How does a Lawyer end up defending Scum™

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
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.
[/QUOTE]

What do they do to you if you cannot pay? What if you refuse a public defender and attempt to represent yourself but the judge insists on appointing counsel to assist you, do you still have to pay? Basically what I am asking is can you provide a cite to where a state distinguishes between guilt and innocence for purposes of reimbursing the Public Defender? The Constitution does not say only the innocent are entitled to assistance of counsel and Gideon did not say only the innocent get appointed counsel it said if you cannot pay, the states must provide assistance. If you are found innocent but the state determines you do have the means to pay you will still have to pay. To my knowledge it is a means test not an innocence test that determines who must reimburse the state for providing counsel.

62

[QUOTE=askeptic]
Basically what I am asking is can you provide a cite to where a state distinguishes between guilt and innocence for purposes of reimbursing the Public Defender?
[/QUOTE]
Here is the law in Alaska:

Clearly, the requirement to repay is based on the finding of guilt. Apparently the guilty don’t have rights requiring protection. I have heard that this is the case in other states as well, but I have no cites for that.

63

[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
Here is the law in Alaska:Clearly, the requirement to repay is based on the finding of guilt. Apparently the guilty don’t have rights requiring protection. I have heard that this is the case in other states as well, but I have no cites for that.
[/QUOTE]

OK. But Alaska is a special case. I don’t know of any other state that pays its residents dividends. So basically what they are saying is that since you get a dividend, if you are found guilty they will take it away to reimburse the state. It merely requires those eligible for dividend funds to apply for them to pay the fees. I wonder how this law applies to non-residents who are not eligible for dividend funds?

64

[QUOTE=EJsGirl]
I’ll help- it looks like you are in Missouri.

So far, all I can find is this-

It’s not really helpful, as it says that attorneys “should” take pro bono cases, but doesn’t seem to insist on it…
[/QUOTE]

Well, I’ll be… I also grew up in Missouri and was under the mistaken impression that lawyers were “required” to do pro-bono work each year. I seem to recall a grade-school teacher telling me that. Thanks for clearing that up.

65

I know of no state where lawyers are required to perform pro bono work, other than the pretty rare, ad hoc direct appointment by a judge to a case which otherwise would have no lawyer to handle it. That tends to happen in rural areas in controversial, unpleasant and/or complicated cases.

In Ohio, if you believe you qualify for the assistance of the public defender, you fill out a form listing your income and assets. Most people who think they qualify, do; eligibility is established by a formula based on the Federal poverty index. Recently, the legislature began requiring everyone to pay a $25 application fee, which is IMHO is meant to act as a kind of copay. People tend not to value what they don’t pay for.

66

[QUOTE=askeptic]
OK. But Alaska is a special case.
[/QUOTE]
And North Carolina:

So we have two exceptions to the rule, Alaska, North Carolina and Utah…

67

[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
Unless you watched them do it, or they confess, you’ll never really know.
[/QUOTE]

Even if they confess, you don’t really know.

Putting aside the cases where police trick a confession out of someone who is innocent, in my PD days I once had a case of a juvenile who confessed to a serious charge – let’s say, as a close example, grand larceny. Almost purely by luck there was documentary evidence of the actual event – think of something like a video tape – and almost purely by luck I reviewed it, even though with a confession, obviously there was no need to challenge the evidence. But the evidence clearly showed the juvenile was not the guilty person.

What came out of the unravelling of the mess was the juvenile’s desire to get out of the home to escape ongoing sexual abuse at the hands of a family member, and deciding that a confession to a felony and placement in a facility was better than admitting what was happening.

68

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Even if they confess, you don’t really know.

Putting aside the cases where police trick a confession out of someone who is innocent, in my PD days I once had a case of a juvenile who confessed to a serious charge – let’s say, as a close example, grand larceny. Almost purely by luck there was documentary evidence of the actual event – think of something like a video tape – and almost purely by luck I reviewed it, even though with a confession, obviously there was no need to challenge the evidence. But the evidence clearly showed the juvenile was not the guilty person.

What came out of the unravelling of the mess was the juvenile’s desire to get out of the home to escape ongoing sexual abuse at the hands of a family member, and deciding that a confession to a felony and placement in a facility was better than admitting what was happening.
[/QUOTE]

Which example should be used nationwide as instructive of why the hell it is that the founding citizens of our nation found it so damn important to have the Bill of Rights attached to the U.S. Constitution that the document would have failed ratification without the promise of one. We tend to forget in our modern society exactly what it is we are being protected from; instead we focus on all the “guilty” people who go free on “technicalities.” <sigh>

69

I still think it is means based test. If a person is actually indigent and found guilty they will not be required to pay the state back. The state has no work houses or debtors prison. If you can pay it you must, if you can’t you don’t. I did not know about the part where innocent people were not required to pay it back. I wonder if you were appointed counsel based on your claims of indigence and were found not guilty would you have to reimburse the state if it turned out you lied and really did have the ability to pay for an attorney?
ETA: responding to Fear Itself…

70

Doesn’t surprise me. Hubby had cases like that, and they break your heart.

ETA- responding to Bricker

71

I understand that all accused persons are entitled to counsel. I also understand that lawyers feel duty bound to give their clients the best possible defense, even if they think they’re as guilty as hell. I do wonder though how a lawyer can sleep at nights having, for example, successfully defended a child killer who goes on to kill other children.

That must be a hard cross to bear, no matter how many times you wrap yourself in the Constitution.

72

[QUOTE=askeptic]
I still think it is means based test. If a person is actually indigent and found guilty they will not be required to pay the state back. The state has no work houses or debtors prison. If you can pay it you must, if you can’t you don’t.
[/QUOTE]
See what happens in Wisconsin:

Even if the bill is never collected, the state uses that threat to dissuade defendants from accepting a public defender. Also, many states have income taxes, and the state can attach any refund due to you.

73

Suppose you are a brilliant defense lawyer, who takes a case of defending “scum”. Because you spot various mistakes in the police handling of the crime investigation, you succedd in getting most of the evoidence thrown out. Next, you find out that the arresting officer has a drinking problem-you cross-examine him, and destroy him on the stand. You conduct a brilliant defence, and your "scum’ client is cleared of all charges-even though you know he did it.
My question: does this pose an ethical dilemma? You have done your job, and succeeded brilliantly. yet, you have aided a criminal in his (possible) persuit of new victims.
Later, you read that your client has hitched a ride with a friendly truck driver-who is later found murdered.
Were you an accessory to this crime?

74

[QUOTE=aldiboronti]
I understand that all accused persons are entitled to counsel. I also understand that lawyers feel duty bound to give their clients the best possible defense, even if they think they’re as guilty as hell. I do wonder though how a lawyer can sleep at nights having, for example, successfully defended a child killer who goes on to kill other children.

That must be a hard cross to bear, no matter how many times you wrap yourself in the Constitution.
[/QUOTE]

Speaking from personal experience I had no problem sleeping (well actually I did but it was because I was angry at the prosecutor for failing). I just wish the prosecutor had not been such an incompetent idiot. The deck is so stacked in favor of the prosecution that the problem is not usually one of guilty people going free but rather innocent people getting convicted. When the guilty go free it is the prosecutors fault not the defense. Either they prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt or they don’t.

75

[QUOTE=ralph124c]
Were you an accessory to this crime?
[/QUOTE]
i don’t see how, unless you subscribe to prosecution and punishment for future crimes, a la Minority Report.

76

[QUOTE=ralph124c]
Suppose you are a brilliant defense lawyer, who takes a case of defending “scum”. Because you spot various mistakes in the police handling of the crime investigation, you succedd in getting most of the evoidence thrown out. Next, you find out that the arresting officer has a drinking problem-you cross-examine him, and destroy him on the stand. You conduct a brilliant defence, and your "scum’ client is cleared of all charges-even though you know he did it.
My question: does this pose an ethical dilemma? You have done your job, and succeeded brilliantly. yet, you have aided a criminal in his (possible) persuit of new victims.
Later, you read that your client has hitched a ride with a friendly truck driver-who is later found murdered.
Were you an accessory to this crime?
[/QUOTE]

I would blame the cops for making the mistakes and the prosecutor for failing to do his job. A defense attorney is not responsible for the incompetence of the state.

77

Bingo.

The state mus be 100% above board in it’s apprehension, interrogation and prosecution of people. If they aren’t, then the accused goes free. Better luck next time.

An accessory to the crime? Hell, no.

78

[QUOTE=aldiboronti]
I understand that all accused persons are entitled to counsel. I also understand that lawyers feel duty bound to give their clients the best possible defense, even if they think they’re as guilty as hell. I do wonder though how a lawyer can sleep at nights having, for example, successfully defended a child killer who goes on to kill other children.

That must be a hard cross to bear, no matter how many times you wrap yourself in the Constitution.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, come on. He’s entitled to “effective representation of counsel” in his defense – not necessarily acquittal if he’s guilty.

I knew a teenager from a little summer-resort town in my home county once. He did a year in jail at ages 16-17 on a burglary charge. His offense? One wintry night, he was hanging out with a few other teens from the year-round residents, and they got drunk and broke into a summer cottage to party. He was the one caught, and confessed to what he had done.

That met the strict definition of “burglary” under New York law – and the D.A. had political reasons to want to push the charge (who the cottage belonged to). He had rather incompetent assigned counsel, and pled to the felony.

I don’t think anybody feels he should have gotten off scot-free, but a reduced charge along the lines of trespassing or breaking-and-entering would have been just. Instead, he’s going through life a convicted felon.

I know of other cases,too. Take your pedophile example from the OP. I happen to know a little background from a case in England, through a mutual friend. From what I gather, this guy was an ephebophile who was aware of what a fine job it would do to a typical teenage boy’s psyche to become sexually active with a man, and confined his own libido to looking and masturbation (of himself, not a boy). However, he had a couple of pictures of teenagers skinny-dipping, and participated in some sort of support network for guys dealing with such attractions. One of the people he was providing moral support to was investigated by the Crown Prosecutors, who found his name and e-mail on said guy’s computer, investigated him, and found the two pictures. They were grounds for conviction, a suspended sentence, and lifelong registration as a sexual predator – for doing precisely what anyone with half a brain would expect someone dealing with ephebophilic impulses to do in order to remain legal and moral.

A good defense attorney is supposed to advocate for his client – which may mean negotiating a plea bargain if he’s guilty, making arguments to prevent these sorts of over-the-top prosecutions from destroying the lives of the admittedly-guilty-of-something-but-maybe-not-what-they’re-charged with.

When you go bandying about names like “scum,” it’s worth remembering that somebody, somewhere considers you scum.

And you know what? I’ve been arguing why everyone needs fair representation in court. Does that make me guilty of “defending scum”?

79

[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
i don’t see how, unless you subscribe to prosecution and punishment for future crimes, a la Minority Report.
[/QUOTE]

Suppose (during discovery) you learn that your client was a vicious criminal who preferred to kill , rather than leave witnesses. He mentions to you (casually) that “they tried to pin that one on me!” (he refers to an earlier, unsoved murder). You have reason to believe that your client has committed many crimes, and you know that the police did catch the right party in this case. However, you destroy the evidence, and win the case.
Knowing this man’s vicious nature, you can reasonably expect that he will commit future crimes-do you bear ANY responsibility for him?

80

[QUOTE=ralph124c]
Suppose (during discovery) you learn that your client was a vicious criminal who preferred to kill , rather than leave witnesses. He mentions to you (casually) that “they tried to pin that one on me!” (he refers to an earlier, unsoved murder). You have reason to believe that your client has committed many crimes, and you know that the police did catch the right party in this case. However, you destroy the evidence, and win the case.
Knowing this man’s vicious nature, you can reasonably expect that he will commit future crimes-do you bear ANY responsibility for him?
[/QUOTE]

No.

You’re the cop who pulls over the guy the night you’re really pissed off because your girlfriend broke up with you, and because the guy’s acting like an asshole you decide to search his car, even though you have no probable cause, just to delay him a few minutes and teach him about mouthing off to cops… and you discover solid evidence of his murderous ways. Do you bear any responsibility for his further crimes because your evidence is suppressed after a hearing?

Now you’re the girlfriend that broke up with the cop, because you’ve been cheating on him for months anyway with his cousin. It’s your cheating that led to the breakup that led to the cop’s ire that led to the illegal search that led to the dismissed case that led to the future crime – are YOU responsible?

And now let’s consider the cousin…