Many years ago,Asa cub attorney,I did a trial for operation rescue pro bono.
this was with a "sane" group that had had kicked the more,Uhm, drastic folks who did things like jump I front of vehicles out of their leadership (when I asked one of the ones who wasn't charged that day about testifying about that, I got a "that mightnot be a good idea.". Why? "I was one of the ones Latin in front of cars."
Anyway, we achieved thenewdefinitionof "moral victory."
these folks understood that they actually couldn't stop a mother from killing her child,and got that across. They were hoping for a chance to talk.
By this more sedate approach, three mothers declined to kill four children . . .
the judges changed from hostile (pet cause was batterd women; she thought this was similar) to sympathetic; the jury felt bad about convicting.
She allowed them to serve their sentences without probation(we all knew they'd do it again, which was why they wouldn't agree to probation)--in pro-life community service! (as long as it wasnt illegal)
the city attorney was livid about this . . .
I then got called into chambers to be asked about taking on the next trial, as the attorney volunteeriing had "issues".
I told the judge that we could probably resolve it on the same terms as the trial we'd just done.
The city attorney again went ballistic, but we plead the out on"indicated sentences"ov the CA's objectin.
Also, this group was quite insistent on attorneys not getting involved in the rescues themselves. (the two factors of being more useful defending, and the heightened consequences for an attorney involved such things)
As it turned out, after first declining to take the second trial because I couldn't handle another week's overehead while being out of the office, it was a Baptist minister who drew one account to cover it-and nsisted on still dog softer the plea bargain.