How do defense attorneys justify defending an obviously guilty defendant?

Question

I would imagine that is very difficult for them. How would they feel if they succesfully get an aquittal for a person who they feel is guilty, or if they help release them on some technicality like "the fruit of the poison tree" one.

Are they just in it for the money? I would imagine at first they start off very idealistic, but after they gain experience and see what the legal system is like, they just look for rich drug dealer clients. Or insurance companies and stuff. That movie with matt damon comes to mind, and the devils advocate.

What do you guys think?

Answer 1

As a technical matter, there is no such thing as an "obviously guilty" defendant, because a guilty defendant is one whom the state has proven has committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, under the procedures which we have come to understand, over a period of some 500 years, are necessary to assure that trials are fair.

A defense attorney's job is to make sure that the government obeys its own rules. Those rules are numerous and complex, and it takes years of study and experience to know them all and to apply them correctly. You wouldn't expect a sick person to perform his own surgery, and you cannot expect any person, guilty or innocent, to negotiate the mine field of the law alone.

In over 95% of cases, the defense attorney's job is to determine what charge and punishment is fair for the individual defendant, and to assist the defendant in entering guilty plea. It is well known that the police and prosecutors frequently "overcharge" cases, so that the defendant may be guilty of something, but not of the crime charged. It is the defense attorney's job to make sure that the "punishment fits the crime."

Only about 5% of cases go to trial. It is not the attorney's job to then abandon his client, but is, again, to assue that the trial is fair, that all of the government's evidence is tested, that the defendant gets a fair chance to tell his side of the story (when he has one to tell), that the jurors understand what their job is, and to make sure that nobody is punished unless the rules and standards are obeyed.

There are other systems. In China, the job of the "defense" attorney is to assist the government. In some systems, a defendant is require to prove his innocence. In some systems, the government can simply accuse you of a crime and lock you up without a lawyer or a trial. Frighteningly, that system exists now in the United States if the President decides you are an unlawful enemy combatant, whether you are a citizen or not. With that exception, I like our system better.

It may be surprising, but there really are not that many rich drug dealers to go around. Most private defense attorneys spend most of their time defending people accused of drunk driving, battery, petty theft, and other minor crimes. People with the money to hire a lawyer commit very few major crimes. The people who commit more serioius offenses are generally represented by appointed counsel.

While it may be different elsewhere, Public Defenders in California seem to be a pretty idealistic and committed group of lawyers. We are, after all, the ONLY barrier there is between the citizen and the government which is trying to lock him up. It is the defense attorney who protects and defends YOUR constitutional rights. We're pretty proud of that.

Answer 2

Hey,

In response to this question, How do defense attorneys justify defending an obviously guilty defendant?, I tell you that may be this site can help you http://inquirelawyers.com

As you asked; "I would imagine that is very difficult for them. How would they feel if they succesfully get an aquittal for a person who they feel is guilty, or if they help release them on some technicality like "the fruit of the poison tree" one. Are they just in it for the money? I would imagine at first they start off very idealistic, but after they gain experience and see what the legal system is like, they just look for rich drug dealer clients. Or insurance companies and stuff. That movie with matt damon comes to mind, and the devils advocate. What do you guys think?" I hope it might help you.

Good Luck :)

Answer 3

1

Answer 4

Defense attorneys do not want guilty people on the streets any more than non-defense attorneys do. They are simply making sure the cops have done their job and the rights given to the accused in the US Constitution are being upheld (ie, speedy trial, no illegal search and siezure).

Please know that many of the defense attorneys in this country are public defenders and don't make much money. Their clients are poor (there are income limits to qualifying for a public defender) and usually of color.

Every individual deserves a defense, regardless of whether they are guilty or not. It's not about "getting the guilty off". It's about upholding the Constitution.

I think the concept of an individual "getting off on a technicality" is grossly misstated. I don't think it's a technicality if the cops don't follow the Constitution.

Answer 5

This is a basic legal dilemma. The defense attorney is there to assure the accused gets a fair trail and the burden of proof is squarely on the prosecution. If, for some reason, the prosecution does not run the trail fairly, or produce evidence in a legal manner, a guilty person may go free, sure. BUT, their rights were defended. Do I personally AGREE, no, but it's a system that tries to assure only the guilty are convicted. The error for convicting an innocent person is greater than letting a guilty person go free.

Answer 6

An "obviously guilty" defendant may be wrongly prosecuted (look at Bob Woffenden's work on miscarriages of justice: there are many cases where "everybody knows" the guy is guilty. Only he's not; it's a political case or the police have otherwise faked evidence, used venal "experts" like the notorious Sir Roy Meadows who convinced judges and juries that ALL parents of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome babies were GUILTY OF MURDER if a second baby died (doctors now know that congenital defects may be involved).)

Many times there are legal reasons why a person can't be convicted. Maybe the law is defective; maybe the evidence was faked or irregularly obtained.

Only in totalitarian countries do "defense lawyers" actually help the state convict. If you don't have a robust defense then the conviction has no meaning. As an example: Moussaoui "defended" himself, and admitted to crimes he probably never committed. He now is serving life without parole in the Supermax prison. If he'd never opened his mouth and if he'd had a decent defense he'd be doing a few years time at most.

Defenders of white collar criminals, drug barons, organized crime figures and serious tax cheats make a fabulous living. Most real-life defenders are in the middle class like you, just doing a job. Some, like Lynne Stewart http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/10/terror.trial.lawyer/ really are in sympathy with their clients. Others, like Ramsay Clark http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/27/saddam.hussein.trial/index.html?section=cnn_topstories do it out of a human rights conviction that poltiical enemies deserve the best defense possible. There's no profit in such work, only brickbats from the general public who don't understand the concept of the ADVERSARIAL LEGAL SYSTEM that the US inherited from England. (In civil law systems like France and Germany and Japan and much of the rest of the world the judge takes an active part in the trial -- both prosecution and defense. Not in the UK or in America.)

I am doing research now into Nazi law and Nazi courts. You wouldn't want such a legal system in America: "obviously guilty" meant nothing more than someone was out of sympathy with Hitler, and the penalty for that could be a quick death sentence without appeal. Even if the accusation was false and motivated by spite. Even if the accusation came from one's own child, who had been brainwashed in school.

Answer 7

Our country is based on "innocent until proven guilty", and everyone is entitled to representation. If there were no defense attorneys there would be no representation for any defendants.

Yes, they might get off a guilty client or two, but better to set a guilty man free than send an innocent man to prison.

The defense attorney represents those who have been accused and who are innocent as well -- if you were accused, and you knew you didn't do it - wouldn't you want the attorney to pull out ever trick in the book to get you home to your family?

Answer 8

When you switch on the information and you listen to a tale regarding an innocent household being assaulted in their house, do you feel risk-free? If this make you think then you must pay an appearance here https://tr.im/5Bchp , a site that will instruct you ways to secure you and your family.
Patriot Self Defense system is successful for 2 key reasons. The first is that it make use of basic steps integrated from all the most effective fighting styles out there. The second is that the manufacturers of this program really did not stop there, they took these moves right into the laboratory and ran all form of clinical examinations to generate as much information as feasible prior to readying to function to examine this information and created a clinical developed self-defense system that fairly frankly changes the market.
Feel secure with Patriot Self Defense

Answer 9

Matt Damon was not in that, he was in the Rainmaker. Keanue Reeves was in Devil's Advocate along with Al Pacino...

Also, it is our system. Without defense attorneys, we would never know if the system was fair. There is no 'obviously guilty'... A person cannot be guilty until it is proven. And we have a whole mess of people (police, attorney's, lab technicians) that will try to prove someone guilty.

Answer 10

Attorneys take an oath when they pass the bar.

"...that you will delay no man for lucre or malice, but will conduct yourself in the office of an attorney within the courts according to the best of your knowledge and discretion, and with all good fidelity, as well as to the courts, as to your clients."

Lawyers believe that everyone has a chance to be represented. If they know that their client is guilty then they will suggest to do a "plea bargain". It is up to the client to make that decision though.

If the client wants to go to court and plea for a lesser sentence then the attorney has no choice but to do what thier client wishes.