Sorry I’m late to the party. Criminal defense attorney here (I’ve done other kinds of law - transactional stuff like real estate and commercial contracts - but this is by far the most interesting and fun job I’ve had). A lot of good stuff has been said, but I won’t try to quote it all. Instead, just my two cents:
- I sleep quite good at night, thank you very much (well, depending on how much the dogs are pushing me to the edge of the bed). Most of my job involves trying to help people through the justice system. They aren’t going to “get away” with anything, since an overwhelming majority of cases result in a plea. Rather, I’ll guide them through the process and help them ensure that their rights are respected.
But they are bad dudes, you say? Not necessarily. Most criminal defense clients are charged with domestic disturbances or DUIs, which is to say that they come from all walks of life, across the sociopolitical spectrum. They just got caught up in one of (if not the) worst nights of their life. It’s not at all indicative of who they usually are.
And if it is? Well, is a doctor criticized for trying to treat an unhealthy person who makes bad choices about smoking, junk food, or lethargy? I counsel my clients, and try to help them, but it’s not my fault if they are their own worst enemy.
- As has been noted, my job is to ensure integrity in the process. As a friend once told me, she represents “rights” more than “people”. I take pride in holding the government’s feet to the fire and making sure they follow and respect the law. If they do, and the facts add up, they will convict the person accused. But cutting corners to get the right result (i.e. the “ends justify the means”) puts us all at risk.
You may be inclined to say that’s ridiculous, because it means that a guilty person might walk. Well, for one, illegally obtained evidence doesn’t always destroy the entire case (e.g. let’s say the police illegally searched for, and found, the gun that was used. It can’t be introduced at trial. It doesn’t mean that the receipt for its purchase, the surveillance camera footage showing him looking at it, or the testimony of his friend that he showed it to him can’t be introduced).
But, more fundamentally, this is a fair and workable solution to the risk that police overstep their bounds and start breaking into houses on a hunch or roughing people up in furtherance of their confession. No penalty for this behavior means police have no disincentive to follow the law. But personal liability for overstepping the law unfairly puts the onus on the officer, in the heat of the moment, to account for legal debate, and makes insufficient allowance for mistakes or good faith efforts. Suppression is the best way to strike this balance, in my opinion.
- A lot of lawyers say that they don’t want to know if their clients did the act. I do! Why waste my time trying to tack down loose ends that aren’t real? I would rather deal with what the evidence actually reveals.
But doesn’t that make me dishonest or unethical if I take the case to trial? I don’t think so. As an officer of the court, I am not allowed to lie to the tribunal. Nor can ask somebody else questions that I know will elicit a lie. But that doesn’t mean I am not supposed to make the state prove its allegations, and it doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t point out flaws in their theories, or methodology, or proof, when it appears (and, practically speaking, this usually happens before trial, in the midst of negotiating a realistic plea)
The OJ trial? The prosecution blew that one. The evidence should have been overwhelming.
- You have cases where there’s no doubt what happened, and cases where the evidence is ambiguous. Either way, your job is to advocate for your client
Damning evidence: As the defendant’s lawyer, you are trying to mitigate the damage. For those worrying about the evil molester caught dead to rites who walks away scot free, don’t. Some cases shouldn’t go to trial, and their lawyer’s job may be explaining to them why agreeing to 20 years in prison now is far better than risking a life sentence if it ends up before a jury.
Ambiguous evidence: Maybe the ultimate facts aren’t in dispute (my guy shot into a car, killing one person and injuring another), but the context is (was he in fear for his life?). Or we know something happened (there was a fight between a husband and his wife; stuff was broken) but we don’t know what it was (he said she kicked him while he was taking a nap and he pushed her away; she said that he punched her when she went to ask him a question). In those cases, my job is to give my client the benefit of the doubt, and to present his (or her side).
A big part of the psyche of a criminal defense lawyer is to compartmentalize. Just because a person has done a bad thing doesn’t mean that they did all the bad things. Just because my client committed a crime doesn’t mean that the police had the authority to violate his rights. Just because my client is a drug addict with mental health issues doesn’t mean that he isn’t entitled to dignity and respect.
This is how it is possible to make these arguments about ambiguous evidence. Sure, my client - who is ostensibly hetero - had a sexual encounter with his (ostensibly straight) co-worker. But that doesn’t necessarily mean he raped him - the other guy could have been willing.
Sure, my client - who was accused of getting into an accident while drunk - had a blood alcohol above .1 when the cops located him 30 minutes later. But maybe he went home and did a shot to calm his nerves; it doesn’t necessarily mean he was drunk at the time of the accident.
Sure, my client knew about the bank robbery after it happened. Yeah, he got some money from the robbers that he spent on a new car right after the crime. But there’s no evidence that he was actually in the bank at the time of the deed. (So charge him with accessory after the fact, not the break-in).
Note: Just because these possibilities exist doesn’t mean that they happened. But it’s not my job to prove what didn’t happen. Instead, it’s the prosecutor’s job to establish what did happen. But the process works best when there’s somebody playing devil’s advocate to test that theory. (Ultimately, juries are surprising prescient about deciding what is the most reasonable explanation, and deciding fairly and according to the law).
And there are lots of ways to screw it up!