Some Things Are Sweeter than God (ePub)

How far should lawyers go when they're defending a client for murder, a client that is obviously guilty? The legal obligation is clear, but isn't there also an ethical obligation to see that a murderer is kept off the streets?

Lorinda Rivers is a public defender and a highly competitive woman who does not like to lose...Kevin Jensen is a man who's facing the death penalty after being charged with the brutal murder of his ex-girlfriend...his fingerprints are on the murder weapon, there's an incriminating videotape, and he's already confessed, so there isn't any real doubt as to his guilt. But when Kevin retracts his voluntary confession, refuses to consider a plea deal, and demands a jury trial, Lorinda is faced with a difficult moral dilemma. Should she ignore her conscience and defend Kevin aggressively, even if it means that he might go free?

And then, as the trial approaches, Lorinda begins to have an affair with Preston Ryder, the crime writer at the local newspaper. Lorinda's husband has become physically abusive, and it doesn't take her long to become involved with the handsome, well-spoken, entertaining new man in her life. Preston, because of his job at the newspaper, is interested in the Jensen case, and he offers Lorinda some interesting insights, both practical and philosophical, into her moral dilemma.

The following excerpt is from Chapter 19.

However, as she continued to think about it, Lorinda discovered another problem with having Kevin tried before a jury. What if, somehow, Jensen walked? Granted, it seemed an impossibility now, but what if it were to happen? Did she really want this guy cruising around the streets of the city where she lived? Hardly. And wouldn't this be a plague on her conscience: I was the lawyer who tricked the jury into acquitting Kevin Jensen. It's true, of course, that he might murder another woman someday, but that's none of my concern.

So the problem was this: If one has a conscience, how does one fight for a murderer's freedom? Fall back on the innocent until proven guilty mantra? Lorinda couldn't help but sympathize with the prosecutor. What if it had been her responsibility to prosecute Jensen? She could see herself cutting a few corners to get this guy executed. The movies generally created defense lawyers who were noble, misunderstood creatures battling overwhelming odds as they fought for their wrongfully accused clients. But what if you were defending the likes of Kevin Jensen? What kind of movie would that make?
Still, it was her duty to defend him, and she could not be entirely traitorous to her sworn pledge to represent him to the best of her abilities. Then again, even though the law was important, it didn't transcend common sense and genuine human considerations. Lorinda didn't enjoy making compromises, but after thinking it over carefully, she came to the conclusion that she could only fight for Kevin's life--not his innocence.

But then, everything is turned upside down when Lorinda hires a detective named Irene Knight to see if she can discover any extenuating circumstances that might spare Kevin from the death penalty. After examining the case, Irene tells Lorinda that "the most significant mitigating factor for Kevin Jensen is that he is clearly innocent of murdering Carolyn Andrews."

So who murdered Carolyn Andrews? The answer to that question remains hidden until the day that Lorinda discovers something that could end up destroying not just her career but also her life.