Absolutely, it is the best description of the adversarial system I have read so far.
It is a good description, reminiscent of an early Pesci scene in My Cousin Vinny.
I don’t see why it should be a problem. If you think the guy did it, then you are either too emotionally attached, or there is something that your mind is telling you that you just haven’t noticed yet. In other words, I would argue that, if you it bothers you to defend someone, you aren’t the best person for the job. You should be able to convince yourself that your client is not guilty, or how can you convince someone else? And if you are convinced, why wouldn’t you feel good defending the person who has been accused of something they didn’t do?
As for the young rape victim, I think that’s a completely different concept. Even if your client didn’t do it, the child is traumatized, and thus you feel empathy for her just as a human being. That’s when all this other stuff becomes relevant. That’s when you can say you are doing this for the better good. Finding out the truth is more important, so that the right person is punished and justice can be served.
And, even then, you have no reason to be a jerk about it. (And I assume Oak wasn’t, of course.)
You follow the canons of good advocacy, which is be courteous, professional and sensitive to the alleged victim and impeach their case. Some of the best cross examinations are those which have been non confrontational and polite; see Richard Muir’s cross examination of Dr Crippen.
Guys, I’m not asking why you do it, I’m asking how you deal with it.
Once I BELIEVE someone is not guilty, I’ve already lost my emotional objectivity. This is a bad thing. In the vast majority of cases I handle, I never bother even attempting to decide one way or another whether s/he did it or didn’t do it. It’s just not relevant to what I’m trying to do, which is to pick apart the case in the most feasible way. If I can build a convincing narrative for innocence and affirmatively prove it, then great, but most of the time that just isn’t available to me (especially for a public defender: I’ve read studies showing that people who are borderline able to pay for a lawyer go to greater lengths to do so when they feel they have a good defense). This is where reasonable doubt comes in.
Besides, I’m definitely an oddball. What convinces me tends to be different from what will convince the judge or the people in the box.
Furthermore, even the stone-cold 100% guilty people need and deserve an attorney. Sometimes all you can do is minimize the damage. And that’s okay and perfectly valid. Sometimes this means plea bargaining, and I can negotiate with prosecutors on their behalf. However, please also note that in some jurisdictions (including mine), the old canard about “the vast majority of cases plead out and only the ones with genuine issues go to trial” doesn’t hold true. Sometimes you just have to take a completely one-sided case to trial and do whatever you can to help the schlub.
How do soldiers deal with fighting or Doctors with death? You just do. You remain focused, professional, concentrate on the issues at hand and employ your judgement and skills. Yes there are some cases which shake you (ones with children especially) and at times you look at a 30 year old meth addict with 25 convictions and think “there but for the grace of God…” but overall you buckle down and do your duty.
You do not also think in overly emotional terms such as “he is guilty” or “he did it”. You say things like “there appears prima facie sufficient evidence for the prosecution to be able to make their case” and then you think about how you can counter that; say if some of it cannot be explained away or be excluded etc etc. It helps to be focused.
To me, and I don’t at all mean this to be snarky, I can’t separate the two. When you feel as if you are a necessary part of ensuring justice, there’s no “dealing” with it. It’s a position of honor.
It has been said that if you know your client has in fact committed the crimes that he/she is accused of, that you cannot conduct an “affirmative defnse”.
That is, you cannot tell the jury anything along the lines of “my client did not do this/that/etc.”-because you know that he did.
My interest is in defense lawyers who succeed in removing key evidence from a case-for example, a criminal was stopped in his car, by a policeman. The policeman conducts an illegal search and seizure-and finds a bloody axe in the car trunk. This axe is covered in the victim’s bllod.
The judge agrees that this evidence is not to be considered-as it was obtained illegally.
Becase of this exclusion, the jury tosses the case, and the murderer goes free.
But back to the “non-affirmative defense”-because yo may not “vigorously” defend, are you tipping your hand to the jry (that this guy is actually guilty)?
Elsewhere on the site someone posted This story about a guy who was falsely accused of a brutal rape. I think that kind of story goes to show why everyone needs and deserves a vigorous defense even in cases of horrible crimes and even when everyone’s knee jerk reaction is that the accused is guilty.
That’s backwards.
An affirmative defense is “I did it, but I cannot be found guilty of a crime because X” (where X is the prosecution tampered with evidence, or the statute of limitations has passed, or the law the defendant is accused of violating is unconstitutional).
A negative defense is “I didn’t do it”. And yes, you’re not supposed to present a negative defense if you know it to be false, but there are gray areas.
This is a fundamental concept in the United States, and goes to the heart of American civil rights. Everyone on trial for a criminal matter is entitled to be treated fairly and with dignity, and be given the ability to analyze the prosecution’s case and determine whether or not to mount a defense, and if so, what type of defense to pursue.
At least for a negative defense, in the US and other countries that have a presumption of innocence, you don’t have to prove that you didn’t do it in order to get off, all you have to do is show that either there is insufficient evidence of guilt to begin with (i.e. no prima facie case for the prosecution), or that the evidence presented by the prosecution, while it may constitute a prima facie case of guilt, once combined with any evidence presented by the defense, it appears that there is at least a “reasonable” doubt of guilt, and that is all that is required. I’ve heard the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard stated as “moral certainty”, e.g. if the defense can cast enough doubt and uncertainty onto the prosecution’s case to the point where the jury is uncertain what to conclude, the defendant must be acquitted. So, instead of presenting evidence showing you didn’t do it, you can present evidence saying that those that said you did it are untrustworthy.
I’m pretty sure his brother is British, just for the record. 
I was only briefly in criminal defense myself, but IME the best criminal defense lawyers are able to maintain a professional level of detachment from the horrors of the crimes with which their clients are charged, while maintaining enough empathy towards their clients and all witnesses to not come across as jerks at trial. It can be hard to sustain that balance, and some people burn out, as they do in all demanding professions. Defense lawyers can and should remind themselves that everyone, even an alleged monster, is entitled to a vigorous defense. If you were accused of a crime, you’d want a lawyer to do the best he or she ethically could to secure your acquittal. The state bears the burden of proof; a defendant who faces death or imprisonment is entitled to hold the state to its burden to ensure that, far more often than not, justice is done.
As Churchill said of democracy, it’s the worst system… except for every other one that has been tried.
Quote:“you’d want a lawyer to do the best he or she ethically could to secure your acquittal. The state bears the burden of proof; a defendant who faces death or imprisonment is entitled to hold the state to its burden to ensure that, far more often than not, justice is done.”
But there’s the rub-through your judicial brilliance, you get a guilty party off.
Do you feel good about enabling a monster to commit new, possibly more horrendous crimes?
The fact is, you KNOW your client is guilty-have not not committed a “fraud against the court”, by enabling a micarriage of justice?
How is it fraudulent to force the state to meet its burden?
It’s not defense counsel’s job to convict; it’s the prosecution’s, if there’s sufficient evidence. If the evidence isn’t there, the defendant shouldn’t be convicted. That’s a bedrock principle of Anglo-American law. Someone who you think really is guilty might nevertheless be acquitted. That is justice.
If the defendant is acquitted and goes on to commit further offenses, of course that’s regrettable, but is under those circumstances the price we pay for liberty under the rule of law. Ideally the state will prepare a better case next time, and nail the guy.
Given how many people are wrongly convicted as it is, how many more innocent people would be imprisoned that are not now because of this burden of proof.
And the other side of that coin?
How many monsters go free because the wrong person was convicted of the crime?
A helluva lot more in systems without such a rigorous standard of proof.
Nobody is saying that there is anybody in the world who doesn’t deserve a defence. Once again, the OP is asking in situations where a particularly heinous crime has been commited, how the lawyers on the defending side defuse emotions or remove themselves from getting too extricated in the particulars, especially when faced with something like cross-examining a 10 year old rape victim on the stand. We’ve already touched on the “Everyone deserves a solid legal defence” side of things several times in this thread, and it’s not even filled a whole page yet.