Talk:Gerry Spence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV issue[edit]

User Coastda edited this page, but I feel it might be best to revert to previous incarnation as Coastda is using two Bars for proof, as the trial they refer to (Michael Jones, Jr.) was convicted but it was overturned on appeal. At the same time, Coastda states as counter proof to Spence not having lost a civil case that some (undocumented, unsourced) were overturned on appeal.

A brief websearch of spence and coastda creates the impression of one of hostility, imo Coastda has a personal grudge and is trying to smear the image of Spence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atechi (talk • contribs) 18:34, May 18, 2006 (UTC)

In an effort to keep POV in context there is no question that Spence won two big trials which were subsequently completely overturned on appeal (Silkwood and Miss Wyoming vs. Penthouse) . Spence's book, "The Smoking Gun" was Mr. Spence's version of two trials that is at substantial variance with ,y recollections, having been the prosecutor in the first trialCoastda (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Gerry Spence has NOT "never lost a case, criminal or civil." That is simply untrue. He prevailed in two cases about which he wrote books (Silkwood and the Miss Wyoming vs. Penthouse cases). He won both massively at trial, and both were completely overturned. In 1985 he represented then-15 year old Michael Jones charged with murder as a juvenile. In Oregon the trial was a criminal trial in EVERY sense except that the juvenile neither received a jury (which Spence argued at the time he was entitled to) and the sentencing authority then ended at age 21. Chief Justice Alex Kozinski of the 9Th U.S. Circuit court mentions the arrogance of trial lawyers who claim to "never have lost a cast." "n19. There's one famous exception: Gerry Spence, at least to hear him tell it. See Gerry Spence, Gunning for Justice 47 (1982). But see Sherrie F. Nachman, True Lies, Starring Gerry Spence, Am. Law., Sept. 1994, at 13 (disputing Spence's claim made in Gunning for Justice and widely reported by the media, and quoting one victorious Spence adversary, "It's a lie.")." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coastda (talk • contribs) 18:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

factual error[edit]

I wouldn't want to edit the article, but I'm pretty sure there is a factual error where the article says Gerry Spence has never lost a criminal case. Spence defended a juvenile in a murder trial in 1986-87 in Lincoln County, Oregon. It was not a jury trial, but was tried before a judge. The juvenile was convicted. I covered the trial as a reporter. 12.35.221.242 23:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been reworded to indicate the juvinele was convicted but later turned over on appeal (not by me, by someone else), this is the facts so I see no need to change further.Atechi 20:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a factual error. I'm a retired lawyer who attended every day of the Mike Jones murder trial and wrote about it extensively at the time. Jones was a juvenile tried in juvenile court as a juvenile; it was not a criminal case. Had it been a criminal case, the constitutional right to trial by jury would have applied. The judge's conduct of that trial and his final ruling were so outrageous that the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed an Oregon judge in a juvenile case for the very first time, without so much as an opinion. Unless juveniles are prosecuted as adults, in Oregon their trials are not criminal trials and they are not subject to adult penalties. The purpose of juvenile court is the child's best interest and rehabilitation. Juvenile convictions do not go on the child's adult criminal record and the juvenile court's jurisdiction ends at age 18 in Oregon. Folks without legal training often do not understand such distinctions because the substance of the charges and much of the procedure is the same as in criminal cases. But juvenile cases are not criminal cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.204.191 (talk) 05:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The anonymous claim by someone who claimed to be a lawyer who claims to have attended “ every day of Michael Jones, Jr.trial” is demonstrably false at many levels.
I attempted to sign in as coastda - my name is Joshua Marquis - and I was the sole prosecutor now these 38 years ago.
The trial judge was Robert Gardner, an enormously respected judge from another nearby county. In Oregon juvenile trials are IDENTICAL to adult cases with two differences 1) no jury, judge sits as trier of fact and law and 2) finding of guilt is an “adjudication,” not guilt, although the burden on the state is identical to an adult trial.
Spence insisted on representing the OTHER shooter, the mother, in a scheduled upcoming trial the following month. Judge Gardner kept asking about conflict of interest ,and Spence had a Wyoming judge contact him.
Spence’s closing, to a judge was over 8 HOURS. Mine was 40 minutes.
Spence’s plan was to win the juvenile case big time, contaminate the small jury pool and coast to victory on the mom’s case.
Spence demanded “special findings,” which aren’t given in any criminal verdict.
The judge took the arguments under advisement on Dec 20, 1985 and had the parties return at 3 p,m, When we all returned armed police were everywhere and the courtroom was packed - to watch Spence’s victory.
Except the judge found Spence’s evidence unconvincing and he convicted under juvenile law Jones, Jr. of Manslaughter First Degree, similar to Second Degree Murder. Spence now demanded the special findings be sealed and he slunk out of the courtroom to his awaiting private turboprop.
He had repeatedly told Judge Gardner that they’d “checked him out” and they wanted him for the companion adult case. In January he changed his mind, demanded a new judge. The first judge called, Frank Knight, was so disgusted by Spence’s conduct, he left the courthouse at noon and said “find somebody else.” The acting chief Justice sought volunteers, and like “red hots” in law school Harl Haas, former state Senator, DA, and failed AG candidate volunteered.
There was a hearing on the day the Challenger exploded (1/28/86) at which Haas showered Spence with compliments in chambers (I was present) He told Spence he wished he’d hired Spence when the judge wanted to sue the state’s largest newspaper, the OREGONIAN, for libel. I begged my boss, the DA, to use the challenge before Haas ruled. He didn’t and Haas reversed THREE different judges; releasing the accused on recog, changing venue, and disqualifying the entire DA’s office. Shortly afterwords Haas dismissed the entire case but was reversed by the higher courts. Over two years later the trial took place and Spence easily won.
Lawyer not connected with me or Spence handled the juvenile’s appeal and in an unheard of decision, giving no reasons whatsoever, they “Reversed Without Opinion.” Judge Gardner, normally very reserved, was so upset, he wrote an angry letter to the chief appellate judge who had inserted himself into the 3-judge panel at the last minute, without explanation.
The State Bar file one allegation against me and 25 allegations of misconduct against Spence. After five YEARS the Bar mysteriously dismissed ALL allegations in 1991. 2600:6C55:6D00:8B1:6CB7:240A:AD4A:4173 (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually juvenile delinquemcy cases ARE criminal cases. In Oregon all the same right and procedures apply except the right to a jury trial. In the context of a lawyer's boast of "never having lost a case" it has significance because it was a three week trial on a charge of murder. The juvenile was found within the jursidiction of the court for having committed the crime of manslaughter in the first degree. The rversal of the case was indeed unprecedented because it was without opinion. It gave no reason whatsoever thereby leaving the state nothing to appeal. Full disclosure, I was the prosecutor who tried the case. Coastda (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bad link[edit]

Give Me Liberty seems to also be a comic book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.35.129.2 (talk • contribs) 21:50, July 12, 2006 (UTC)

removed referance link, it is unlikely that Gerry's book need inclusion.Atechi 20:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spouse's name spelling[edit]

Gerry Spence's wife's name is Imaging, not Imogene. Please see the book Making of a Country Lawyer. This should not be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lglegl (talk • contribs) 15:42, December 3, 2006 (UTC)

True.[1] — Satori Son 16:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV problem with citation in bibliography[edit]

In the list of books by Gerry Spence, a citation is made on the Smoking Gun item to a decidedly biased blog entry written by one of the subjects of the book. While this might be appropriate in the context of a section regarding controversy over the book, I don't think it has a legitimate place as a standalone reference in a simple list of works.

I'm going to remove that citation, rename the section to "Bibliography," and additionally remove the superfluous reference number 5, which only points to a brief bio, not a list of his published works. I'll leave in place the final citation of the section (but re-arrange its position so it will be more easily interpreted as a source for a list of his works, and not as some sort of reference applicable to a particular book), as it seems reasonable to interpret it as an authoritative list of his works in print.

But I'm no expert Wikipedia editor, so I welcome criticism and alternative views. --Skidoo (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The "blog entry" was a published ...actually solicted...book review in the NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL. I wrote it and I am one of the main bad guys in the book. In order for WP to be more than an internet vanity wall (that's what we lawyers have in our offices) there needs to be the occasional dissenting voice. Coastda (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Supreme Political Court of the United States[edit]

On 4 Dec 2000, after Judge N. Sanders Sauls had issued his ruling concerning the vote recount in Florida, Gerry Spence was one of the panelists on CNBC's Rivera Live. Spence commented to the effect that "judges, after all, are the ultimate politicians," and he also stated that this matter would be revisited by "The Supreme Political Court of the United States."Italus (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unverified Facts[edit]

There are several unverified facts which have been marked for some time now. Since nobody has produced any citations, I'm going to go ahead and delete them.74.228.64.159 (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is "It's a lie" assertion appropriate in the lead of a BLP?[edit]

The "It's a lie" assertion was added to the lead paragraph Revision 17:56, 31 Oct 2010, by IP 220.255.1.165. Referenced to the Kozinski article without a link. I provided a link to the article 20 Jan 2011.

But see Sherrie F. Nachman, "True Lies, Starring Gerry Spence," Am. Law., Sept. 1994, at 13 (disputing Spence's claim and quoting one victorious Spence adversary, "It's a lie."). (ref'd to Alex Kozinski, In Praise of Moot Court--Not!, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 97, No. 1 (Jan., 1997), pp. 178-197, fn.19)

The "But see..." exhoration is hollow for WP since Nachman's article is not readily available. On second look at Kozinski citing Nachman, the "It's a Lie" assertion was a word for word copy of the last sentence of footnote 19.

"n19. There's one famous exception: Gerry Spence, at least to hear him tell it. See Gerry Spence, Gunning for Justice 47 (1982). But see Sherrie F. Nachman, True Lies, Starring Gerry Spence, Am. Law., Sept. 1994, at 13 (disputing Spence's claim made in Gunning for Justice and widely reported by the media, and quoting one victorious Spence adversary, "It's a lie.")."

Spence claims on his website: "He has never lost a criminal case either as a prosecutor or a defense attorney." The WP article stated: "Spence claims to have never lost a criminal case with a trial by jury in the over 50 years he practiced law." The "It's a lie" claim against Spence's own claim requires that a case lost before a judge in criminal court (bench trial) but overturned on appeal be counted as a loss. If the condition "trial by jury" is added the "It's a lie" assertion rings hollow.

I see the nameless adversary "It's a lie" assertion as UNDUE emphasis for the lead of an BLP article and can be seen as plagiaristic and libelous. Naaman Brown (talk) 12:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Gerry Spence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gerry Spence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gerry Spence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To recover millons from. Santa Cruz[edit]

Money won in slander suit held by Santa Cruz and I need proof of trial to get my money 2601:647:CC00:1A0:D8EA:BA70:EBD9:87FD (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gerry_Spence&oldid=1208301360"