Agree. And although prosecutors were “the enemy,” I can tell you that the vast majority were honest. The most common fault I found was that many were unbending, unwilling or unable to see any “There but for the grace of God go I…” aspect to an accused’s story.
Actually, that link is to a page claiming that the Bureau of Justice Statistics said that. But they don’t link to the DOJ at all, so I have no idea what they’re wouting or what the context of that number is.
I’d be very interested in hearing from anyone, on either side of the aisle in criminal defense, who has a “true innocent” story.
So you’re saying that not only were none of your clients actually innocent, but in every case you were a part of the Commonwealth was able to convict? Wow. :eek:
Very humble of you to admit that.
Um… no. Where do you get that?
Er… you’re not pictring that I lost every single case, are you?
I had plenty of acquittals.
“Never Had a [the guy is legally not guilty of the particular charge because he didn’t commit one of the elements thereof, or because the Commonwealth can’t prove he committed one of the elements. On the facts adduced at trial, he’s not guilty as a matter of law] Defendant”
In other words, you never had a defendant that either failed to commit an element of the crime, or for which the Commonwealth was unable to prove it. In other words, the Commonwealth always successfully made their case.
Because you said that you’ve never defended anyone who was factually innocent. Didn’t you?
“All right, Lefty, we got you, and you know it. We’re willing to offer you a deal, only fifty years hard labor with three weight lifting homo psychopaths for cellmates. Take it or leave it…”
“Bullshit! You got nuthin’ on me, coppers! I want a lawyer.”
“OK, you’ve been assigned Bricker.”
“I did it. Library, Col. Mustard, candlestick. Where do I sign?”
If I were innocent and charged, I’d want a lawyer who actually believed me. The Innocence Project has managed to spring a bunch of people wrongly convicted beyond any reasonable doubt. Yet a jury prior to DNA evidence was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt to put them away for life and sometimes sentenced people to death (look to Illinois).
As for the OP, all his clients that were acquitted were not guilty. Maybe some of them confessed to him, in which case he should not be admitting it here or anywhere else, and maybe some of them only look guilty. Either way, I wouldn’t want my lawyer talking out of school about it, even under a pseudonym.
Does attorney-client privilege apply even when the client is not identifiable?
Do prosecutors offer pleas even when they think they’ve got a good chance o convicting or do they usually reserve that for cases where they’re not all that certain?
What are the differences between blue and white collar crimes, in terms of getting away with it? (need answer fast)
Would answering this count as aiding and abetting, or conspiracy to commit?
No, I’m just curious about different types of crimes. I’ve heard that white collar types get away with crimes more easily and I’m wondering whether this is true and if so, why.
On the one hand, going by general noises from this board, I’ve learned to never talk to the cops, don’t trust 'em–nuh-uh, keep your mouth shut whatever you do 'cause they’ll try to pin something on you regardless.
On the other hand, if I get to the point where lawyers are involved, at least half of the room here seems to be murmuring “ya better be willing to cut a deal, Koxinga, ‘cause if those honest, overworked and underpaid prosecutors have their sights on you, then ya musta done somethin’, and your own lawyer agrees.”
I’m so confused.
I wouldn’t rely on that site. I couldn’t find anything related to actual innocence on the BJS website, and it really isn’t the sort of issue that they would take a position on.
Most of those reports deal with wrongful convictions - which don’t necessarily have a thing to do with innocence. And I think the Innocence project may be overstating their case a bit- for the most part, the report vaguely talks about DNA testing exonerating people but it some cases it is more specific and states that the DNA testing excluded the exonerated person or that the DNA test implicated another person. I can’t for the life of me understand how DNA testing could exonerate a person unless it either excluded that person as the perpetrator or implicated another person , so I’m wondering what the vaguer descriptions really mean.
In my experience, most of my clients were guilty of something. Not all of them.
Many of the “guilty” were “overcharged” and actually guilty of a lessor offense than the State was alleging.
More than a handful were, in my opinion, not guilty of anything. In the late 80s is was very easy to get accused of some kind of child sex crime when there really wasn’t any significant evidence against you. I had a client charged with 1st degree rape of a child, and we had to go through an entire trial to get him acquitted, along the way the wife (accuser) basically admitted she used the accusation to improve her chances of getting custody in the upcoming divorce.
I had a young Hispanic man convicted of a drug crime for merely standing around when another young Hispanic man was selling drugs to an undercover officer in a public park. The State’s theory was that his presence was “aiding and abetting” the sale. They had no evidence that he even knew the seller or profited in any way from the sale. The jury convicted him anyway. (I concede a person could be guilty under similar facts, but this kid didn’t seem guilty to me.)
IANAL, but in my experience dealing with parolees and sitting in courtrooms, it seems that damn near everyone gets offered a plea. Even people who get speeding tickets or tickets for a farebeat. It seems to have as much to do with allocating scarce resources as it does with the strength of the case.
My father was a great one for platitudes. Among his favorites was: “If you haven’t done anything wrong, you don’t have anything to worry about.” That always struck me as an astonishingly naive opinion. My own experience has been directly contrary; you don’t have to do anything wrong, you just have to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I have very little faith in the criminal justice system.
Bricker got the guilty ones free, and the prosecutors got the innocent ones convicted. Sounds like a busted system to me.
Think hard. Might there be another explanation that fits the facts?