Lots of Lawyers Mad at O'Reilly

To watch "The Memo" click here.

Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly.  Thanks for watching us tonight.

Well, I've got many American lawyers angry with me, and that is the subject of this evening's Talking Points memo.

Item, Alejandro Avila, the accused killer of 5-year-old Samantha Runnion, was charged with molesting two 9-year-old girls two years ago, went to trial, and was acquitted.

One of those little girls lived in the same apartment complex as Samantha.

There's no question in my mind, analyzing the information we have, that Avila is guilty.  Cops say they have a DNA match and overwhelming evidence against him.

So the question is, what about the lawyers that got Avila off?  Do they have blood on their hands?

Many defense attorneys are furious with that question, but it's valid, and here's my take.

If a defense attorney knows for sure, for certain, that his or her client is guilty and still tries to free the guilty person, that attorney is committing an immoral act.  Article 6 of the Constitution says this, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the assistance of counsel for his defense."  The Constitution does not say, The accused has the right to ask his counsel to lie for him, to mislead, to manipulate the law, or to attempt to confuse the jury about the facts in the case.

Yet many American lawyers believe they do have the right to use every means possible to get an acquittal even if they know a person is guilty.

That is a perversion of our Constitution and of our system of justice.

We have cited this before, but it's worth repeating.  Every American lawyer has the right to withdraw from a case if, quote, "the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant."  That is rule 1.16 of the American Bar Association.

If a lawyer knows his or her client did the crime, and yet the client insists on trying to fool the jury into an acquittal, that is a repugnant action, period.

Now, I know many lawyers will not accept that, but I don't care.  Taking money to free heinous criminals is blood money.  The lawyer that represented Avila, John Posa, told the jury not to believe the testimony of the two little girls that swore Avila molested them.

Posa did that despite the fact that Avila had taken a lie detector test and failed.  We invited Posa on THE FACTOR, but I guess he can discredit 9-year-olds with no problem, but he does have a problem with me.

Fine.  But if he did show up here, I would ask him, What did you do with the money, counselor, that was paid to you to represent Avila?  And I would ask him, What would you like to say to Samantha's mother and father?

You know, we often make decisions in this life.  There's no way on earth I could represent someone I knew to be guilty, and there's no way I would pervert the Constitution to justify that.

All Americans deserve the assistance of counsel when charged with a crime.  But that assistance should be honest, and it should be responsible.  If the lawyer knows a client is guilty, work on a fair sentence, don't try to fake out the jury.

I wonder if counselor Posa sees Samantha Runnion in his dreams.

And that's "The Memo."

The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day

Time now for "The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day."

We'd like to send our best wishes and get well soon to Chris Matthews, who has been hospitalized with malaria.  That's ridiculous, and we're sorry Mr. Matthews has to endure it.  Things just aren't the same without Matthews on cable. 

— You can watch Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points and "Most Ridiculous Item" weeknights at 8 & 11p.m. ET on the Fox News Channel. Send your comments to: oreilly@foxnews.com