People v. State

fairly undermining public confidence in the administration of justice
Subscribe

Justice again.

June 12, 2010 By: John Kindley Category: Uncategorized

I struggled in this post earlier today with my juxtaposition of the (hypothetical) criminal defense attorney who takes special pride in the acquittal of a “guilty” client and the prosecutor who takes special pride in the conviction of an innocent defendant (e.g., including, and perhaps most typically, a defendant who the prosecutor believes is guilty of something but not the offense the prosecutor charges him with). Even though it was an ancillary part of the post, I went back and forth, editing the juxtaposition in and out, and finally left it in, because it seems the two cases do share and illuminate a common psychological denominator: namely, if as a prosecutor I can get an innocent man convicted, or if as a defense lawyer I can get a client who was caught red-handed acquitted, then I must be a damn fine attorney.

But are the two cases comparable on the Ethical plane? Absolutely not, and the fear that I was implying they were is why I vacillated between including and excluding the juxtaposition. There’s a lot that could be said about the differences, but the words of Benjamin Franklin will suffice here: “[I]t is better a hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer.”

But what I really wanted to write about in this post is Walter Reaves’ recent blog post titled How to know if you are a criminal defense lawyer. Walter’s answer:

You know you are a criminal defense attorney if you would do it even if you didn’t have to. If someone gave you millions of dollars today and you never had to work again, you would still go into the office tomorrow (well maybe not tomorrow, but eventually) It’s in your blood, and you can’t just walk away.

My immediate reaction to Walter’s answer was “Right on. Sounds like I’m a criminal defense lawyer after all.” But the tantalizing prospect of millions of dollars really made me think. Truth be told, practicing law sucks. It sucks worse than I thought it would when I embarked on my legal career, and worse than it should. You can be as right as right can be, and argue until you’re blue in the face, and all for naught. Neither juries nor judges are all they’re cracked up to be. But alas, human beings are not meant to loll around on millions of dollars. We’re meant to help each other, and Lord knows those unlucky enough to be caught in the law’s snares need help.  Until something more worthwhile to do with my life occurs to me (or I get disbarred), I’ll stay at my post.

Something else Walter writes also rung true for me:

[G]ood criminal defense lawyers are advocates – they don’t like seeing people screwed around by the system. sometimes those people have money, often they do not. I don’t know any good criminal defense lawyer who doesn’t take cases from time to time for reduced fees, or no fee. They take things personally, and aren’t going to stand on the sidelines.

The way I see it, the idea that the role of the prosecutor is to “do justice,” while our role is just (tautologically) “to defend,” hinges on the prosecutor’s vaunted discretion. But we as criminal defense attorneys have plenty of discretion of our own.

4 Comments to “Justice again.”


  1. It is far easier to convict an innocent man. But, I’m curious – what sort of discretion do we criminal defense lawyers have? To take or not take a case? Other than that what is there? As far as just doing our jobs go we can decide on tactics or strategy, but it seems that, in this post anyway, you might mean something else. Am I reading something that isn’t here?

    1
    • John Kindley says:

      A while back SHG in a blog post took issue with my statement that in the cases that have meant the most to me I have felt myself squarely on the side of justice and the prosecutor squarely on the side of injustice. SHG thought this was a dangerous attitude to take, since we must represent our clients’ zealously without regard to their guilt or innocence. And that’s true so far as it goes. It is in fact our duty and the ideal to which we must aspire. But there is no worse feeling in the world than standing next to a client you know to be innocent as the guilty verdict is read. Fortunately, that has happened to me only once, and the conviction has since been overturned, but it was a doozy –attempted murder, and to top it off the judge tacked 15 years on to the advisory sentence and sentenced him to 45 years.

      Truth be told, because of my limited experience, I have a limited set of data for comparison. In fact, I have not had occasion to stand next to a client I believed or knew to be guilty as a guilty verdict was read. All of my guilty clients have pled guilty (though not because I wasn’t ready and willing to fight for them at trial).

      In my last case that went to trial, I ultimately accepted the case for less than the retainer I quoted as my bottom line, and agreed to accept payments for the balance extending out many months beyond the trial date (always a bad idea if one’s goal is to actually get paid). I knew the client’s family couldn’t come up with any more than they did, because his girlfriend was in tears on the phone as she told me she knew she would not be able to obtain the amount I’d told her was the absolute minimum by the date necessary. Honestly, I probably would have been far less likely to budge on my requirements if I wasn’t convinced the client was innocent and that he was being unjustly persecuted by the prosecutor, who for some diabolical reason really seemed to have it in for him. If you actually commit a burglary, then it is right and just that you pay an attorney every nickel’s worth of his time to defend your sorry ass.

      I then proceeded to work the hell out of the case. After my client’s acquittal, my client’s girlfriend expressed to me that they could never have hoped or expected that I would have worked as hard as I did on the case. She seemed to intuitively understand an uncomfortable reality of law firm economics — that there is cadillac representation and chevy representation, and that though they had paid for less than a chevy representation they had received a cadillac representation (to the extent that an attorney of my experience working to the best of his ability could provide it). To her great credit, since the acquittal she has faithfully been paying the $50 a week we’d agreed upon towards the balance owed.

      After the conviction of my innocent client for attempted murder, and knowing that his family was tapped out, I initially offered to do his appeal pro bono. I later recommended that he take advantage of the appointed counsel to which he was entitled, and promised to offer my assistance to his appointed counsel pro bono. I wouldn’t have done so if justice, and the injustice of his conviction, weren’t a paramount motivating factor. I probably wouldn’t have done so if I thought my client was guilty. Before his conviction, I thought and thought about his case, did a lot of research, did further research after I ran into precedent that at first sight seemed to be against us, and then concluded the case against him should be dismissed on the grounds of collateral estoppel. Collateral estoppel had not even occurred to the attorney who’d represented him at his previous trial, and the public defender who was representing him for several months before I entered my appearance (while his family was trying to get the rest of my fee together) didn’t want to file the motion to dismiss I offered him because he didn’t think the judge would by it. In fact, the trial judge didn’t buy it, but the court of appeals did. It’s hard not to think that it was my sense of the injustice being perpetrated against my client that drove me to look and look hard for every angle available on his behalf. My client had no idea he had grounds for a motion to dismiss, nor did anyone else. The amount of work I put in to the motion to dismiss was easily equal to that involved in an appeal. Granted, ideally I would have looked just as hard for a client I knew was guilty as sin.

      If a lawyer is established enough to have a low-volume practice, undoubtedly he will use his discretion in deciding which cases to take. I would hope that all other things being equal, if I am ever in that situation where I have a wide range of cases to choose from, I would choose the case of the innocent client being unjustly persecuted over the case of the mob boss, even if the mob boss could pay a lot more. In a low-volume case, every accepted client, whether innocent or guilty as sin, would presumably receive a cadillac representation.

      That’s a much longer answer to your question than I intended, and I hesitate to try to sum it up now in a neat bow. It’s tricky and problematic, and the censors might be watching. I have no problem whatsoever with representing clients I know to be “guilty” and trying to get them off scott free if possible by any legitimate means available. But it’s hard to deny that my own personal sense of justice remains a motivator — not so as I would, god forbid, fail to do everything I could for a “guilty” client or feel any kind of compunction whatsoever about getting him off scott free; but it may lead me to go extra miles in certain cases, or go those extra miles for clients who normally couldn’t afford it. But ideally, there should be no such thing as an “extra” mile in a criminal representation. Whatever can be done should be done. Truth be told, I haven’t really been put to the test, because I haven’t yet been called upon to go to the mat at trial for someone I believed to be guilty. Perhaps my belief that justice has been a motivator in the work I’ve done on behalf of innocent clients isn’t the whole truth, or even the greater part of the truth. Perhaps it really has been more simply about doing my duty as a lawyer, and pride in my work.

      Maybe my point about “discretion” hews pretty closely to the excerpt from Walter Reaves’ post that prompted it. There are some defendants for whom I’d consider working for free or for a reduced rate, and others for whom I wouldn’t.

      2
  2. Thank you for an interesting and thought-provoking piece. The question I have is how you can ever know if the client standing next to you is innocent or guilty? If it is that obvious to you as his lawyer that he is innocent, you should also be able to secure his acquittal. And I agree with Mirriam. I don’t think it should matter.

    3
    • John Kindley says:

      And thank you for stopping by to comment. I’ve been a regular visitor at your blog lately and have benefited from the insights in many of your posts, but just haven’t gotten around to commenting yet.

      You’re right of course. Rarely would we ever “know” whether our client is innocent or guilty, and it really shouldn’t matter. I’ve made no secret of the fact that I’ve only taken three criminal cases to trial thus far. (My plan is to eventually do nothing but criminal defense, but unfortunately in the meantime I’m doing a lot of family law, bankruptcy, civil defense, etc.) So I recognize that my thoughts on this matter are appropriately weighted accordingly. Two of those trials resulted in acquittals, and while I strongly believe my clients were “innocent,” I guess I can’t know that for sure. But I do know without any doubt that the prosecutor did not prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that therefore they were “rightly” acquitted. The third trial resulted in a conviction (which has since been overturned on the grounds of collateral estoppel, though the attorney general just filed yesterday a petition for transfer to the supreme court), and in that case there was no doubt about what the client did, because the whole thing was caught on surveillance videotape. The sole issue was whether his shooting of another person was justified. But again, I do know without any doubt that the prosecutor did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my client did not reasonably fear for his life when he pulled the trigger. Furthermore, I personally believe beyond any reasonable doubt that my client was justified in pulling the trigger. Nevertheless, the jury convicted him. I failed, big time. But while I take full responsibility for my role in this miscarriage of justice, the prosecutors are also personally responsible and morally culpable for what happened. I have no respect for them as attorneys (except in the secondary sense of “respecting” them because they kicked my ass) and the bare minimum of respect for them as human beings. They deserve to be locked up more than my client does. They went above and beyond the call of duty, committing prosecutorial misconduct along the way, to convict an innocent man.

      That case is Exhibit One for why I hesitate to embrace the idea that the role of the prosecutor is to “do justice” while ours is simply “to defend.” I understand the point of the formula, but it has the serious disadvantage of playing into the common perception of the criminal defense attorney as nothing but a hired gun, as a mercenary with no conscience. I spend a lot of my time as a criminal defense attorney being righteously indignant. I suppose that’s because I have a healthy sense of justice and injustice. And I can be righteously indignant about a lot of things. I can be righteously indignant because a prosecutor overcharges a defendant just because it can. I can be righteously indignant because the prosecutor got the goods on the defendant (guilty thought he might be) by unjust and unlawful means. I can be righteously indignant because a jury convicts a defendant (even a defendant who might have admitted to me his guilt) based on evidence that should have been insufficient to persuade a reasonable juror beyond a reasonable doubt. (Though again, I have not yet personally encountered a scenario in which a defendant I knew or believed to be guilty was convicted by a jury.) I can be righteously indignant because a defendant is convicted of a crime that shouldn’t be a crime at all.

      If we’re going to presume that anyone is on the side of justice, the prosecutor or the criminal defense attorney, it seems to me the defense attorney has the better claim. Locking a human being up in a cage like an animal is presumptively unjust.

      4


Leave a Reply

*

  • "[T]here is just nothing wrong with telling the American people the truth." - Allen v. United States

  • Lysander Spooner

    Henry George

    Harriet Tubman

    Sitting Bull

    Angelus Silesius

    Smedley Butler

    Rose Wilder Lane

    Albert Jay Nock

    Dora Marsden

    Leo Tolstoy

    Henry David Thoreau

    John Brown

    Karl Hess

    Levi Coffin

    Max Stirner

    Dorothy Day

    Ernst Jünger

    Thomas Paine