Mean Justice / An Interesting Book by Edward Humes (Part 2)

Re:  My previous post (9/30/11) on the book Mean Justice.

To the reader who sent me the recent comment, thank you.  Your comment is well said, and the basis for a good discussion.  It is the type of comment that always draws me back to my computer when, perhaps, I should be doing other things.

Reader said:  "For attorneys, particularly trial lawyers, it is all about winning." You certainly have an issue with that, don't you! That last I heard, anyone charged with a crime in this country are entitled to a fair trial. When a lawyer is hired to defend someone in a criminal case that is exactly what they are expected to do and have to do. They can think their client is the scum of the earth but when they take their case - even if appointed by the Court to defend that person - they have to defend them to the best of their ability. I have a lawyer friend who is one the best in defending his clients in court. However, he is very selective of the clients he takes on to defend. A person walks into his office who is charged with or suspected of possible child abuse in any manner he won't even give them a minute of his time to sit down to discuss their version whether guilty or innocent.

True’s response:  Yes, indeed, it is all about winning!  That is my point exactly.  Our system of justice is one of the best in the world, but it is not without faults.  The presupposition on which that system is based is that:  two equally prepared and erudite attorneys will face-off in a courtroom under what might be considered strictly enforced Marques of Queensberry Rules.  The result, or should I say the hoped for result, is justice.  But, for attorneys, both defense and prosecution, justice is often synonymous with winning.  Does that mean that attorneys can’t be nice people?  Of course they can.

My earlier comparison of the courtroom with a sporting event like baseball or football is not completely accurate.  In the courtroom the competitors are evaluated by a panel of 12 unprepared, unsophisticated, and in many instances uneducated individuals who know little or nothing about the judicial system.  A football or baseball game has a well defined outcome, and a fairness that far exceeds the courtroom.  Somewhat surprisingly justice does often / usually prevail in the courtroom, but not always.  Jurors can be and are manipulated by attorneys based on the attorney’s reputation, eloquence, command of details, or even their appearance.  And that’s not to mention a juror’s preconceived notions and biases.

Regarding attorney ethics:  Have you ever heard an attorney, either defense or prosecution, who – subsequent to a decision – said, ‘Hey, I’m sorry, but the jury got this one wrong?’  ‘I honestly believe the person is actually guilty (from the defense side); or I honestly believe the person is innocent (from the prosecution side).’  You will never hear that because they would be promptly disbarred and/or fired.

If you are an attorney, you need to check your conscience and ethical standards at the courtroom door – or find other employment.  Winning is everything.

Reader said:  We both know there are clients who lie to their lawyers and sometimes lawyers actually don't catch on. However, an ethical lawyer will NOT permit his client to get on the stand and lie! Now if that lawyer defends that client to the best of his ability, without the client testifying, and wins the case then shame on the prosecution for not having their case iron-clad! The arrogance and/or sloppy investigation of many a prosecutor has cost them the loss of a case and a guilty person has walked free!

True’s Response:  Yes, you are entirely correct.  Good lawyers will not let their client get on the stand and lie.  And, defendants are not required to take their chances on the stand – even if they plan to tell the truth.  Good prosecutors could destroy Mother Teresa.  Question:  Even though they could, would those efforts be ethical?

And, as I understand your point, if the prosecution comes to court ‘not having their case ironclad,’ then it is justifiable for a guilty person to walk.  Is this ethical on the part of a defense attorney to take advantage of an improperly prepared prosecutor, and let a murderer or rapist go free?

Reader said:  I would think, True, that if you or any member of your family should ever need a defense lawyer you would expect and want nothing but the best out of that lawyer in defending the whoever!

True’s Response:  Yes, you are right; I would want a good attorney.  But, I would hope that if I was the one on trial, and I knew I was guilty, that I would stand and take my punishment.  If the person on trial was a close relative, and I knew them to be guilty, I would tell them the same thing.  You only live once.  This is your moment to stand and deliver.

One other thing, you mentioned that your attorney friend never took cases involving ‘child abuse.’  When you read Mean Justice, you will probably have a new perspective.

True Nelson