Comments on: A(n Ex-)Prosecutor’s Principles

By: Our interest in not convicting the innocent | People v. State

Our interest in not convicting the innocent | People v. State — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 04:10:11 +0000

[...] may read this famous opinion differently, but I read it to say that the mission of defense counsel is to do [...]

By: To Serve and Get Paid | People v. State

To Serve and Get Paid | People v. State — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:28:58 +0000

[...] if any, the pursuit of Justice plays in the job of the criminal defense attorney, Norm Pattis and Mark Bennett perceived a discrepancy in someone who writes a blog called “People v. State” implying [...]

By: Sorry, but Justice is all there is | People v. State

Sorry, but Justice is all there is | People v. State — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 03:50:46 +0000

[...] to even weigh in on such a weighty topic. There’s a misconception out there that I’m a crazy kid. Crazy is in the eye of the beholder, but, alas, a kid I’m not. This Michaelmas I’ll be [...]

By: Ric Moore

Ric Moore — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:53:29 +0000

In cases where the defendant is actually guilty, getting ALL of the elements of the crime before the bar, that might mitigate the crime to a lessor offense level, is the best moral effort by the defending attorney. Then, you plea bargain from there.

It’s far better if your client doesn’t find out from some jail-house lawyer that you could have received better treatment during the bargaining session, and/or that the DA didn’t present all the elements to the Grand Jury and you wound up doing more time, when the proper charges would have gotten you less time and/or probation. That would be the Zen moment, when all efforts are exhausted for the defense and what could be done for the client was done.

By: Mickey Fox

Mickey Fox — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:09:09 +0000

Yeah, he’s absolutely right. I needn’t worry, someone else will cover the defendant.

And when they came for me, no one was left to complain…

By: Matthew Arnold

Matthew Arnold — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:53:51 +0000

When I was in law school, my criminal procedure professor advised me not to start out in a DA’s office, but to do criminal defense right out of the gate. I regret not taking his advice, for after ten years as a prosecutor, it took me many more years to get to the point where I felt honorable about my job as a criminal defense attorney. I had been indoctrinated in the view that the role of the defense attorney was to thwart justice. This view is I think quite common among prosecutors. It is developed in part through frustration of young inexperienced prosecutors getting schooled by those tricky (more experienced) defense attorneys, and also through a corrupting influence that awesome power of that position. I remember to this day the first time I walked across the bridge from the parking lot to the Dallas Criminal Courts building as a defense attorney, only then did I fully appreciate the awesome power I had just relinquished.
As I have matured I have taken a broader view. Our justice system is just that, a system, created by our society to as accurately and as fairly as possible decide key issues. It is an adversarial system. As an advocate for the defense, I am necessary for the system itself to function. The system adjudicates the labels of guilt or innocence, not me, or the prosecutor, although prosecutors routinely delude themselves into thinking they can do this by themselves. We, all of us, are mere mortals. True guilt or innocence is well beyond our pay grade. All we can do is to do our jobs, to be professionals, to advocate zealously for our clients, and hope that the system works. And as members of a society that aspires to justice, work together to change the system if and when changes become apparently necessary to more perfectly achieve that goal.

By: Norm pattis

Norm pattis — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:07:11 +0000

As is far too often the case, I don’t get it. I generally have no idea whether my clients are guilty. If I did I suppose I’d be a witness. I get a pretty good idea of the strength of the admissible evidence against a client. Some cases are tougher than others to defend. I like the tough ones as intellectual challenges. But the concept of screening cases for factual innocence is an odd one. In any case, I am grateful to Kindley for focusing my attention on VB. Read Helter Skelter forever ago and am currently reading VB on Kennedy assassination: he marshal’s facts well and that is an inspiration.

By: Sean Shopes

Sean Shopes — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 01:13:55 +0000

And here I thought it was all about me.

By: Mark Bennett

Mark Bennett — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:10:52 +0000

That was in response to John, not you.

By: Sean Shopes

Sean Shopes — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:03:04 +0000

Contempt for only some of those who’ve come before us! Besides, I’m happy to give VB the respect he’s due (and not an iota more) – I love his bit in the same book that skewers judges in general as being essentially political beasts (recall my relative youth and naivete, if you please). What I find more interesting in all of this is where he and other prosecutors are on the ethical scale. The injunction “to do justice” seems, at minimum, stage five or six – though I’m well aware most prosecutors, even the good ones, fall well short of this (War on Drugs, anyone?). But this gets into another thread altogether…though that edict is as idealistic as any a CDL would hold.