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: criminal defense, philosophy, guilt
About The Author
omg that was soo confusing … lol
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?
Yes. If the justice system gets it wrong, the person suffers the consequences.
[...] 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 [...]