Comments on: Yet another Montgomery Blair Sibley profile

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Mon, 07 May 2007 18:58:11 +0000

“Blackmail and interference with justice”? To expose someone’s participation in criminal activity? I’m afraid I don’t see it. Certainly, I agree that it’s bad business, though, for a Madam to go public with her johns.

By: markm

markm — Mon, 07 May 2007 12:35:55 +0000

Tom, I haven’t followed this at all closely, but it doesn’t sound like Palfrey is trying to negotiate a deal with the DA to turn state’s evidence against the johns or any other codefendant. The johns do not seem to be in any danger of prosecution, so they aren’t “codefendants”. Palfrey is threatening to expose them to the public rather than the DA, either for profit or perhaps to generate political pressure on the DA. If it’s the second, it’s blackmail and interference with justice. If she’s just publishing her client list, she’s at least breaking an implied contact – any classy vice operation has to promise it’s clients confidentiality.

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Sun, 06 May 2007 09:41:52 +0000

Hall is essentially saying that it’s unethical to counsel one criminal defendant (in this case, the madam) to flip against other defendants (the johns). Obviously, that’s a ludicrous statement for a criminal defense attorney to make, so it’s hard not to conclude that Hall is representing one of the johns on that list (and that his “defense ethics” are somewhat situational).