In this thread, **Bricker **makes the comment that he’s (probably) never had a defendant who was innocent of the crime according the facts. I’d like to ask Bricker and all the other attorneys (and other workers in criminal justice) if they feel that this is indeed the case, i.e., that practically all defendants are guilty and that the only issues when it comes to court are matters of law.
Also, does this extend to all arrestees or just those who go to court? This question is explicitly for Bricker, but I’d love to hear the input of other informed parties as well.
I do know of at least one person (my girlfriend) who was arrested at home for non-payment of a traffic fine, but who was turned loose minutes later when this was found to be a clerical error. She had the receipt in her purse when they picked her up (handcuffed and everything), but they needed to verify her innocence at the station.
Going to trial, definatly (though Bricker’s time as a Public Defender might skew his statistics, PD’s get the hopeless cases more often than most of us).
You need to realise that prosecution services are usually
i)overworked
ii) understaffed
iii) underpaid
They take forward only those cases where they believe they are likely to get a positive result. There are exceptions, but again those are rare.
Yeah, 99% of those cases which make it to court are clear-cut cases (otherwise they wouldn’t get that far - prosecution servives have budgets, and prioritise cases they’re 99% likely to win). Unless you’re in a TV show, of course. It probably isn’t unusual for a given criminal defender to not have encountered that remaining 1%.
I only deal with people after they have been convicted. In 13 years and thousands of people, there were 2 that I thought were completely railroaded and their cases were total bullshit. However, even those 2 were guilty under the facts, with a very strict reading of an extremely vague and broad law.
There have been a few others that I thought violated the letter of the law but could have raised a defense that I would have bought as a juror.
I can’t remember the name of the book, but it was a biography of a public defender, and he said only one person he ever defended was actually innocent. Other estimates I have heard are that 80-85% of defendants are guilty as Cain.
I don’t think this argues as using the assumption of innocence in a court of law, just that that assumption should stay in court where it belongs. Most but not all of the time, yes, they did it.
“Your Honor, I object to the harsh characterization of my client, a hard working farmer, who has just lived through the tragic and untimely death of his brother.”
There are probably plenty of people like that. Note that your girlfriend never had to see a defense attorney.
And I’ll extend my remarks a bit. I have had clients that I thought were probably or possibly factually innocent of the top count of the indictment, but almost certainly guilty of one of the many lesser-includeds involved. That is, I have taken clients to trial when the prosecution overcharged the case, which they often did to try to force a plea.
And let me also say that regardless of their actual innocence (or lack thereof) I had plenty of clients that didn’t deserve to be convicted, because the Commonwealth had a crappy case.
What about in cases that don’t go to trial? In other words, how common is it for someone to get arrested and inconvenienced for a few days before being turned loose after the lawyers shows up and works the system a bit?
Sorry–not expressing myself clearly. I think that the above have established that those going to trial are almost always guilty (of something). However, how common is it that someone gets arrested without being factually guilty? And are these cases usually disposed of before an attorney gets involved?
Damn, do I feel obtuse.
ETA: And thank you, Bricker, for your clarification.
In Virginia, the assignment of a case to the public defender would typically happen for someone who has moved a bit through the system. Very seldom would I get any client before he was arraigned, and the bulk of those were “repeats,” who at least had the sense to say “I have a lawyer,” at some point during the arrest or interrogation process.
So folks that are arrested but innocent usually get dropped out of the system before I got involved. I don’t say it would be impossible, but I’m virtually certain it never happened to me.
Going back to the prosecutor example. Every step to trial is a process, at the end of which those responsible look and see what are there chances of success before they take it to the next leve. From the actual arrest, to the investigation, to the decision to apply for a remand, to the indictment to trial, the next step is taken only where the authority decides that it has a reasonable prospec of success.
As my old pupil master used to say, once the man says you are guilty, you almost certainly are.
So, statistically, Bricker and other attorneys here should have run across a few in the course of their career.
The New York State Defender’s Association seems to spend a lot of effort on wrongful convictions too. Would seem to me if barely anyone they saw was actually innocent they would not bother.
Almost everyone is guilty of some sort of crime or other, if you look hard enough. When prosecutors are out to get someone they might add a more serious charge to pressure a plea as you note, but they also frequently throw in all sorts of lesser charges that they might never charge a random guy in the street that they were not “out to get”.
So the scenario goes like this. Prosecutors get convinced that so-and-so is guilty of manslaughter. While they’re at it, and since they’re convinced that they need to throw the book at this Bad Guy, they also throw in all sorts of “reckless” and “negligent” charges, which are for actions that are not much different than what many people engage in on a regular basis (e.g. a seatbelt violation). But in actual fact the guy did not commit the manslaughter, and is just an ordinary imperfect guy who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. [The manslaughter/negligent example is intended to be illustrative, so please don’t nitpick it.]
So if you want to say is the guy “newborn innocent”, yeah, he’s not. But if the question is whether the general story the prosecution is spinning - and which is the basis for the entire prosecution - correct, the answer in that case would be “no”.
I should also add that all the basis for the logic put forth in this thread - limited resources etc. - goes out the window when it’s a high profile case. In such cases, prosecutors have a very strong bias to prosecute no matter what, both to appease public anger and to make a name for themselves.
For example, in crimes committed by/in organizations, prosecutors have a very strong incentive and tendency to pressure the mid-level guys that they have actual evidence to turn around and implicate the guys on top - and they have powerful tools to get them to do this - regardless of whether there’s any actual evidence or reason to believe the guys on top were actually guilty. Because the public wants to see a Big Name go down for this horrible crime, and the prosecution wants to make a name for themselve by taking down a Big Name.
[I say this as someone who thinks Ken Lay was most likely innocent of the charges against him, and he’s one example that comes to mind.]
Another example would be where there is strong community pressure to convict someone, especially in racially charged cases, e.g. the Duke case (& possibly Rodney King).
I always get incredibly frustrated by these kinds of ignorant posts. Posters like you seem to think that the term “prosecutors” means “any prosecutor I can imagine including tools like Nifong”. It matters not one whit that an overwhelming number of prosecutors are honest, hardworking, and fair people, people like you get to post inane comments like “prosecutors are out to get people” or “prosecutors want to make a name for themselves” without regard for the actual reality of the situation. I’d love to see you try that kind of “logic” using “white people”, “the Irish”, or “men” instead of “prosecutors”.
As to the OP, there are over a million adults (roughly) convicted of felonies each year. That doesn’t include misdemeanors, minors, or dispositions outside of the system (diversion programs, deportations, etc.). In my experience, the cases of true innocence are in an astoundingly tiny minority.
I was arrested and charged with a crime I did not commit. It cost me my job, my home, thousands of dollars, and a good deal of my sanity. The trial lasted maybe 15-20 minutes it seemed and the judge (we waved a jury trial) found me not quilty as soon as my lawyer finished closing. He didn’t even hesitate to think about it, it was that obvious. Lots of money flushed down the toilet for nothing. I know a couple of other people who had similar experiances.
The DA tried to get me to take a plea for a lesser charge, but I told them I’d rather go to jail than take it. Some of my friends weren’t so lucky, and took the deal.
“Factual innocence,” means that the guy is legally not guilty of the particular charge because he didn’t commit one of the elements thereof, or because the Commonwealth can’t prove he committed one of the elements. On the facts adduced at trial, he’s not guilty as a matter of law.
“Actual innocence,” is a complete innocence of wrongdoing. This is literally the misidentified suspect, the wrong-place-at-wrong-time guy.