# Do defense attorneys feel remorse about helping guilty defendants get off scot-free? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [March 5, 2015, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-defense-attorneys-feel-remorse-about-helping-guilty-defendants-get-off-scot-free/714297 "2015-03-05T18:17:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-defense-attorneys-feel-remorse-about-helping-guilty-defendants-get-off-scot-free/714297/41 "2015-03-06T02:15:25Z")
> [@Blue\_Blistering\_Barnacle](#): > > Overzealous prosecution - So, what your saying is that the prosecution did the right thing, the judge screwed up, the defense attorney took advantage of that… and it’s the prosecution’s fault that the dude raped again? :smack: > > I understand that it is the defense’s job to zealously represent their client, and that by doing so, they protect all our rights. It is my understanding that the whole point of suppressing unlawful evidence against guilty parties is to prevent law enforcement from using such tactics against the innocent\*. But outside of gamesmanship, I’m not sure I understand why one has to be proud of using a technichality to get a guilty party off. > > \*Or maybe I’m wrong here, and the point is to protect the guilty. I think you missed my point about the **other** prosecutor in the courtroom – which in this case was the judge. He was new and ignorant, and as such he was advocating for the prosecution – to their detriment. Not sure where you see any of this as “the point is to protect the guilty.” ETA: It is your term, **“overzealous prosecution.”** I was careful to say, **“too-vigorous conviction.”** Please do not put words in my mouth. ---
**Author:** ![get\_lives](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecb155/32.png) [@get\_lives](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/get_lives)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-defense-attorneys-feel-remorse-about-helping-guilty-defendants-get-off-scot-free/714297/42 "2015-03-06T02:19:31Z")
> [@Blue\_Blistering\_Barnacle](#): > > Overzealous prosecution - So, what your saying is that the prosecution did the right thing, the judge screwed up, the defense attorney took advantage of that… and it’s the prosecution’s fault that the dude raped again? :smack: > . I believe she mentioned the JUDGE losing sleep over that. It was the judge’s job to declare a mistrial due to juror misconduct. ---
**Author:** ![get\_lives](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecb155/32.png) [@get\_lives](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/get_lives)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-defense-attorneys-feel-remorse-about-helping-guilty-defendants-get-off-scot-free/714297/43 "2015-03-06T02:21:51Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > I worked with a lot of defense attorneys in a Public Defender’s office before I became a judge’s assistant. All of them explained why they did what they did as **Bricker** and **manila** have done, and I am in complete agreement. > > In short, it is the defense attorney who stands as a vanguard to ensure your rights are protected and that convictions are obtained lawfully. I don’t know a single one who lost sleep over the lawful conviction of a guilty client. I did know quite a few who lost sleep over the conviction of innocent folks, and that happens with disturbing frequency. > > As for letting the serial rapist go due to a lack of evidence… does it help to know I once worked on a case where the serial rapist was let free as a result of too-vigorous conviction and as a result, raped again? The defendant was lawfully tried, the jury deliberated and indicated they had reached a verdict. Before the verdict was taken by the judge, the **prosecutor** advised the court they had become aware of some serious juror misconduct and asked the court to inquire of the jurors in question. The judge was new. He denied her motion. The defense attorney then asked for a mistrial. The judge denied that motion as well. He took the verdict, which was rendered by the jury as guilty. The defendant was a rather high profile, well regarded member of the community and in a post-trial motion, his attorney asked for bail on appeal. That motion was granted and the defendant made his bail. > > The case was naturally appealed and two years later, it was remanded for a retrial because the judge should not have taken the guilty verdict with the juror misconduct situation unresolved. During the two-year interval, the defendant went on to rape again. > > Further, we were unable to retry the case when it was remanded due to unavailability of witnesses who had either moved away or died. Had the motion for mistrial been granted, we could have got on with the retrial right away and hopefully obtained a proper conviction. > > Overzealous prosecution – whether by the prosecutor or by the bench – can result in more harm than many understand. I like to think the judge loses sleep over that one. Shouldn’t that judge have been disbarred? It’s law school 101 to avoid allowing things to happen that could result in an overturned verdict on appeal, isn’t it? I mean, I think I’ve even seen that on Law & Order. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-defense-attorneys-feel-remorse-about-helping-guilty-defendants-get-off-scot-free/714297/44 "2015-03-06T02:48:37Z")
> [@get\_lives](#): > > Shouldn’t that judge have been disbarred? It’s law school 101 to avoid allowing things to happen that could result in an overturned verdict on appeal, isn’t it? I mean, I think I’ve even seen that on Law & Order. If only that was reality. It’s not. To clarify: Judges pretty much have immunity against making bad decisions… else who would ever become a judge? It’s easy to make a mistake, I’m afraid. Unfortunately, the consequences for doing so can be disastrous. You’d be shocked to learn where that judge sits today. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-defense-attorneys-feel-remorse-about-helping-guilty-defendants-get-off-scot-free/714297/45 "2015-03-06T02:57:32Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > As for letting the serial rapist go due to a lack of evidence… does it help to know I once worked on a case where the serial rapist was let free as a result of too-vigorous conviction and as a result, raped again? The defendant was lawfully tried, the jury deliberated and indicated they had reached a verdict. Before the verdict was taken by the judge, the **prosecutor** advised the court they had become aware of some serious juror misconduct and asked the court to inquire of the jurors in question. The judge was new. He denied her motion. The defense attorney then asked for a mistrial. The judge denied that motion as well. He took the verdict, which was rendered by the jury as guilty. The defendant was a rather high profile, well regarded member of the community and in a post-trial motion, his attorney asked for bail on appeal. That motion was granted and the defendant made his bail. > > The case was naturally appealed and two years later, it was remanded for a retrial because the judge should not have taken the guilty verdict with the juror misconduct situation unresolved. During the two-year interval, the defendant went on to rape again. > > Further, we were unable to retry the case when it was remanded due to unavailability of witnesses who had either moved away or died. Had the motion for mistrial been granted, we could have got on with the retrial right away and hopefully obtained a proper conviction. > > Overzealous prosecution – whether by the prosecutor or by the bench – can result in more harm than many understand. I like to think the judge loses sleep over that one. Absolutely–the judge, I hope, would lose sleep over this one. The serial rapist even more sleep (if only due to the insufferable snoring of his cellmates). But if I were the defense attorney, I’d really be goddamned torn up over the additional victim. I might know that the system only works with a vigorous defense, but I wouldn’t be able to escape the idea that, necessary for the system or not, if I’d not filed that appeal, that victim wouldn’t have undergone that suffering. I would have been a link in the chain. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-defense-attorneys-feel-remorse-about-helping-guilty-defendants-get-off-scot-free/714297/46 "2015-03-06T03:10:10Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Absolutely–the judge, I hope, would lose sleep over this one. The serial rapist even more sleep (if only due to the insufferable snoring of his cellmates). > > But if I were the defense attorney, I’d really be goddamned torn up over the additional victim. I might know that the system only works with a vigorous defense, but I wouldn’t be able to escape the idea that, necessary for the system or not, if I’d not filed that appeal, that victim wouldn’t have undergone that suffering. I would have been a link in the chain. I’m sure the defense attorney did lose sleep over this one. He was in agreement with the prosecuting attorney that the juror misconduct ought to have been explored and the taint to the jury as a whole determined. My point is, when either side does anything less than their job or the judge tries to advocate on either side (which I’m sorry to say happens pretty frequently), bad results occur. Are the guilty occasionally set free? Yes. Are the innocent sometimes convicted? Also yes. I’m sure defense attorneys and prosecutors alike lose sleep when such miscarriages of justice occur. I never knew a single attorney who actively wanted a wrong outcome. And I’ve yet to hear of a better way to do it. And as \*\*Bricker \*\*and **manila** pointed out, I am of the opinion it’s preferable to live in a society where guilty people sometimes go free than one where innocent people are convicted. In my experience, guilty people going free as a result of procedural errors is very rare. Innocent people being convicted… not as rare, I’m sorry to say. ---
**Author:** ![get\_lives](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecb155/32.png) [@get\_lives](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/get_lives)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-defense-attorneys-feel-remorse-about-helping-guilty-defendants-get-off-scot-free/714297/47 "2015-03-06T03:50:32Z")
Aspenglow, did you seriously say you’ve never known an attorney who wanted a wrong outcome? If that’s true, what about prosecutorial misconduct that makes the news? Harry Connick, Sr.'s tenure as DA in New Orleans comes to mind. Mike Nifong, anyone? Not that DAs are anywhere NEAR as bad as cops in that regard, but…the shit happens. Do you deny that? And do you deny the intent to win regardless of guilt? It takes a callous asshole to be a DA, IMHO. And that’s the best I could say of that lot. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-defense-attorneys-feel-remorse-about-helping-guilty-defendants-get-off-scot-free/714297/48 "2015-03-06T04:11:01Z")
> [@get\_lives](#): > > Aspenglow, did you seriously say you’ve never known an attorney who wanted a wrong outcome? If that’s true, what about prosecutorial misconduct that makes the news? Harry Connick, Sr.'s tenure as DA in New Orleans comes to mind. Mike Nifong, anyone? Not that DAs are anywhere NEAR as bad as cops in that regard, but…the shit happens. Do you deny that? And do you deny the intent to win regardless of guilt? It takes a callous asshole to be a DA, IMHO. And that’s the best I could say of that lot. Yes, that’s true. In my personal experience of 20 years, I never knew an attorney who wanted a wrong outcome. If they did, they never shared that with me. What they did want was a confession obtained in a dubious way to not be admitted into evidence. If a juror had substantively misrepresented their ability to serve unbiased in a case, they wanted that juror dismissed. Like that. This of course is different than saying that it never happens. How have you interpreted anything I’ve said as meaning that it never happens? I did not say that. I said that in my personal experience, I was never made aware of it happening. I’m sure there are some attorneys who don’t care at what cost they obtain a win. Happily, I never met one. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-defense-attorneys-feel-remorse-about-helping-guilty-defendants-get-off-scot-free/714297/49 "2015-03-06T04:11:50Z")
Laypeople’s view of the role of lawyers tends to be based on fiction, in which the particular strategic decisions and exceptional talent of the defence lawyer main character are portrayed as the key driver of the guilt/innocence outcome and are consequently much exaggerated. The reality is that most outcomes would be the same even if some other lawyer had acted, so the feeling of personal responsibility is not as large as you might think. Much of the time the outcome is a consequence of the system as a whole. So the feeling is rarely “huh, down to my decision a vicious guilty person is free” and usually the feeling is simply “the accused was processed by the system, I did my small part, and the outcome is arguably sub-optimal for society but that’s the way the system works.” ---
**Author:** ![get\_lives](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecb155/32.png) [@get\_lives](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/get_lives)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-defense-attorneys-feel-remorse-about-helping-guilty-defendants-get-off-scot-free/714297/50 "2015-03-06T04:15:39Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > Yes, that’s true. In my personal experience of 20 years, I never knew an attorney who wanted a wrong outcome. If they did, they never shared that with me. > > What they did want was a confession obtained in a dubious way to not be admitted into evidence. If a juror had substantively misrepresented their ability to serve unbiased in a case, they wanted that juror dismissed. Like that. > > This of course is different than saying that it never happens. How have you interpreted anything I’ve said as meaning that it never happens? I did not say that. I said that in my personal experience, I was never made aware of it happening. > > I’m sure there are some attorneys who don’t care at what cost they obtain a win. Happily, I never met one. Maybe they don’t share it with you because they know your response will be unaccepting. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 9:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-defense-attorneys-feel-remorse-about-helping-guilty-defendants-get-off-scot-free/714297/51 "2015-03-06T09:36:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The job of a defense attorney is to zealously represent the client. If the client “gets off scot-free,” that means the Commonwealth could not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. > > I don’t want to live in a state in which an accused person can be imprisoned even if guilt isn’t shown beyond a reasonable doubt. > > Do you? > > If you agree, then I hope you see why the defense attorney is necessary: he holds the Commonwealth to their burden. Without him, or her, zealously challenging the evidence for each and every element of the offense, there is no guarantee that proof beyond a reasonable doubt will be adduced. > > I don’t like the idea of lawbreakers going unpunished. I like even less the idea that a government can imprison a citizen without a high standard of proof being met. And if no one in the system has the job of testing that evidence in an adversarial way, I’m not sanguine about the government’s forbearance. This is similar to an argument I heard on a TV show (I know, TV is not real life, but…) where a very principled lawyer often chose the vilest cases and defended them to the utmost. His argument was something like that by doing so he was testing the effectiveness of the legal system, making sure it will, as far as possible, only convict the people who really have been proven guilty in the eyes of the law. Otherwise it’ll just be a popularity contest. That wouldn’t benefit anyone except charming psychopaths. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-defense-attorneys-feel-remorse-about-helping-guilty-defendants-get-off-scot-free/714297/52 "2015-03-06T09:53:47Z")
> [@SciFiSam](#): > > This is similar to an argument I heard on a TV show (I know, TV is not real life, but…) where a very principled lawyer often chose the vilest cases and defended them to the utmost. His argument was something like that by doing so he was testing the effectiveness of the legal system, making sure it will, as far as possible, only convict the people who really have been proven guilty in the eyes of the law. > > Otherwise it’ll just be a popularity contest. That wouldn’t benefit anyone except charming psychopaths. But by that same logic, a prosecutor could deliberately attack people known to be innocent to the utmost, trying his best to get them convicted, saying that he too was “testing the system” to make sure that it worked and wouldn’t result in a wrongful conviction. Yes, I know, prosecutors are a different situation than defense attorneys, but the same moral principle applies. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-defense-attorneys-feel-remorse-about-helping-guilty-defendants-get-off-scot-free/714297/53 "2015-03-06T12:06:09Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > But by that same logic, a prosecutor could deliberately attack people known to be innocent to the utmost, trying his best to get them convicted, saying that he too was “testing the system” to make sure that it worked and wouldn’t result in a wrongful conviction. Except that is explicitly against the system. The prosecution cannot bring a case forward that they know to be wrong, the defense cannot bring a defense forward that they know to be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-defense-attorneys-feel-remorse-about-helping-guilty-defendants-get-off-scot-free/714297/54 "2015-03-06T12:41:11Z")
> [@get\_lives](#): > > Maybe they don’t share it with you because they know your response will be unaccepting. Bit of a reach, don’t you think? Agree with **Princhester** , that most folks don’t understand the approach of attorneys in how they look at/try a case. No one sits around scheming on how to get guilty people off. They discuss the process. I think it could be inferred from the fact that I worked for 6 years at a public defender’s office that I have no problem working on behalf of guilty people. So why would any attorney I worked for assume that their efforts in “getting guilty people off” would be, as you put it, found unacceptable? The OP asked if defense attorneys had qualms about getting guilty people acquitted of crimes. My response is based on my personal experience only, and the answer to that – from my own experience alone – is no. My understanding of the reason for that is because they believe in the process of advocacy on which our system of justice is based. Not sure why you are trying to make this about me or my views, which are fully irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-defense-attorneys-feel-remorse-about-helping-guilty-defendants-get-off-scot-free/714297/55 "2015-03-06T14:02:36Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > But by that same logic, a prosecutor could deliberately attack people known to be innocent to the utmost, trying his best to get them convicted, saying that he too was “testing the system” to make sure that it worked and wouldn’t result in a wrongful conviction. The defense lawyer sounds as if he/she is rationalizing. [QUOTE=Mr. Nylock] Lawyers do not determine the guilt or innocence of a person in the United States. In this country it is a jury or a judge that makes this determination. The role of the lawyer is to advocate strongly for his or her client. [/QUOTE] And yet - > [@Bricker](#): > > That same system imposes on prosecutors a dual duty: they must be both zealous advocates for the Commonwealth AND cognizant of justice: a prosecutor has an ethical duty to refrain from prosecuting a person he believes is innocent, even if he could obtain a conviction with the evidence he has. A defense attorney has no such bar. That’s part of the contradiction that bothers me. When a defense attorney talks about defending guilty clients, he often mentions that guilt or innocence are only determined in court. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the only standard a lawyer can look to. But a prosecutor is not held to that standard - he determines innocence before deciding whether or not to try to bring a defendant to court. I understand the motivation for doing so - we don’t want to convict the innocent - but it rather undercuts the idea that guilt isn’t guilt until convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Because even if there is enough evidence to convict - that is, establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - the prosecution cannot proceed. I don’t know that there is a way around this, but it is a contradiction nonetheless. Regards, Shodan PS - Yes, I know “DAs have a different ethical standard”. I am pointing out that this different standard is based on a contradiction. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-defense-attorneys-feel-remorse-about-helping-guilty-defendants-get-off-scot-free/714297/56 "2015-03-06T15:01:23Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > Except that is explicitly against the system. The prosecution cannot bring a case forward that they know to be wrong, the defense cannot bring a defense forward that they know to be wrong. But who can read their minds and publicly say in court, “You \*know \*this?” The prosecutor or defense would publicly deny knowing. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-defense-attorneys-feel-remorse-about-helping-guilty-defendants-get-off-scot-free/714297/57 "2015-03-06T15:17:32Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > But who can read their minds and publicly say in court, “You \*know \*this?” The prosecutor or defense would publicly deny knowing. Except the vast majority are ethical and they won’t. Plus, there is evidence of conversations, recordings, etc. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-defense-attorneys-feel-remorse-about-helping-guilty-defendants-get-off-scot-free/714297/58 "2015-03-06T16:46:51Z")
> [@SciFiSam](#): > > Otherwise it’ll just be a popularity contest. That wouldn’t benefit anyone except charming psychopaths. Exactly. That’s what people who argue that defense attorneys shouldn’t defend “the guilty” never seem to grasp. The person I consider obviously guilty and a threat to society is probably not the same person the person next to me considers obviously guilty and a threat to society. I think racists are a threat to society. How about if a defense attorney just tanks any time they are defending a racist, because the world would be better off if the racist were out of commission? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-defense-attorneys-feel-remorse-about-helping-guilty-defendants-get-off-scot-free/714297/59 "2015-03-06T17:04:16Z")
> [@HelenGawn](#): > > A related, more factual question, for our lawyers: > > I was under the impression that it is a violation of ethics to represent a client whose guilt you have proof of, such as a private confession, with clear knowledge of the wrongness. My source for that information is the unimpeachable defense attorney [Joyce Davenport.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_Street_Blues#Cast) > [@Procrustus](#): > > No. You simply cannot allow your client to take the stand and lie under oath. You are free to argue the state has failed to establish guilt, even when he told you he did it, or damning evidence has been suppressed. Actually, even a bit more sticky. Your client has an absolute right to testify in his own defense. You have an ethical obligation not to suborn perjury. These two mandates can be in tension if you know your client intends to lie under oath when he testifies. Sometimes you might seek to withdraw, citing an ethical conflict. But that might trigger a mistrial, and the judge may not let you. In that case, since you have no choices left, you let your client testify in the narrative, and don’t argue his testimony at closing, walking the narrowest of lines between candor towards the tribunal and zealous representation. ---
**Author:** ![Enginerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bcef8e/32.png) [@Enginerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enginerd)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-defense-attorneys-feel-remorse-about-helping-guilty-defendants-get-off-scot-free/714297/60 "2015-03-06T20:34:04Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The defense lawyer sounds as if he/she is rationalizing. > And yet - > That’s part of the contradiction that bothers me. When a defense attorney talks about defending guilty clients, he often mentions that guilt or innocence are only determined in court. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the only standard a lawyer can look to. But a prosecutor is not held to that standard - he determines innocence before deciding whether or not to try to bring a defendant to court. > > I understand the motivation for doing so - we don’t want to convict the innocent - but it rather undercuts the idea that guilt isn’t guilt until convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Because even if there is enough evidence to convict - that is, establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - the prosecution cannot proceed. > > I don’t know that there is a way around this, but it is a contradiction nonetheless. > > Regards, > Shodan > > PS - Yes, I know “DAs have a different ethical standard”. I am pointing out that this different standard is based on a contradiction. They’re not based on a contradiction at all - both sets of ethical standards are based on the idea that it’s less harmful to society to let a guilty defendant walk than it is to convict an innocent defendant. So the DA’s standard is that (s)he can’t prosecute unless convinced of guilt (more likely to let guilty go than prosecute an innocent), and the defense’s standard is to make the prosecution prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt (same goal). You may or may not not agree with that idea, but the two ethical standards are based on a consistent philosophy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-defense-attorneys-feel-remorse-about-helping-guilty-defendants-get-off-scot-free/714297.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-defense-attorneys-feel-remorse-about-helping-guilty-defendants-get-off-scot-free/714297.md?page=4)