How does a Lawyer end up defending Scum™

What an absolutely obnoxious comment. You will find that this is quite untrue; many public defenders choose the office because they believe in what they are doing, and a large percentage of them have done quite well in law school. Nor are most public defender offices reduced to hiring only people who have had poor grades.

God I love it when we post statement here that fight ignorance. :rolleyes:

Format for superscript. To get [sup]TM[/sup] type the following, but remove the XXXs:

[XXXsup]TM[XXX/sup]

or just hit the reply button on this post to see how the superscript was formatted.

Noted, and thanks. This didn’t need it’s own thread.

Resume legal speak.

uh… say what?

Speaking of which…

We don’t have a PD’s office in my county; we have a court appointment system in which private criminal defense attorneys are assigned court appointments in which we represent indigent defendants who can’t afford to pay us. We do pro bono work as well, but court appointments are not pro bono. We’re paid by the county. They don’t pay nearly as much as we’d charge someone who hired us, but it’s not for free, either.

Who gets assigned what case depends on who is next on the list that’s qualified to handle that sort of case. The local board of judges and the indigent defense coordinator have a set of guidelines as to how serious a case a lawyer is allowed to take on. Based on the amount of time I’ve been practicing and the number of criminal jury trials I’ve defended, I’m assigned cases that are up to second degree felonies and appeals of any level except capital, so if you are accused of a second degree felony and I’m next on the list, meet your new lawyer. Capital court appointments for either trial or appeal are different; they must be on a list approved by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

Do I have to represent guys I don’t like? Of course. I’m sure ER docs have to treat guys they don’t care for, either. I don’t have to like my client to do my job. The Constitution applies to jerks as well.

Just a pet peeve of mine

No, they become scum when they commit the reprehensible act. That is a matter of historical fact, either they did the deed, or they did not do the deed.

Whether or not a prosecutor can convince 12 jurors that the accusation is true, does not change the reality what happened or didn’t happen. All it changes is whether or not the government gets the right to punish the person.

[Moderating]

Guys, I don’t think Peter Morris’s attempt at joke, however ill-advised, requires additional comment here. If you feel he has not been taken to task sufficiently, you may take it to the Pit. Let’s return to the OP.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

I asked the very same question as the OP once, to a very successful criminal defense lawyer who became an equally successful judge shortly thereafter (in his late forties). I thought he was particularly qualified to answer, since he defended several “controversial” clients in his day, and I thought myself particularly qualified to ask, since I had just finished providing difficult testimony that helped to convict a pedophile, and had in the course of that unpleasant experience hated the defense counsel even more than the pedophile – which I’d formerly not really thought possible. So we were all out for drinks, and the conversation went:

ME: “How does a defense lawyer hold a sharp instrument up to his neck every morning while looking in the mirror?”

HE: “Oh, that. We shave in the dark.”

Then he went on to tell me that in law school and in the course of their practice, lawyers were “brainwashed” into believing that if each player played his part perfectly in the prosecution/defense tableau – everyone doing their best with the data at hand and following the rules set by the system – that the truth would out, as it were, and justice would be done. While he acknowledged that things (obviously) aren’t always that simple, nonetheless those were the basic standards he lived by. It seemed a very reasonable answer.

Okay—cop reads me my rights: “You have the right to an attorney. Should you not be able to afford an attorney one will be appointed for you.” Etc.

Who or what decides whether I can afford an attorney or not? Is there a means test? Can I be told, “No, we won’t give you one free because we think you can afford your own.” ???

More or less, yes. You make an application for a court appointed attorney/PD and fill out a form stating your monthly income and expenses. If the court determines you don’t qualify, you’re told to go hire your own. If you refuse to do so on repeated reappearances, the court may raise your bond and order you held to get your attention, and if you stilll don’t will court appoint you a lawyer while you’re being held just because it needs to move your case.

OK. It is up to the judge to determine who is and who is not scum [sup]Maledictus sit in totis viribus corporis. Maledictus sit intus et exterius. Maledictus sit in capillis; maledictus sit in cerebro. Maledictus sit in vertice, in temporibus, in fronte, in auriculis, in superciliis, in oculis, in genis, in maxillis, in naribus, in dentibus, in mordacibus, in labris sive molibus, in labiis, in guttere, in humeris, in harnis, in brachiis, in manubus, in digitis, in pectore, in corde, et in omnibus interioribus stomacho tenus, in renibus, in inguinibus, in femore, in genitalibus, in coxis, in genubus, in cruribus, in pedibus, et in unguibus. Maledictus sit in totis compagibus membrorum, a vertice capitis, usque ad
plantam pedis non sit in eo sanitas
[/sup], and for the judge to do that, the judge must hear both sides of the story before making a decision. Thus the need for defence lawyers.

It wasn’t always that way. Used to be a person could be up on very serious charges but not be permitted a lawyer (e.g. pre-1836 England before the Prisoners’ Counsel Act, 1836, 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 114, that permitted lawyers to talk about the facts of the matter before the court rather than just applicable law), or not be able to afford a lawyer (e.g. pre 1963 U.S.A. before the SCC in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 1963, declared that states must provide indigent felony defendants with counsel).

Thanks. I always wondered about that.

I never qualify for any help from the government. I’m always just a few dollars over the limit. I better just do my best to stay out of the courtroom in the first place.

Just my opinion, but I have noticed that folks who do not have to pay their way through the system (either because they are funded by the government or because they are funded by their families) tend to be less reasonable than are folks who pay their own way. It’s sad to watch families from the projects raise their kids in criminal and family court, repeatedly running off to their government funded lawyers, rather than simply behave in a responsible manner. In particular, family court for such people is no more than a stage for drama queens, so watching money being poured into it is frustrating. Funds would be better spent on social workers to babysit the parents and pass out birth control to the kids.

ANd how do you know that they did the deed - is it because the police have charged them, and that’s good enough?

And the Jackdaw of Rheims also blesses you. :smiley:

[sup]Truly inspired. We so seldom see a good piece of commination these days[/sup]

Question: Why do I keep returning to this thread? (when I have no business in here to begin with)

Answer: Because you funny fuckers keep making me chuckle!

A lawyer friend in my home town in West Virginia was required by the bar to defend some indigent clients after a large-scale drug bust there in 1989. He had been a prosecutor, but was in private practice at the time. The work was pro bono, although he was reimbursed travel expenses.

Unless you watched them do it, or they confess, you’ll never really know. All you have to go on is the statements of other people who claim to have seen X or performed test Y, or found evidence Z.

My point is that the person is scum because of the actions they take. Those actions do not retroactively change because of what can or cannot be proved in a court of law. Those actions do not change based on what you know or don’t know about it.

I am allowed to think someone is scum at any time, based on any information I have about their activities, whether or not they’ve been charged with anything. OTOH, if someone is to be incarcerated (or otherwise punished) for a crime, I believe the whole process (including competent legal defense) needs to take place.

It should be noted that in some states, if you are found guilty, you have to pay for your public defender, regardless of financial standing.