- that criminal defense attorneys particularly those on big cases, are brilliant, great, high-powered, silver-tongued; that they’re magicians, able to pull rabbits out of hats, etc. Although there is incredible incompetence everywhere in our society, for some curious reason, because of this myth, defense lawyers are perceived to be an exception..
The reality is that the vast, overwhelming majority of trial lawyers in criminal jury trials are either incompetent or operating at a very low level of competence. And if most prominent trial lawyers met their reputations out on the street, they wouldn’t recognize each other.
In addition to novels and the screen, the media have been very complicit in perpetuating the myth. Cross-examination as bland as pablum is routinely reported to be “rigorous” or “withering.” Why? Because cross-examination is supposed to be rigorous and withering.
It’s always amusing to me when I see laypeople and media so impressed when a lawyer does simple, obvious things in court, things an average person would instinctively know to do. Here is how ingrained the myth is: How many times have you heard someone, talking about a weakness in a case, say, “A clever lawyer would ...” and then proceed to tell you what the layperson thought to do himself? Why? Because lawyers are supposed to be clever. The criminal defense attorney is supposed to be clever, even if the idea required no intelligence at all.
...no intelligent person can assess someone’s performance simply by looking at the final result. Results can frequently be traceable to factors and dynamics that have nothing at all to do with the abilities of the victor.