Lawyers say care needed in writing Good Samaritan law By Caren Benjamin Beware legislation born of disgust. Such is the warning of lawyers contemplating a spate of so called good Samaritan laws introduced in a sort of national gag reflex over the deadly inaction of David Cash, Jr. While the goal of forcing people to report crimes against children has widespread public support, the fallout of haphazard bill drafting could pose serious legal and societal problems, lawyers say. If the person doesn't come forward but is discovered later to have had the information, chances are prosecutors would agree not to press charges if the person agreed to testify, Democratic Assemblyman, Richard Perkins said. Even if those problems could be eliminated, the idea o mandatory reporting raises some itchy constitutional questions, particularly when it comes to defending the rights of the people accused of crimes, Las Vegas defense attorney Mace Yampolsky said. For example, the law would wipe out a defense of "mere presence," which holds it's not a crime to simply be there when crime is being committed. The measure also could infringe on the constitutional right to remain silent, Yampolsky said. If tips on suspected child abuse were made anonymously, defendants would be denied their constitutional right to confront witnesses against them, he continued. Even if these problems could be solved, Yampolsky said he's just generally uncomfortable with the concept of coerced doing of the right thing. "This nation was built on freedom of choice. People may not agree with what Davis Cash did, I mean would any normal individual have said something about what he saw? Sure. But passing a law that you must report it or intervene turns us into a nation of snitches or stool pigeons. Whether or not to intervene should be your choice. We shouldn't legislate morality."