I hear this all the time, hell I've repeated it, but as I've learned more about it, it seems like it's really not an accurate picture. Vincent Fuller did successfully defend Don King on tax charges, but that's not all he did. He defended John Hinckley and got him off on an insanity verdict when he tried to kill Reagan. That was obviously a huge case and a huge victory for the defense. No doubt they bungled the Tyson defense, and I don't care to rehash the debate on whether or not he was guilty, but I'm just curious about this "tax lawyer" thing. How did this thing about Vincent Fuller supposedly being just a "tax lawyer" grow big? Charley Rosen's reporting on Sports Illustrated? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/28/AR2006072801655.html
Because people felt he was a tax lawyer, and the guy himself felt he was a tax lawyer. Now Clogg could tell from a mile away he was anything but.....................
