Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Design by
Danny Carlton

Made with NoteTab

October 05, 2005

Arizona Supreme court gagging at a gnat

From the Arizona Daily Star...

Three decades ago, James Hamm took Willard Morley Jr. out into the Tucson desert and shot him in the back of the head after promising to sell him 500 pounds of marijuana.

On Monday, Hamm asked the Arizona Supreme Court to conclude his character is good enough to let him practice law.

Hamm said he's been sorry for his actions since the day he was sent to prison for the 1974 murder of Morley; a second man was killed in the same robbery though Hamm, 26 at the time, pleaded guilty to only a single murder charge.

Paroled more than 17 years later, Hamm graduated from the Arizona State University College of Law, passing the state bar exam in 1999.

He was released from parole four years ago and works as a paralegal, expert witness and sentencing mitigation analyst for attorneys.

But his efforts to practice law have so far been held up by the high court's Committee on Character and Fitness, which concluded last year that he was not of good enough moral character to be an attorney.

Oddly enough this wasn't in the humor section. Since when do lawyers have scruples?

A statewide poll done in 1999 showed that 57 percent of those asked believe the Arizona Supreme Court should deny Hamm the right to be an attorney. Only 29 percent said the fact he murdered a man should not stop him from joining the legal profession.

Why make a big stink about one murder, when the nation is packed to the gills with lawyers trying to screw anyone and everyone out of every last penny they have? How many people have died because trial lawyers make medical care so expensive? The threat of lawsuits drove the owners of the World Trade Centers to remove the asbestos from the support beams, even though the asbestos used was not the dangerous kind, and posed no health risk. Had that asbestos been there on 9/11 experts agree, the flames wouldn't have melted the supports and the buildings wouldn't have collapsed. Do you hear anyone having a cow about the ethics and principles of the lawyers that were directly responsible for the thousand of people who died when those buildings collapsed?

The Arizona court's Committee on Character and Fitness needs to look at the glass house they live in before tossing stones at a guy who committed a crime over 30 years ago, and none since.

Posted by Danny Carlton at October 5, 2005 06:18 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Security verification

Type the characters you see in the image above.