I know we probably have a few lawyers on this forum:
I am sure that defense attorneys who represent defendants accused of murder, rape, child abuse, etc. tend to receive a backlash, maybe even death threats or physical assault, from people who think that their defense of such clients constitutes an endorsement of such crimes.
How extensive is the threat or intimidation for attorneys in this line of work?
Is there a specific term within the legal profession for this phenomenon?
Most people understand you’re just doing your job. I can only recall one case where the pain and anger felt by the victim’s family led to any intimidation. I had a few moments of uneasiness cross the courthouse parking lot after court one day, but there was a lot of security in the vicinity, and nothing came of it. But, as I said, that’s not the common reaction. I’m sure others have felt it now and then, but it’s not routine.
Not that I’ve ever heard.
I think the repugnance and hatred only arises when these lawyers actually get their clients off.
I don’t know how the line can be drawn; if a lawyer knows factually that their client did the deed, I feel they should not be legally /morally bound to break the prosecution’s case. But that’s just me in my fantasy land.
Most lawyers won’t take a case if they know their client is guilty. But there’s a big difference between “know” and “strongly suspect”.
I’m sorry, but that’s just not true. I took dozens of marijuana grow cases as a private defense attorney, and I’m pretty sure all of my clients were guilty. (I acknowledge that these are not the kind of cases the OP was probably thinking about.) The defense was usually an attack on the warrant, or other efforts to challenge the government’s case. Also, most cases involve plea negotiations, which are a perfectly fine was to resolve a case when you know your client is guilty.
In other cases, the facts are not in dispute, but the question for the jury is to determine the level of crime. For example, I had one client who broke into his ex-girlfriend’s apartment, (not in dispute) and the trial was over whether it was a criminal trespass or burglary in the first degree. The Boston bombing case was only about whether the death penalty was appropriate.
And, of course, public defenders take any case that comes their way, whether they know or suspect the defendant is guilty.
I also disagree with this statement. Lawyers are there to make sure their client gets a vigorous defense, and if they are found innocent or guilty after a fair trial they have still done their job. Whether they know or suspect their client is guilty is not really pertinent.
To the original question, I don’t think it happens that much. The lawyer is just doing their job, and most people understand that. Someone has to defend these people.
How is the lawyer supposed to know, “factually” and beyond a reasonable doubt, that the client is guilty? That is what the trial is supposed to determine. You’re coming dangerously close to saying that perons accused of a heinous enough crime should noe be allowed a defense.
I don’t trust the police or prosecutors enough to say things like that. Everybody gets a defense, predicated on the notion that the state must prove their guilt, and that means the defense counsel gets to pick at the state’s case.
This is fiction, but at the end of one of the Perry Mason books he offered his services to the real killer. He told her that he couldn’t get her acquitted, but that he believed there were extenuating circumstances and he could make sure she got a fair sentence. The outcome of that was left to the reader’s imagination.
I have defended murderers, rapists, child molesters (the last of those were exclusively juveniles themselves, that is depressingly common); the only time (thus far), I have ever been asked “why are you doing this” was when a man who had been swindled out of money by two women asked me this.
Its a job. Like any other. Sometimes, it gets to you, but most of the time pretty much everyone treats you ask what you are a professional.
This is just not true of the many fine and honorable public defenders I’ve known. They recognized that their role is safeguarding the process of justice. They hold the government to meet its standard of proof and they help to ensure that the government can’t abuse its power to just send anyone it chooses to jail. That protects us all and I’m glad public defenders don’t do what you imagine they do.
That is…bullshit. If the client tells me he/she is guilty, then I cannot mislead the Court and assert innocence. But, I can’t not put their case forward and challenge the States evidence.
If a case is within my competence, my fees can be paid, and I am not not double booked or otherwise professionally embarrassed, it is my duty to take it.
As someone who gets caught in the line of fire when a defense attorney vigorously defends their client, I can say that 99% of the time I have no problem shaking the hand of the guy who just hammered me on the stand for a few hours. There are very few out there who hate the police and the government and make the process personnel (think William Kuntsler). Those few I wouldn’t piss on if they were on fire. The vast majority are doing their best to make sure the system works as well as it can just like I am.
AK84, forgive me if my memory fails me or I have misread some of your posts, but I believe that you are a Pakistani lawyer, I can’t recall whether you practice in the Pakistan, but I do recall many Pakistani and indeed Indian lawyers who receive death threats and other challenges for defending certain individuals in the sub continent and will only do so if explicitly directed by the authorities.
If needed I will dig up some reports ( newspapers) if required.
Yes I am and do. Yes, people have received death threats, but then again there are people who have been struck by lightning. But you don’t go around (in the ordinary course) fearing that lightning will strike you. Yes, there are emotionally charged cases and ones which are cause celebres. and people who attack lawyers, but even for someone who takes cases of heinous crimes, its not a worry that enters the mind.
Thank you for the clarification, western press presents a much more fearful picture.
Nobody else has said it, but Chronos is your knowledge based upon watching reruns of old Perry Mason?
Generally if a defense lawyer knows that his client is guilty, about the only thing they are ethically prevented from doing is allowing their client to testify and perjure themselves.
Can they say the client is innocent in closing arguments? Or only say the prosecution has not proved its case?
Not proved its case.
Add me to the list of those who disagree with Chronos (with respect, of course. 
)
Those two things are the same.
You would, however, probably refrain from affirmatively stating your client did not do a particular act if you knew he did.
Getting to the OP, while it’s rare, there are also cases where the prosecutor comes under personal attacks.
One Crown prosecutor I know was accosted by the accused, his wife, and their supporters outside of court, right after the accused was convicted of a fraud-type offence. The wife went right in front of the Crown and started calling her out, accusing her of interferring with the accused’s right to make a living, and so on. No violence, but very uncomfortable. For some reason there was no court security around, so I helped to get the Crown out of that group.
When the Crown went out to the parking lot, she found her car had been keyed.