Who generally has the easier job: Prosecutor or defense attorney?

I realize the answer will probably be, “It depends on the case,” but broadly, generally and loosely speaking, who is considered to have the easier job?

Is the defense’s advantage mainly that by default, a defendant is not guilty until/unless proven so - or is it the prosecutor’s advantage that generally, the only reason a defendant would find themselves in court to begin with is if they already passed a certain threshold of likely-to-be-convicted to begin with?

On top of that, the defender usually has the stigma of representing rapists, murderers, etc.?

According to Pew, in the federal courts, 83% of defendants who went to trial were convicted. However, only 2% of cases ever go to trial – fully 90% defendants in the federal system pleaded guilty prior to trial.

Take those statistics for what you will.

Very case specific, but a lot also depends on what you mean by easier. A lot of prosecutors handle the same types of case, with similar evidence over and over again. For example, simple assault, oui, theft, etc. Wash, rinse, repeat. Police officers are, by and large, believable witnesses. If the prosecutor has doubts about the case, they often have the ability to make deals to make sure the case doesn’t go to trial. So by that measurement, I think the prosecutor has the far easier job.

In less common cases, with less reliable evidence and witnesses, I’m not so sure there is an easier side.

[Moderating]

I can’t really see how this is a factual question. Moving to IMHO.

FWIW, I’ve heard multiple stories of prosecutors going on to become defense attorneys, I don’t know if I’ve heard the opposite, a defense attorney deciding to become a prosecutor.

I’m guessing its more for financial reasons than for anything to do with ease of the job though, a good defense attorney who knows how prosecutors operate can probably get more money than if they’d stayed as a prosecutor.

Keep in mind the prosecutor has the police working for them and doing a lot of their work. I’m not sure to what degree that makes it easier.

My brother worked as a public defender for a while before he was appointed judge. He made it sound like prosecutors have it easier since they normally won’t take a case they don’t think they can win. If it’s close, they can offer the defendant a deal. The defense attorney has to deal with the fact that the prosecutor feels confident they can win because of the evidence they have to present. They may be able to get the guy off, but that doesn’t happen very often. It’s usually what kind of plea deal they can get to minimize jail time etc.

This is correct. A prosecutor has a government job, so the prospects for a long term career are to progress to a senior position, become a judge, or get into politics at some point - you could end up making about $150k/year. (And that’s as the head prosecutor, a judge, or some elected government official. Mid level prosecutors make far less).

Whereas I’ve known successful defense attorneys who make several hundred thousand (one over a million) dollars per year. It’s potentially a far more lucrative career path.

As for which is easier? I’ve been a defense attorney, but not a prosecutor (I’m actually slightly unusual in that regard, since defense likes to pluck people from the other side).

But I think I have it better - my firm can pick and choose our clients, or our cases. Don’t want to take cases that go to trial, and just take stuff that you can plead? You can do that. Refuse child victim cases? It’s up to you.

(Sure, a prosecutor can decline to prosecute because they don’t feel they have a strong case. But there may be political pressure to pursue it anyway. And you can’t exactly decline cases because you find them distasteful).

Also, since most clients are indeed guilty (or would face serious repercussions if they decided to fight and lost), most of the job is working out pleas and guiding people through the process of completing probation. It’s usually not all that complicated: for example, get a first time DUI, I can pretty much predict the classes you’ll need to take, the community service you will do, and the license suspension you’ll endure. Sure, we’ll review the case to see if you are one of the rare cases where a great defense presents itself, but for the most part I’m just going to be holding your hand for a few months.

(The downside to defense work? Clients are frequently crazy, and you have to deal with their delusions. I like to joke that the guy accused of fraud will constantly lie to you, the guy accused of stalking will be calling you several times a day, and the guy with the drug issues will be hard to locate when you need to talk to him. And then there are the ones who are genuinely delusional).

There is an interesting dynamic in criminal law that enables a defense attorney to take on really horrible clients without getting tarred with their client’s reputation. So, even though you may be defending a scumbag, there’s an appreciation that your role is an important part of the process, and that you aren’t actually endorsing the client’s views or actions. As such, defense lawyers can maintain cordial relations with prosecutors even when the cases they have together are ugly.

(This is different, in my experience, with civil law. I represented banks during the Great Recession. Opposing counsel would routinely insinuate about how we were crooks and unethical. Whereas in the criminal world I’ve represented violent people and still was able to kibbutz with the opposing counsel afterwards.)

IMO, pointing to statistics of this sort is a lot like saying that in baseball the pitchers have an easier job than the hitters since pitchers get hitters out most of the time. In reality, the definition of success is different for prosecutors than for defense, much as it is for pitchers than for hitters.

The same also applies to other comments making the same basic point but just without numbers.

Bottom line is that the deck is stacked the way it is, and prosecutors and defense attorneys are measured by how well they deal with that dynamic.

You can measure the two against each other by other quantities, e.g. salary, power, feeling to pursuing social justice etc., but just stacking up winning percentages (or the factors which go into them) is not valid IMO.

It is indeed potentially a more lucrative career path - but that word is very important. Although I am not a lawyer , my job used to involve prosecuting parole violation cases. The administrative law judges who heard cases were of course lawyers as were the attorneys who defended the parolees. Most of the parolees were eligible for assigned counsel, and at the rate they were paid both the non-attorney prosecutors and the ALJ were better off than the assigned counsel - by the time they paid their expenses, both halves of SS tax, funded time off, paid the full cost of health insurance and saved for their retirement, they had less money left than the prosecutors/ALJs who were state employees with health insurance, pensions, paid time off etc. And in fact, nearly all of the the ALJs came from the ranks of defense attorneys for exactly that reason.

Interesting (at least to me) anecdote about DUI–Mylan Pharmaceuticals (a generic pharma company) was founded by Milan Puskar, in northern West Virginia. Milan became well known in the community both for running Mylan and for his wealth and philanthropy, but he also enjoyed drink. At some point West Virginia passed a law that said a second offense DUI that happens within a 10-year window of a previous DUI conviction, carries a mandatory minimum of six months incarceration. Milan had a few “incidents” that were plead out as reckless driving but he eventually got dead to rights and had to plead guilty to a DUI.

Later, he lands himself in a second such situation. Now this man was worth over a billion dollars when he died, he was not going to subject himself to a six-month sentence without a fight. Incidentally, at least at the time (and this was many years ago), while DUI were frequently prosecuted by the County Prosecuting Attorney’s office (an elected position and most counties have a couple of full-time attorneys on staff), but the arrest was in Morgantown (the home of West Virginia University) which had its own municipal court system and its own City Attorney who handled prosecutions of minor offenses that happened inside the city limits. DUI is actually about the most serious type of case that City Attorney would ever handle as anything more serious gets kicked up the County.

Anyway, so you have a trial by a City Attorney who at the time I believe made around $30,000/yr (it was not considered a full-time position, so at least at that time the City Attorney had a private law practice as their day job), was prosecuting a billionaire and a high dollar defense team.

They ended up spending days doing complicated scientific testimony about conditions and circumstances where a breathalyzer gives false or exaggerated readings, and Puskar was acquitted.

I certainly didn’t mean to imply that it was a guarantee that defense attorneys make a lot of money - I’m an example of that. I was just agreeing that it is far more likely that a person jumps from prosecutor to defense attorney than vice versa, since prosecutors have government jobs that can limit their wages whereas defense attorneys have more potential to become wealthy.

That’s not to say that there aren’t perks from being a career prosecutor, or staying in government work (I would love to end up a judge; they have tremendous autonomy, a staff at their beck and call, and lots of respect in the community) but an exorbitant salary isn’t one of them.

As others have said the truth is most people who are charged are guilty and also prosecutors don’t take cases they think they will lose. Those stories don’t make the news. They are generally overworked and an actual trial take a lot of their time. That’s a big reason why there are so many plea bargains. The system would collapse if every case went to trial. Many defendants are happy to take the deal because they are indeed guilty. I get notice when pleas are take and what the penalty is. At least in my state they usually get a really good deal.

But I’m specifically referring to your cite. In my experience what is true for state courts is doubly true for the feds. If there is no political component, they will charge only if they are 110% sure they have overwhelming evidence. Political pressure can change things but that’s a very small amount of cases. If you get charged by the FBI you can be assured they have a lot of evidence against you.

This is absolutely true. If I get a DUI, simple battery, or other typical state crime, I may get 20 to 30
pages of “discovery” (that is, police reports and other written documents) and maybe a couple hours of videos.

When I worked federal cases (mostly guns and drugs), I’d usually get thousands of pages of discovery and terabytes worth of data. It usually consisted of phone taps and other forms of electronic surveillance. They had usually built up their case over 6 months to a year. And, not surprisingly, the defendant would always take a plea.

(In the 4 years I did federal defense cases only 1 guy went to trial, and he’s now doing what amounts to life for sex offenses on federal lands)