Defending People

the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering

Factual Guilt vs. Legal Guilt

When people talk about “defending the innocent” or “defending the guilty” they’re talking about factual guilt — did the person do what he’s accused of doing? — rather than legal innocence or guilt — has the government proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did what he’s accused of doing (and that no defenses apply)?

The distinction is crucial to an understanding of how and why I do what I do.

Whether they did what they’re accused of or not, everybody I represent in trial is legally innocent; they remain that way unless the government can prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (either in a jury trial or with a guilty plea).

Whether my clients are factually innocent or factually guilty — whether they did what they’re accused of doing — isn’t directly relevant to their defense. Often in America factually innocent people are found guilty; more often (I devoutly hope) factually guilty people are not found guilty.

It doesn’t matter much to me whether my clients did what they’re accused of; what matters most is whether the government can prove its case against them.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Share

About The Author

Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.

Comments

4 Responses to “Factual Guilt vs. Legal Guilt”

  1. tan says:

    omg that was soo confusing … lol

  2. Erika Di Natale says:

    Ok, so if the defendant is actually innocent (he/she did not commit the crime) but found legally guilty (court proved that he/she did), the defendant will still perform their sentence?

  3. [...] evidence was grossly misinterpreted and misrepresented, then his guilt was not proved and he was legally innocent. No doubt it would be quite a coup if Texas was forced to acknowledge that. It’s only the [...]

Leave a non-anonymous Reply

Bad Behavior has blocked 3992 access attempts in the last 7 days.