Eric Vessels of the Ohio political blog Plunderbund posted his first podcast yesterday. Future episodes will include interviews with other Ohio bloggers, as well as the opportunity for listeners to call in. Eric interviewed Subodh Chandra, one of the Democratic candidates running for Attorney General in Ohio. (The primary will be on May 2).
I’ve posted a transcript here:
Below the fold is the portion dealing with Subodh’s discussion of his controversial (to some) refusal to state that he would support his opponent, Marc Dann, if Dann won the primary…
Subodh:…As to the issue–many people have sort of brought up this issue of “will you support” and all this stuff, and I’ve said, Look, simply put, I will not be voting for Betty Montgomery this fall. You know, I believe strongly in recycling, but some substances are too toxic and too worn out to be recycled, and Betty Montgomery is one of them. So we’ve got to end her ability to harm Ohioans, to both be asleep at the switch and switch sides.
Eric: Sure enough.
Subodh: Now, having said that, having been involved in Democratic politics for as long as I have–I mean, I was the chair of the College Democrats when I was in college, and as I’ve mentioned, I’ve worked for governors, worked on campaigns, raised money for people. I know the politically correct answer to that question. It is “Absolutely. Yes. No problem!” And even all the way through my primary opponent’s Supreme Court reprimand–which I think is an electoral disaster–but even all the way through his Supreme Court reprimand, having read the underlying nature of the conduct, and, you know, the tax liens on his home and his business, and the lobbyist’s gifts that he accepted and refused to return, and didn’t timely report. All of that stuff that’s come out so far, and even some of the other stuff I knew about, that hasn’t been reported, even with all of that, my inclination would have been to say, “Oh yes, absolutely, I’ll be supporting.”
But, the Keith Phillips case changed everything for me. Because, a real human being served four months in jail for a nonexistent crime. And there are a couple of significant failures here that never have been explained properly. First, why, when that client walked in the door, why did Marc Dann and his associates not advise that client that his conviction that they were relying on to make the sentence, could be reversed. And should be reversed, and must be reversed because it was for a nonexistent crime, that had been struck down by the Ohio Supreme Court. Why not?
You know what the answer to that probably is, but they just won’t answer it? They didn’t know! Because they didn’t do the research. They didn’t know! And their excuse is, “Well, it would have just gone back before the same judge.” Nonsense. Another lawyer–a real lawyer–got it reversed.
Eric: Wow.
Subodh: Another lawyer got it reversed, in front of another judge, because the first judge was recused. So, the explanation that’s been given so far to the newspapers is nonsense!
The second issue is, why then, did you not use a rock-solid alibi defense in which four co-workers are saying he didn’t do it, the description of the person doesn’t match, the description of the vehicle doesn’t match–why wouldn’t you use it to defend against the case, instead of telling the guy to plead to a nonexistent crime that had not only been struck down by the Ohio Supreme Court, but had been repealed? Repealed–it wasn’t even on the books!
Why? The answer is probably, “We didn’t do the research, we didn’t look at the statues, we don’t know what we’re doing!”
Eric: Yeah, and those are pretty serious things, and —
Subodh: Very serious. And I teach law students legal ethics. I taught legal ethics, and I spent a week or two on competence. And you know something? I couldn’t look them in the eye, and tell them that party loyalty is more important than ethics and competence in the practice of law. I just couldn’t do it.
