My hands-down #1 take away from last week’s jury duty on a criminal trial is this:
| Defense lawyers are not the spawn of Satan |
Though some of them may appear so.
All I knew about defense lawyers before serving jury duty was what I saw on television and in movies:
- Defense lawyers are mean: twisting witnesses words and making them appear to be liars or, at the very least, incompetent;
- Defense lawyers will say anything, no matter how outrageous or untrue, to get the client off, often getting perfectly good evidence thrown out on some teeny, tiny technicality;
- Defense lawyers represent law breakers thus are tainted by association: to represent a bad guy is to condone the bad behavior.
I grew up knowing our legal system considers a person innocent until proven guilty but I didn’t really know what that meant. I did not, for example, realize it means the defense lawyer has no legal requirement to prove…well, anything. The entire burden of proof is on the prosecutor. The defense lawyer can sit there and eat a bologna sandwich throughout the trial and his client will still go free if the prosecutor fails to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
I wouldn’t go as far as to say I used to think it was the defense lawyer’s job to prove his client’s innocence. I just didn’t “get” what all the posturing and confrontation was all about. I thought to be a defense lawyer was to be mean and scummy. The End.
But now…NOW…I get it. It is the defense lawyer’s job to:
- Protect the rights of the accused. This is the defense lawyer’s number one – and technically only – job but what does it mean, exactly, to protect the rights of the accused? It means everyone working for the prosecution is paid by the State. Even the judge is a state employee. The defense lawyer is the only person looking out for the accused. It is his job to force the State to prove its case and ensure the State does not overstep its authority along the way.
A civil lawyer friend of mine told me many of the criminal lawyers she knows never ask the clients if they did it (perpetrated the crime) because they don’t care. They see their job as upholding the Bill of Rights. It makes no difference whether the client broke the law. It is the State’s job to prove it and the defense counsel’s job to defend the client’s rights as they try.
- Prevent the defendant from being found guilty. Note this is not the same as proving the defendant’s innocence. If it is the prosecutor’s job to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it naturally follows it is defense counsel’s job to foster doubt in the minds of the jury at every opportunity. He does that by questioning every piece of evidence submitted by the prosecution. And that is where the mean and scummy part comes in.
This was The Big Revelation for me. That’s why the defense lawyer is so mean to witnesses on the stand. He is trying to make them look incompetent or like liars so the jury will doubt their testimony. He isn’t just a big giant asshole. He is being mean and confrontational for a specific reason. He has a purpose. It is HIS JOB.
Like I said, an “Aha” moment for me. I feel kind of stupid I never made that connection before. I have a whole new respect for defense lawyers now, even if I did cringe (on the inside) at some of the suggestions last week’s defense lawyer threw out there. The prosecutor called them “absurd” and, frankly, they were (I’ll provide detail in a separate post) but he was making an effort. Considering the overwhelming amount of evidence against the accused, it was a valiant effort at that.
- Get the charges reduced as much as possible. The defendant may be guilty as hell. He may even have admitted his guilt to authorities before his trusty defense lawyer arrived. Further, his admission may be allowed into evidence at the trial. Oh dear, what to do? Go for the lesser charge, of course.
For example, last week’s case included a charge of attempted murder but there was also a lesser charge of attempted manslaughter on the table. Because the evidence was so strong, the defense lawyer realized early on in the trial the jury would never have any doubt the defendant shot the victim. He then cleverly changed his tactic from instilling doubt to suggesting reasons why the defendant did it that pointed toward attempted manslaughter and away from attempted murder.
I find it ironic a defense lawyer, whose job is specifically not to prove anything, found himself tasked with trying to prove, of all things, his client’s guilt. To a lesser charge, but still.
Did I mention I found the whole experience fascinating? So much to tell you but I may not get it written until this weekend. In the meantime, I offer these excellent links I found when trying to make sense of how our judicial system works. Some of the information above I found here:
The American System of Criminal Justice: Innocent Until Proven Guilty
The Role of Criminal Justice System Personnel
…and let us not forget…
