 |
 |
|
August 14, 2002
Los Gatos, California Since 1881 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawyers are just doing their job
"The first thing we do, Let's kill all the
lawyers."
The lines are from Shakespere's King Henry
VI, Part II.
The current spate of crimes committed against
kids by individuals so palpably guilty has
many observers rethinking the efficacy of the
pillars of our criminal justice system. If
not the pillars themselves, at least the
codes of ethics and behavior that stem from
these time-honored foundations.
A prime example flows from the hallowed
principle that those charged with a crime are
presumed innocent of said crime unless proved
guilty of having committed it beyond a
reasonable doubt. Those deciding that
question are a jury of the defendant's peers,
who must swear under oath they will reach
their verdict objectively and without
preconceived notions or prejudice.
There is a growing body of citizens who,
although willing to accept the
presumption-of-innocence approach to criminal
justice and the final decisions of the jury
despite numerous examples of embarrassing
malfunctions (hey hey, O.J., how did the golf
game go today?), are questioning the moral
rectitude of attorneys who undertake the
legal defense of those charged with heinous
crimes they are "obviously" guilty of.
These critics do not necessarily subscribe to
the judicial philosophy of the Old West's
legendary Judge Roy Bean, according to which
the defendant was promised a fair trial
before he was hanged. They agree that
defendants charged with serious offenses
should be tried in a duly constituted court
of law, replete with judge, jury, witnesses,
evidence, expert testimony, and defense
counsel.
However, they do feel that when the evidence
against the defendants is so overwhelming and
incriminating the trial should essentially be
a pro forma event, staged primarily to
project the favorable image of our criminal
justice system.
Furthermore, they are convinced that, ipso
facto, those who assume the responsibility of
defending the accused, whether by choice or
by reason of court directive, are shysters,
ambulance chasers, slime balls, enemies of
the state intent on destroying the United
States Constitution, sons (or daughters) of
Beelzebub, or those who shave strokes off
their golf scores.
They are unable to accept the totality of the
presumed innocent concept.
They forget that it is not the task of
defense counsel to prove the innocence of the
defendants. Their job is to show that the
state has failed in its attempt to prove
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Among other things, this requires that the
defendants have been informed of their
constitutional protection (the so-called
Miranda provision), afforded counsel, not
been physically or abused, tricked, or
otherwise denied the rights of people charged
with a crime.
Thus the issue of whether it is proper for
attorneys to defend people who are clearly
guilty of unspeakable offenses seems to come
down to two simple propositions. One, all
defendants, notwithstanding their past
records or the crime they are currently
accused of, have a constitutional right to be
defended by counsel whose duty is to make the
state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
the defendants are guilty as charged.
The second proposition flows logically from
the first. If accused people have a
constitutional right to be defended, it
follows that the persons in charge of their
defense have a constitutional duty to protect
the rights of their clients using any and all
legal and ethical means available. This duty
includes raising questions related to how the
defendants were treated before trial, the
propriety of jury selection, the adequacy of
the evidence presented, the trustworthiness
of the state's witnesses, the presiding
judge's handling of the trial, and the myriad
details that go into ensuring a fair trial.
This duty persists regardless of whether or
not the attorneys know their clients are
absolutely, 100 percent, no-doubt-about-it
guilty of the crime charged. It holds even if
the attorneys saw the clients commit the
crime! At high noon! At the corner of Santa
Cruz and Main! In front of God and all His
angels!
Stated another way, from the perspective of
defense counsel, truth is irrelevant. It is
not the function of defense counsel to
determine truth. Or the guilt or innocence of
the defendant. To repeat, it is the function
of the defense to make the state prove the
guilt of the defendant. If the state cannot
prove its case because of a procedural
screw-up by the police, inadequate
prosecution, suspect evidence, or its failure
to overcome the objections and doubts raised
by an aggressive and expert defense, guilty
parties do in fact walk free. This includes
murderers, rapists, child molesters, and all
other kinds of not so nice people.
That's how the system works. Those who are
unhappy with attorneys who are representing
our current crop of miscreants are
misdirecting their wrath. The lawyers are
merely doing what they are supposed to do.
They do not deserve The Bard's condemnation.
At least not for defending today's crop of
bad guys.
—Frank Stagnaro, Los Gatos
|
|
|
|
|
|