The cover article of the Outlook section of today’s Washington Post is a piece by criminal defense attorney Abbe Smith, ostensibly on why such attorneys take on the cases that they do. In the process of answering the question she offers comments on the cases of George Zimmerman, Ariel Castro, and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. In particular:

I don’t envy the lawyers representing Tsarnaev. He is young — I can understand why those nurses were instinctively kind to him — but there is overwhelming evidence that he killed, maimed and terrorized innocent people in the place where he grew up. I would want to say to him: “What the hell were you thinking?”

Those who have followed this series of posts will understand that I disagree with Ms. Smith’s evaluation of the evidence. (See especially here). More importantly, it is irresponsible of her to adopt a professional opinion like this when presumably all she knows about the evidence comes from the government’s inflammatory media leaks in April and May. In context, this only adds to the hysteria noted in my most recent posts on the subject, such as here.

What does it take to make people understand that a person is innocent until proven guilty if even a criminal defense attorney doesn’t get it?