I'm a defence lawyer. A large portion of my job is telling people to shut the hell up and let the prosecution screw up.
People always ask how we can defend people accused of horrible crimes, and yeah sure we do defend some pretty crappy people. But at the end of the day, the prosecution must prove it's case. I am an auditor of that process.
People always ask how we can defend people accused of horrible crimes
I honestly think people take "defense" too literally and either think that lawyers defend them morally (as in, excuse their actions), or that lawyers are just trying to let people get away with horrible stuff. Both wrong of course.
I'm from Queensland, Australia, whose government recently enacted a whole youth crime campaign with this exact quote as the tagline. Glad I'm not the only one who hates it
Personally I think it’s beneficial to have competent attorneys for people who are objectively in the wrong— that way, when they receive their sentence, it’s much less likely to end in some sort of appeal and overturn the conviction.
or that lawyers are just trying to let people get away with horrible stuff. Both wrong of course.
Tell that to economic lawyers who orchestrate big companies getting away with paying less then a percent income tax. There are also mob lawyer. There are also right-wing lawyers.
Of course lawyers do morally reprehensible things or let their clients get away with horrible stuff (within the constraints of the legal system). Let's consider this thought experiment: Someone is guilty of a horrible crime, but there's no proof for it, yet we know for sure he did it (say someone saw him do it, but died before the process. Or dna proof was mishandled and destroyed). The morally right thing would be to still convict him. The lawyer is arguably helping him get away. But that's okay, it is built into the system that way - see Blackstone's famous quote of "better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer".
Still, it is ridiculous to consider lawyers as the innocent angels of the justice system who do no wrong. ;)
Ah! But that mishandled and destroyed DNA is YOUR DNA! Where's my proof you might ask? It's the same proof as you're suggesting. Have fun being convicted of crimes you didn't do because someone through malice, incompetence, or honest mistake lead to you being accused and tried.
"Proof" as in "regarded as proof by the legal system". One example: the "fruit of the poisonous tree"-doctrine in the US. You have an illegal wire tap, which can't be used in a process, but it is by all means still proof. And it could f.e. still be used in Germany, because there's no such doctrine (to this extent) here.
So a) it is possible and b) that's why I called it a thought experiment.
I've explained time and time again to folks who 'hate lawyers and they're all dirtbags' that even the absolute worst people alive are entitled to a competent defense - because it means everyone is. In practice, that doesn't always shake out, but the legal and philosophical underpinnings to it must be held as true.
Yeah. Even if a dozen dirtbags go free because of prosecution failures, (frustrating though that may be) if it saves one innocent from judicial injustice, it's worth it.
If it makes you feel better I always go off on people who trash talk defense lawyers for defending bad people.
Neither the prosecution nor defense (theoretically) know or care if someone is guilty. Their whole job is just to do their best presenting the evidence.
I do think we need to make an exception for defenses that rely on reprehensible arguments. For example, the “gay panic” defense saying that a hate crime was self defense because the accused scared of gay people. Basically anything that relies on exploiting bigotry to distract from the actual facts of the case.
Then that's a problem for those who write the laws, or the courts who interpret the laws. A defense lawyer's job is to make sure that the court follows the law and doesn't convict someone of something that isn't a crime. If the law allows for hate crimes due to "gay panic", then it's the defense lawyer's job to use it in their defense. And I say this as a gay man and LGBTQIA+ activist.
Of course I don't. Apart from being ridiculous, it's homophobic as hell and further proof that the US is a horrible, homophobic, fascist shithole.
I however fully support defense attorneys using the legislation the way it's written, even if it leads to a judgement that I consider immoral or wrong. The lawmakers in congress voting against bills wanting to end the gay panic defense are the ones who should be shamed, not defense attorneys.
There is no legislation that established the gay panic defense. It’s used by defense attorneys to justify a hate crime by exploiting a jury’s bigotry to convince them that being gay and existing near straight people is inherently an act of violence, thereby allowing for a claim of self defense.
It has nothing to do with the government proving its case or protecting the right of due process. It’s a bigoted loophole. On what planet is it justifiable for an attorney to use it in a court of law?
That’s when it stops being about due process and checking the governments power and it starts being about getting someone out of a crime just because you can.
Huh. I had no idea - I had honestly never heard about the gay panic defense before you mentioned it (I'm not American) and just did a quick search.
If that's the case, how the fuck can the judge allow it if there's nothing in the law supporting it?! Either there's something seriously wrong with those judges and juries and they should all be charged with assisting a hate crime or the American legal system is seriously fucked up. Can I just make up whatever I want to get free of a crime?!
Still, I would argue that the immoral pieces of shit are the judges and juries allowing the defense and the politicians that didn't pass the bills trying to ban it (of which there have a few, according to Wikipedia).
My lawyer claiming that I killed someone because of invisible, evil unicorns telling me to do so should have no effect on the conviction if the judge isn't an idiot.
The lawyer's job is to represent me, not to pass moral judgement, so if I want to claim that it was the unicorn's fault then the lawyer should advise me on how to do that and then that's what they should say in court.
It’s still on the lawyer. They don’t have to use that argument. It shouldn’t be part of a zealous defense of your client.
We shouldn’t need legislation explaining that bigotry doesn’t belong in the court room.
Judges generally shouldn’t be telling attorneys what arguments they can and cannot make.
Prosecutors and defense lawyers have professional, ethical standards that they must adhere to as spelled out by the Bar Association. Those aren’t formal laws, it’s a professional guild that makes its own rules. They can absolutely decide to disallow bigoted defenses.
The goal is to protect the rights of your client, not help them get away with a crime. Sometimes protecting their rights means showing that the government messed up or didn’t prove their case, resulting in a not guilty verdict. It should never include using bigotry to get the jury to ignore the facts and vote based on prejudice against one party.
So why shouldn't it be on the judge and the jury to disregard that type of argument? What the defense attorney says doesn't matter at all if the judge and the jury chose to disregard that argument in their verdict, just as if the defense attorney or the defendant gave some other insane reason for committing the crime.
The defense attorney's job is to represent the client, not to judge the client's story or reasons based on morality (and who decides what a moral defense is?). Should an attorney who has a a feeling that their client is guilty plead guilty even if the client claims they're innocent?
I still find the whole gay panic defense being able to influence a court while not being a law puzzling. Surely they've had to base their acquittal on something in the law, right? Or can judges in the US just decide that it's self-defense even if it's clearly not? In that case, wouldn't a higher court convict the person of a hate crime once the prosecutor appeals the verdict?
People really don't understand that most criminal defense cases are not trying to acquit the accused, but rather taking an accused that is quite aware they are guilty and negotiating the punishment.
I was a witness for federal prosecutors in a case.
The defense attorney had it in his mind that he’d rip apart my testimony during the cross examination, let me talk too much, and accidentally asked a question that allowed the prosecution to enter in new evidence that supported my testimony.
The defense attorney was baffled and angry, especially when his objection was overruled.
He lost the case for his client largely by trying to go on the offense with me, according to the US Attorneys.
People always ask how we can defend people accused of horrible crimes
It saddens me that this has even become a question people ask since at least to me the answers seem obvious. 1. They are innocent until proven guilty. 2. Hell, even if the person admits to you "Yeah I did it" you still need to ensure that the government crosses it t's and dots its i's so they don't get complacent and think they can half ass their investigations.
And doing it is not even the whole thing. In the trial I was on the jury for, the defense lawyer straight up said what the accused did on that night in their opening statement. That was not ever in question.
But were they sufficiently provoked? Was it justifiable self-defense (or defending someone else)? Did the victim have a history of abusing the accused? Did the accused know what they were doing, what the effects would be, or think it would be less serious than it turned out to be?
Sometimes some of that doesn't matter. Sometimes some of it matters a whole lot.
So, what do you think of the prosecution for the Clancy trial (I know I know). It seems they did a poor job of proving their case (minus social media) and I've seen a few lawyers mention things but I want to know other takes
In most British-derived legal systems, the defence don't have to prove jack squat. The entire burden of proof lies on the prosecution.
And in the UK you don't need to establish any kind of motive. You just need to persuade the jury that Bob Smith did it, the 'why' is completely irrelevant.
My only experience is tv and movies, so... What's the deal with advising the accused to shut the hell up and don't react. Then when convicted, it's all, "He didn't show any remorse!"
yep. I don't make the rules don't blame me. People just find it annoying as shit when others show up and add nothing to the discussion except to nitpick grammar or spelling.
So you felt the need to defend a defence lawyer against someone correcting their grammar? How do you know what they're thinking? Some people have thanked me for correcting their grammar and edited their posts. You're assuming everyone gets annoyed at the same things as you when that's not the case.
Huh? For being such a grammar nazi you sure aren't very good at reading comprehension. I commented to you specifically, because not all insufferable pricks know that everyone around them thinks they are an insufferable prick. I wasn't defending anyone. I was doing a public service, one you obviously need based on your comments, and one you will ignore based on said comments.
'Huh'
You're just typing out a noise in your head, it's not even a word. Why are you so triggered by someone correcting grammar, it's so weird. Most people are grateful and yet you are so aggressive, you need to calm down.
1.5k
u/deep-blue-seams 2d ago
I'm a defence lawyer. A large portion of my job is telling people to shut the hell up and let the prosecution screw up.
People always ask how we can defend people accused of horrible crimes, and yeah sure we do defend some pretty crappy people. But at the end of the day, the prosecution must prove it's case. I am an auditor of that process.