Due Process, or Why Criminal Defense Attorneys Deserve Respect

If you were to believe Nancy Grace, criminal defense attorneys are evil people getting other evil people off on technicalities. But maybe she protests too much because appellant courts http://www.observer.com/node/51941">slapped her down.

Respect for due process used to divide liberal vs. conservative along 14th Amendment lines, with liberals supporting the 14th and Republicans detesting it. This is at bottom what the federalism divide is all about today, as Rand Paul's recent blunder makes clear.

For those interested in due process, "Rights of the Accused" explains the history and why it is so important. It starts this way:

We normally think of a trial by jury as one of the individual rights afforded to persons accused of a crime. It is also, as we have seen, a right that is institutional as well — one that belongs to the people as a whole as well as to the individual. But jury trials, as has been all too evident in dictatorships, can be meaningless unless that trial is governed by rules that ensure fairness to the individual. A trial in which the judge allows illegally seized evidence to be used, or in which the defendant has no access to an attorney, is forced to testify against himself, or is denied the ability to bring witnesses favorable to his cause, is not a trial that meets the standard of due process of law. The men who drafted the Bill of Rights knew this, not only from their experience during the Colonial era, but also from the history of Great Britain, which ever since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 had been committed to expanding the rule of law.

http://www.4uth.gov.ua/usa/english/society/rightsof/accused.htm

One of my girlfriends is a defense attorney. She represents people who get busted for drunk driving. I have a huge problem with those who drive drunk. I think they suck. At the same time, again, we live in America. Even the most heinous crimes and criminals are entitled to that defense under our laws.

legitimate legal system.

How it didn't make it into the original Constitution is beyond me.

Wish I could rec enough to offset the broadbrush lawyer bashing that is so popular.

:kick:

I would not want to live in a country where the prosecutor alone decides who goes to prison. An active and effective defense bar is essential. Without them, there would never be any confidence that any conviction was just. And a lot of them wouldn't be.

So, I have respect for defense lawyers unless they are so personally invested in their clients' cases that they assume failure by the defense necessarily means that my side did something unethical. A defense has to be based in fact and not on made-up shit.

ADA's often have a tough job and also deserve respect when they play fairly, which is most often.

If you don't mind the question, do you sometimes find political pressures nudge you in directions you'd rather not have to go? I'm not suggesting that you cave in and cheat, but am wondering if you sometimes find you could bring the prosecution better without those pressures. I'm not even sure what I mean by "better" in this question.

...I mostly respond to appeals by defendants after conviction and sentencing. If a defendant files an appeal, I answer that appeal. Sometimes the DA insists that I respond in such and such a way to an appeal even if I am convinced the law is against us. But that's an issue of a legal technicality pursuant to state procedural rules and not an ultimate question of guilt or innocence. The DA does consider how the community will view our actions. He tends to take the view that there has to be a real, aggrieved party for it to be worth a jury's attention. Except for drug offenses, of course. We don't write the laws. Often the concern is to avoid appearing predatory. The Court of Appeals in a case from another county said that in a shooting offense, each bullet can count as its own felony assault or attempted murder. Usually, we consider that one assault or attempted murder. Often we will not seek an indictment under Ohio's state RICO law (which is more expansive than the Fed. equivalent) when technically we could. To his credit, we have prosecuted where justice required it, but the community might have been inclined to blame the victim for being promiscuous, gay or a drug addict.

The DA is a Dem. who runs in this mostly R. county on the same ticket as the president. So if he wasn't sensitive to community attitude, he would have lost his job a long time ago.

It's fascinating stuff that we who rely on newspapers rarely get to see.

...is a defense attorney or more specifically, a public defender.

They sure as Hell don't believe in *social* justice.

Hopefully this kick will help make up for it.

So I wouldn't feel so smug about "liberals respecting due process rights" because many don't.

Do a search & you'll find 'em.

dg

Respect for due process used to divide liberal vs. conservative along 14th Amendment lines...

...we are assuming that it would be done lawfully and with due process even if we don't spell it out.

Because due process varies.

criminal defense attorneys are all that stand between us and the total loss of our freedoms.

...but most of us in the DA's office are just trying to do our jobs. Most of us will never run for office or be appointed to a Fed. position.

I really would rather not have to prosecute child molesters. But the law, the victims and the community demand it, so we do. With a bottle of Pepto Bismol on my desk. That's what I mostly get: serious drug offenses, crimes of violence and sex offenses including those against children. Thieves and vandals and drunks and other low-level felonies don't usually appeal, so I never see them.

............it's refreshing to finally find some people who share my point of view. The vast majority of the people in this country view Prosecutors as noble people fighting to protect them and defense attorneys as smarmy leeches looking to put violent criminals back out on the streets. When I try to explain to people that what I do is protect the Constitution, and that without rights, we have nothing, I usually get a lot of mealy-mouthed crap about, "what about the VICTIMS' rights?" Trust me, it's really tough to know you're doing good work, fighting the good fight, and are on the side of law, order, and justice, yet the vast majority of the public views you as some sort of villain, just looking to make a buck off the misfortunes of others (funny how they don't view DOCTORS as people who do nothing but make money off the suffering of others, though).

Everyone thinks we criminal defense lawyers are just looking to make a few quick bucks, which is so wrong. By the way, if you happen to get yourself in a little bit of legal trouble in the State of Ohio, I'd be more than willing to help you out for a few bucks. :-)