# The backlash that defense attorneys face for defending vilified clients **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 18, 2016, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-backlash-that-defense-attorneys-face-for-defending-vilified-clients/760181 "2016-07-18T02:38:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2016, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-backlash-that-defense-attorneys-face-for-defending-vilified-clients/760181/21 "2016-07-18T19:13:57Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > 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. I wouldn’t say that the two things are the same. Telling a jury that the accused is innocent is a statement that he didn’t do the crime. If the accused has confessed to me that he did it, I wouldn’t be comfortable making that statement to the jury. Telling them that the prosecution hasn’t proved their case and the jury should find the accused not guilty is always open to the defence, regardless of what the accused has said. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2016, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-backlash-that-defense-attorneys-face-for-defending-vilified-clients/760181/22 "2016-07-18T19:58:42Z")
Sometimes a defence counsel will get the feeling that the Accused is lying about being guilty. Where the is a history of substance abuse and or physical/mental torture than that occurs with some regularity. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2016, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-backlash-that-defense-attorneys-face-for-defending-vilified-clients/760181/23 "2016-07-18T20:32:00Z")
You might be prepared for some[criticism by your opponent if you run for office.](http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/428904/terrorism-and-missouri-ag-race) ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2016, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-backlash-that-defense-attorneys-face-for-defending-vilified-clients/760181/24 "2016-07-18T21:30:12Z")
Thanks for the feedback. I guess this is one of those “Internet isn’t reality” situations, since some Internet comments are almost murderous in their criticism of defense lawyers who defend vilified defendants. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2016, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-backlash-that-defense-attorneys-face-for-defending-vilified-clients/760181/25 "2016-07-18T21:54:14Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Thanks for the feedback. I guess this is one of those “Internet isn’t reality” situations, since some Internet comments are almost murderous in their criticism of defense lawyers who defend vilified defendants. This is due to [John Gabriel’s Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory](https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19). ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2016, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-backlash-that-defense-attorneys-face-for-defending-vilified-clients/760181/26 "2016-07-18T21:56:42Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Most lawyers won’t take a case if they know their client is guilty. … Which explains why lawyer are so poor. 🙂 But seriously, everyone is entitled to a defense. If a guilty person gets off, then it simply shows the prosecution process - the police or the prosecutor - screwed up, or the guy was shit-lucky that there was not enough evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Backwater\_Under\_Duck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ba8739/32.png) [@Backwater\_Under\_Duck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Backwater_Under_Duck)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-backlash-that-defense-attorneys-face-for-defending-vilified-clients/760181/27 "2016-07-19T00:37:32Z")
I’d go for the quote box, but… A lot of them want that. In a real high profile disgusting, brutal, obvious, disgusting (you get the picture) murder, maybe some disgusting rape, case that just calls for the guy (been some pretty notable gals, too) to go down hard, high profile and no-profile lawyers will sign on just to keep the guy off death row. “If I can save this guy, I can save anybody”, is a pretty powerful sales pitch. ---
**Author:** ![installLSC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/54ee81/32.png) [@installLSC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/installLSC)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-backlash-that-defense-attorneys-face-for-defending-vilified-clients/760181/28 "2016-07-19T01:51:56Z")
[This article about Sam Amirante, the man who was John Wayne Gacy’s defense attorney, is very revealing.](http://www.seattlepi.com/lifestyle/blogcritics/article/Interview-Judge-Sam-Amirante-Author-of-John-3910437.php) Note that Amirante became a judge and even ran for the state senate. If defending Gacy doesn’t make you a pariah what will? ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-backlash-that-defense-attorneys-face-for-defending-vilified-clients/760181/29 "2016-07-19T02:12:37Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > 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. I happened to run across this article today [https://popehat.com/2016/07/18/cynicism-and-taking-clients-seriously/](https://popehat.com/2016/07/18/cynicism-and-taking-clients-seriously/) which discusses a case in which the defense attorney strongly suspected his client was guilty, but in the course of his defense, discovered strong evidence for his client’s actual innocence. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-backlash-that-defense-attorneys-face-for-defending-vilified-clients/760181/30 "2016-07-19T03:17:44Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > 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. Sidebar: William Kunstler could afford to work for left wing causes for little or no money because his MAIN clients, the ones who paid him top dollar, were Mafia hoods. First and foremost, Kunstler worked for the Mob. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-backlash-that-defense-attorneys-face-for-defending-vilified-clients/760181/31 "2016-07-19T03:29:06Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > 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. We almost always “know”. That’s why we file motions for discovery. At least in routine cases in my jurisdicition, the guy that handles it over at the DA’s office will cheerfully provide entire file, which often includes things like clear, sharply focused and in living color video and/or still pictures of your client doing the exact thing he or she is charged with doing, video and audio recordings of them being read their _Miranda_ rights and promptly giving a detailed confession walking the detective step by step through the crime from beginning to end, helpfully consenting to searches whenever asked, and then signing a notarized transcript of the interview in full view of 7 Baptist preachers AND a full gospel choir, live on CNN. What, me cynical? Well, maybe a little. I also exagerate a little sometimes. ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-backlash-that-defense-attorneys-face-for-defending-vilified-clients/760181/32 "2016-07-19T14:31:18Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Sidebar: William Kunstler could afford to work for left wing causes for little or no money because his MAIN clients, the ones who paid him top dollar, were Mafia hoods. > > First and foremost, Kunstler worked for the Mob. One thing about The Outfit: they’d never bounce a check on you. Strictly cash. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-backlash-that-defense-attorneys-face-for-defending-vilified-clients/760181/33 "2016-07-19T15:23:35Z")
I suspect the “backlash” varies according to the perception of what tactics the defense attorneys use to get their clients off. An honest effort to create reasonable doubt in, say, a rape case would be viewed differently than if the lawyer concentrated on denigrating victims. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-backlash-that-defense-attorneys-face-for-defending-vilified-clients/760181/34 "2016-07-19T15:29:37Z")
Except rape is often a case with conflicting versions of events. What the accused will say is an honest attempt to raise a reasonable doubt, the complainant will say is a personal attack and denigration. Just check out the thread after Gomeshi got acquitted and you’ll see that play out. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-backlash-that-defense-attorneys-face-for-defending-vilified-clients/760181/35 "2016-07-19T15:45:51Z")
[**Hillary Clinton’s Handling of 1975 Rape Case Emerges Again**](http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/06/hillary-clinton-dogged-by-1975-rape-case/) Your call on the level of backlash. ---
**Author:** ![74westy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/74westy/32/3950_2.png) [@74westy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/74westy)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-backlash-that-defense-attorneys-face-for-defending-vilified-clients/760181/36 "2016-07-19T16:28:00Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Sidebar: William Kunstler could afford to work for left wing causes for little or no money because his MAIN clients, the ones who paid him top dollar, were Mafia hoods. > > First and foremost, Kunstler worked for the Mob. So there _is_ a group of people who don’t deserve a defence. Good to know. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-backlash-that-defense-attorneys-face-for-defending-vilified-clients/760181/37 "2016-07-19T19:33:27Z")
> [@74westy](#): > > So there _is_ a group of people who don’t deserve a defence. Good to know. Nobody said they don’t deserve a defense. I wouldn’t take a mob case, nor would I do a major drug case involving the cartels, but there are plenty of lawyers that will. ---
**Author:** ![74westy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/74westy/32/3950_2.png) [@74westy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/74westy)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-backlash-that-defense-attorneys-face-for-defending-vilified-clients/760181/38 "2016-07-19T21:13:11Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Nobody said they don’t deserve a defense. I wouldn’t take a mob case, nor would I do a major drug case involving the cartels, but there are plenty of lawyers that will. Let’s just say that in a thread about the backlash that defense attorneys face for defending vilified clients, someone considered it noteworthy. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-backlash-that-defense-attorneys-face-for-defending-vilified-clients/760181/39 "2016-07-19T23:03:50Z")
> [@74westy](#): > > So there _is_ a group of people who don’t deserve a defence. Good to know. It’s not that they don’t deserve a defence, it’s that getting involved with such people may well be a bad idea in a business and moral hazard sense. I was once contacted and had a meeting with a couple of guys who ostensibly just wanted some help with a business matter in my area of speciality. But the more I looked into it the more cautious I became. The clients wanted to pay a lot of money for things in cash, they were very coy about names (short of actually admitting they were using aliases) didn’t want me or anyone to know their address, didn’t want me to meet the Big Guy who was supposedly the money behind everything etc. And they offered me cash (personally, and I was an employee) to do work for them without invoicing for it. I started asking around and the suggestion from colleagues was that these guys were closely associated with organised crime. So I spoke to my employer and we dropped them. But you can see how if you didn’t, even if you tried to make sure you were always on the right side of the line, it would be easy to find yourself involved with their crap. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2016, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-backlash-that-defense-attorneys-face-for-defending-vilified-clients/760181/40 "2016-07-20T14:19:17Z")
> [@CaptMurdock](#): > > One thing about The Outfit: they’d never bounce a check on you. Strictly cash. 😉 This concern about the Mob and terrorists is why Law Societies and Bar Associations around the world are enacting professional rules to combat money laundering. For example, in Canada, the Federation of Law Societies has enacted a model code with two main components: a no-cash rule (lawyers can’t accept payments of more than $7,500 in cash), and know-your-client rules (your client must produce sufficient proof of identity to enable you to be sure you know who you’re dealing with). [Model Rules to Fight Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing](http://flsc.ca/national-initiatives/model-rules-to-fight-money-laundering-and-terrorist-financing/) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-backlash-that-defense-attorneys-face-for-defending-vilified-clients/760181.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-backlash-that-defense-attorneys-face-for-defending-vilified-clients/760181.md?page=3)