To the Editor:
Sachin Mehta '97 would apparently dispense with trials because he knows who is guilty and who is not guilty. Under that approach, there would be no need for defense counsel or for putting the prosecution to its proof. Just ask Sachin, who either gets his information from the always-accurate media or from more heavenly sources. I prefer our present system of requiring the prosecution to prove its case, and I am proud of my role as defense counsel for both indigent and wealthy, as well as innocent and guilty defendants. By the way, most of my clients are pro bono, some of them college students.
Nor have I ever played any race card. In the Simpson case, the prosecution used a racist witness, and we exposed his racism and perjury. Would Mehta have it any other way?
By the way, Mehta doesn't always know everything. I never represented Heidi Fliess, although I certainly would have been willing to do so.
In any event, I am not running for president. Buchanan is. No zealous attorney could ever win public office, precisely because of the kind of misunderstanding of our role reflected in Sachin Mehta's letter.
