Hey Super (and other lawyers), I am moving this question here because I don't want to derail the P Diddy thread and updates there. Then, I got confused as to which of your threads to post on. I am not a lawyer but I want to ask lawyers and learn of your training and legal theory here. Also (I think) doing in a respectful manner. It's not even political. Anyway, here goes....
Dear His Honored Member,
Diddy in big trouble. Details leaking out now. It is vile and inhumane, the charges and accusations.
I fully respect our system (well the core tenets of it, not the subversion and unjust priviledge of many including Trump). I know that he is innocent until proven guilty. I also know that he is entitled to fair representation, and with his money he can afford well beyond fair.
But I also know prosecutors, and the FBI, do not bring charges without ample evidence, especially against a high profile citizen.
Someone or some group has to represent him. A question for the lawyers -- would you represent someone you knew was guilty, and if usually not, would you make exceptions for a huge payday and attention?
I'm just curious. I am sure criminal lawyers can rationalize it to themselves by thinking it is my job and the charged is entitled to my best effort. But you've got to go out there and say stuff like Diddy's lawyers are already doing. Paraphrasing, "He is an icon in his field, he has done so much for the black community. He is not perfect, but he is not a criminal." You've got to attack his victims and add to their trauma. It is not just prostitution, it is drugging and forcing into group sexual acts, assault, kidnapping (or holding against their will, etc.)
I could not do it, if I knew he was guilty and I got him cleared, knowing the details of what the victims went through.
Of course there is the possibility his legal team believes he is innocent and will believe it through all the evidence. But I am skeptical.
Criminal defense lawyer here. No criminal lawyer would choose whether to take a case based on their belief that the potential client is innocent or guilty. Of course no criminal defense lawyer would be able to make a living if they took only cases where they believe the client is innocent, but that's really not part of the thought process.
Only a small percentage of clients are completely innocent of all the charges they face. There are some others who are not completely innocent of all charges, but are either innocent of some or only guilty of lesser charges. And then there are plenty who are guilty as charged. It is important that all of these people get competent representation. For most of us, the majority of our cases garner very little attention and don't result in a major payday. Many of us get paid very little to represent people who are accused of doing-- and perhaps actually do-- some of the most reprehensible things imaginable. (I’m in private practice, but you have criminal defense lawyers who work in public defender offices and make less than $50k per year while taking on enormous caseloads, working with some of the most difficult clients, and are frequently disrespected by their clients who often don’t view them as real lawyers.)
Whether we believe our client is innocent or guilty is irrelevant. It should not impact the effort we put into representing our client. It is also very rare for criminal defense lawyers to believe their clients are innocent when they are aware of overwhelming evidence of their guilt. But regardless of how guilty our clients may appear to us, if they want to fight the charges, it is important that we do our best to seek a dismissal or not guilty verdict. There have been cases where considerable evidence pointed to a defendant's guilt, but good lawyering (which includes investigating the case) turned up exculpatory evidence that exonerated the defendant. Sometimes that occurs before a defendant is convicted, but unfortunately sometimes it occurs after a defendant has been convicted and has sometimes spent years in jail. If a lawyer were to put less effort into their representation of a client due to a belief that their client was guilty, then there very well may be cases where innocent, falsely accused individuals are wrongfully convicted. And there have been such cases. There may be other cases where people who are guilty of some crimes but have been overcharged are wrongfully convicted of the more serious charges or excessive charges. And the people in such positions are usually vulnerable people. They often don't have a lot of money, they aren't connected to people in power, they often don't have much education, and they often don't have backgrounds where people will give them the benefit of the doubt. When those people want to hold the prosecution to its burden, their lawyer has the obligation to ensure that that happens to avoid the possibility that they are subjected to injustice.
Of course most cases don't go to trial. Most cases that are are not dismissed by the prosecution are pled out. It is our job as criminal defense lawyers to advocate for our clients in plea negotiations to get a just plea that takes into account the evidence, any mitigating facts related to the case, and any mitigating factors related the the client's background and characteristics.
In addition to being advocates, we are also advisers. We have to advise our clients regarding how the law applies to the facts of the case, the strength or weakness of the prosecution's evidence, the defenses available, the potential outcomes of the case (including potential punishments), and what the client's options are. We need to advise the client of when we feel the state's evidence is strong or when no viable defense exists. And in those cases, particularly when losing at trial could result in a lengthy sentence, we might advise our clients to take a plea if it will reduce their sentence exposure. But regardless of how strong the prosecution's evidence is or whether there is no viable defense, if the client wants to go to trial, it is their right and their lawyer is not allowed to override the decision. But a big part of the job is helping clients make informed decisions about how to proceed. Kind of like a doctor helping a patient make informed decisions about treatment options. And hopefully an informed decision will be a good decision.
As for arguments that are that are made at bond hearings and sentencings, even in cases where clients do extremely horrible things, it is our job to provide reasons why bond should be allowed, or why it should be lowered, and in sentencing hearings why the court should impose a more lenient sentence. Even people who do some of the most horrible things have good qualities or have done good things. And most of the time that won't matter. They are mainly going to be punished for what they did; not who they are. (Of course the decision to impose bond and determining the amount of bond is not a punishment; that's done to ensure the defendant appears for court and to assure the safety of the community). But it is important that the judge is put in a position to consider everything that may be relevant to determining an appropriate punishment, and in the event that someone who is being sentenced for a crime they committed deserves some benefit of the doubt that may warrant a lesser sentence, it is our job to show that reasons exist to give that defendant the benefit of the doubt.
