Yep, Amen and thank God to that, Rad.
I think we said the same thing......I just used less words.........I therefore perceive you must be a lawyer or a law student.
I'm a painter and drywall taper and am happy to discuss all there is to know about those two trades, when, on the golf course, e.g., someone wants to know what I can do so he can rant about what "douche bags" lawyers are and bitch about how his divorce lawyer (and his ex's "douche bag") cost him -- without ever considering that he and she might have been the source of the high cost of the exercise. I don't think we said the same thing, though I didn't detect that we were far apart.
Obviously a defense attorney can not (well their not suppose to) lie or help their clients lie....however you and I know this is not always the case.
Agreed, though the same applies to law enforcement officers, accountants, CEOs and other professions staffed with humans.
During my time in law enforcment I had the displeasure of having a defense attorney ask me about his clients case / actions to which I answered his question behind closed doors. It is very common for an attorney to try to work out a deal that is acceptable to the officer (if he is brining the charges) behind closed doors with the approval of the prosecutor. When I would not work with him or his client then the lawyer got me on the stand and accused me of making statements that I did not make which would have beneficial to his client. Fortunately, unbeknownst to this attorney, I recorded our conversation behind those closed doors. After constant badgering about our conversation I produced my mini-cassette tape and offered it to the judge. As you can imagine the dirtbag lawyer turned red faced and headed back to his seat with no further questions. This same attorney would later be investigated for trading sex for his services...........what's even more sad is that he is still practicing. :glare:
It is not common out here for an attorney to work out a deal with an officer -- far from it, so I can't comment on the dynamics of the situation you describe, but nothing about lying or betrayal of trust is admirable. It is common to make plea deals with the prosecutor out here, and the LEO is not a part of that -- probably to avoid the kinds of conflicts that one would expect to arise when the one making the deal is also a primary witness with an honest belief in the righteousness of his bust. You said YOU wouldn't work with him, so it sounds like he had little choice but to go to trial, and if the facts you testified to were not favorable to his client, one of his few options may have been to challenge the recollection, bias or honesty of the witness testifying to them. (I wasn't there and don't know the case or what happened.)
IF the douche bag actually made declaratory statements to the effect that you suggest, then they should have drawn objections by the prosecutor that were sustained by the judge with an admonition from the judge to the jury that they should be disregarded, and if those statements were proven false (as you say they were), most judges out here would have reported him to the State Bar: it's a serious breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct to knowingly mislead the court. It sounds more likely that you are telling the story from the naturally indignant perspective of a witness who felt that he was having his integrity challenged by QUESTIONS asked of him. There are always two sides to every story, and emotionally charged participants more often than not give a colored (not dishonest) account. I don't disbelieve your account; just questioning the "accused me" perspective on what were probably questions posed to you in a hostile manner to allow you to look like you were not telling the truth -- depending on your reaction and answers. Good chance that his client told him your account wasn't true. Without a working crystal ball, it's often damn hard to sort between two contrary accounts to decide which is true, or which parts of each are true and not colored by the witness's bias or perspective. Not making excuses for the guy, but I don't buy much at face value any more -- I've seen too much inaccuracy and lying from every quarter.
What defense attorneys do more often then not is make baseless assertions in order to confuse the jury.....or they will play, Im the victim card and as we all know the race card...........basically any card that distracts the jury at looking at relevant facts.
More often than not? OK, your perspective. One of the challenges of most criminal trials, as opposed to civil trials, is that nine out of ten times, the defendant client is guilty. Still, you are supposed to offer him a defense. Often, there isn't much you can do but force the prosecutor to bear the burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. And often, that may be nothing more than tough questioning of the witnesses to examine possible bases for misrecollection, motive to lie, etc. The lawyer has an ethical responsibility to the client, not to the police officer who made the arrest and not to the victims. So, the crux of the issue is this: what exactly would you have the lawyer do? Assume the role of the jury and accept your version of the facts in deciding not to challenge you in his cross examination?
Our system is what it is............the problem is that, and I believe this with all my heart, that the overwhelming majority of people are basically stupid. Yep, its a sad fact.......most people you come across are lucky to walk and talk at the same time. It is a wonder that they have lived as long as they have.
No argument from me there. Blind spots as big as football fields, too -- from lack of awareness around their person to lack of awareness on the road to lack of a critical understanding of their own limitations and biases affecting their decision making and perspectives. I'm a LOT better lawyer for others than I am for myself for the last reason.
Cases are not won by evidence as much as it is as getting the right jurors or enough jurors (usually just 1) that is stupid enough to believe the crap that is thrown at him or her.
If you have enough money and or political power then you can get out of any crime.......from rape to murder. (President Clinton)
In referring to one juror, you're obviously talking about criminal, and not civil cases. Certainly, in civil cases, at least, jurors can be critical, but I would never subscribe to your theory about the irrelevance of evidence. E.g., most civil cases get settled long before a jury is ever picked (for that matter, so do most criminal cases via plea bargain). Guess what the lawyers are arguing during that process, whether it's informally between themselves, or in a mediation or arbitration? Yep: the evidence.
Human nature is what it is. Our legal system is what it is. People have roles to play in that system, and unless you've been there, you probably don't have a good idea of what that takes. You couldn't get me to do a cop's job for any amount of money; I think it's one of the most underpaid, thankless, essential and difficult jobs there is. That doesn't mean that all cops are saints or admirable. Same goes for "douche bags". Some of the very most despicable people I have ever met are lawyers, err -- douche bags, but some of the very best people I have met are too. I've had a lot of difficult, dirty and dangerous jobs (factory worker, greenskeeper, laborer, drywall finisher, painter (including high industrial spray work and crew foreman)), but none has been as difficult, stressful or demanding as lawyering. (Nor have any posed the same threat of getting sued (kinda as the insurer of last resort) if I make ANY mistake or if the client thinks there's any basis to line his own pockets or have me defray the cost of his errors by doing so.)
BTW, I believe the system is broken, that he with the most money usually wins (most often by turning it into a war of attrition), that attorneys fees and costs can become the biggest part of a dispute, and that it is often the hard working middle class that the system serves worst, but we haven't scratched the surface of that in this thread. It gets pretty tiring to evaluate a case and have to tell the client: "your options ar A, B, C and D, but it looks like you probably can't afford A, B or C."
Hope you have a good day, NC -- I need to stop procrastinating now.
