Dear Lurker,
You has asked me previously, "Have you ever defended someone and got them acquitted even though you knew yourself that they were guilty? How did you feel about this? When (or if) they then went on to do another awful crime like murder, rape, aggravated assault, did it weigh on your conscience that they were allowed to commit this crime due to the fact they were walking around free because of your efforts?"
I promised I would answer honestly so here goes:
When clients come in for the consult (or I go to the jail to do it), they almost never admit to the crime nor do I ask them. I actually don't care if they committed the crime. My intent is to test
the State's evidence and their methods in gathering their evidence so as to make sure they don't cheat. It is the State's burden to prove someone's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that is
a far cry from the Probable Cause required to just levy the charge, at least it is when I take on a case. I previously wrote about why it's important to have someone stand up on the Defendant's
behalf and ensure that the Accussor has not violated the rules or laws and is not guided by a mob mentality or some presently politically correct and popular movement or worse, some racist theme.
The truth however is, that an overwhelming percentage of those charged with serious crimes are in fact, guilty as charged. Few lawyers like to publicly say that but it is true. But again, for me, it's
how the government goes about their job that matters to me. I don't spend any time thinking about the heinous details of what my clients did.
I have handled around 35 homicide defendants and what they do if they are acquitted is not my fault. It's the fault of the State. It is the State that was so sure my client murdered someone, not me.
If they are so sure and they have endless resources, then they should be able to convince 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt.
I would love to think that each time I won a trial (and no lawyer wins every trial - - that is all Hollywood) it was because of my "efforts" as you write, but that is simply untrue.
The State is responsible in a very major part of how a trial goes down and many times, I am forced to react to the wave they send in motion. The better the Prosecutor, the better the investigation,
the better is the testimony of the State's witness, then the more difficult it is for me to win, regardless of all my "efforts."
However, for me, trials consist of literally 20 hour days (usually 3-4 days per week) and some can last as long as 4 months. I had a client wait in jail for 4 years for his trial to begin and then
we spent 4 months trying the case before a jury. The jury was hung at 11-1 Not Guilty and a Mistrial was declared which is a victory for the defense (State v. Paul Stafford- Passaic County Superior
Court- for those auditing me). During that trial, I had casually asked Paul, in private at counsel table, why it was that he did his whole 6 year sentence just 3 months before being released and allegedly
slitting the throat and killing his hooker girlfriend. Most guys get paroled early but not Paul. Paul was sentenced to 6 years due to a very bad Aggravated Assault. Paul, in response to my question,
calmly leaned over and told me "same thing as here." I asked what happened to the inmate he stabbed and Paul just shook his head, meaning the other guy had died too.
Why does the State even let someone like that out? I don't have the answer for that. Perhaps the previous Prosecutor should not have offered Paul a sweet deal, worked his ass off and tried the case
before a jury.
In the end, we all exercise some free will and the fact that these guys, some of them, repeat their hideous crimes doesn't fall on my conscience. It isn't my job to put them away. It's my job
to test the State's evidence.
I have no guilt about what I do and how well I do it. People pay a premium to have the best and if they pay for it, they should not only expect the best but also, receive it.
Harley