Stories > Society

Defense Lawyers Reveal What Its Like To Work With Guilty Clients

What do you think is easier: defending someone who is innocent or guilty? Which do you think lawyers prefer? This thread will shed some light onto the private world of attorney-client relationships.

sphip asked defense lawyers of Reddit: What is it like to defend a client who has confessed to you that they're guilty of a violent crime? Do you still genuinely go out of your way to defend them?

Submissions have been edited for clarity, context, and profanity.


No one wants a wrongful conviction.

My criminal law professor said that he preferred guilty clients because he could do his best to ensure a fair procedure but if he lost he didn't sweat it. He took it a lot harder when he would lose a trial for a client that he thought was innocent.

jweinkauf

100% agree with your professor. The emotional impact of losing a trial where you don't think your guy did it is pretty horrific.

bloodie48391

Prosecutor here. You can try to get some sleep after such a loss by remembering that any one of:

  • The arresting officer
  • The prosecutor
  • The judge
  • Any single juror

Could have stopped that conviction. Even if you thought your guy was innocent, enough people involved in the case thought otherwise that you should be able to rest at ease. You did your work.

alreadyreddit2319

Attorney-client privilege cannot be breached.

The real question is, if your client confesses and then another innocent person gets convicted of that crime, what do you do?

ARoyaleWithChz

You should read this article:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/26-year-secret-kept-innocent-man-in-prison/

The client who was already in prison confessed to his attorneys that he killed the security guard. Prosecution tries and convicts someone who is totally innocent. The attorneys meanwhile cannot come forward with their knowledge because 1. the confession would be deemed improper evidence and not be allowed, and 2. they would lose their licenses. They recorded the confession and locked it away until the client died at which point they were able to bring it forward and exonerate the innocent man who had been convicted.

The attorneys talk about how terrible it was but they had no choice due to attorney-client privilege. They said if they thought they could get the evidence in, they would have given up their law licenses to do so.

Crede777

All criminal defendents have the right to a fair trial.

Everyone deserves a defense. It's less about the defendant and more about making sure the state proves its case and can't railroad any defendants.

hastur777

I feel like if more people understood this there would be less hatred toward lawyers. I certainly did not think of it in this way.

CantBake4Sh*t

I interned as a defense attorney working for [state redacted] legal aid society. I was 24 at the time and still in law school. I specialized in getting expungements. Basically if someone was charged with a crime and had met certain requirements, I'd get that conviction wiped from their record. These people deserved it. They worked hard to better themselves and the criteria they had to meet wasn't a cakewalk.

I still had people call me names. In a relatively liberal town at that. If I was at a local bar having a conversation and the topic of my work came up I could almost expect some kind of derogatory comment. Most people don't understand that the principle purpose of a defense attorney is to make sure the defendant gets their due process. Not all defendants are guilty. And, if a defendant is guilty, they don't deserve to rot in jail forever. These basic concepts of innocent until proven guilty and right to due process are things people easily forget.

I have no desire to be a defense attorney and part of it is because I don't want to constantly deal with ignorant people assuming I want to help defendants avoid justice.

vadersdrycleaner

Reasonable doubt.

I used to give some judicial advice (not in the US) and I think you have the wrong idea about lawyers. It's not their job to prove someone is innocent, it is to defend the rights of the defendant. That means for instance that the procedures must be correct, and that the state does its job of building up a reasonable case. And if the person is guilty, he or she still needs a fair trial and a fair sentence.

-----iMartijn-----

This. The burden of proof in most western systems is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense only needs to introduce reasonable doubt.

break_the_system

And, that is reasonable doubt.

Not can I imagine a scenario where the defendant is not guilty, but can I reason out a scenario where a defendant is not guilty.

My mom sat on a jury that found someone "Not Guilty" of a DUI because the evidence was somewhat erratic driving and dash cam video of a cop emptying out a vodka container. No further observations or tests.

She reasoned that people do fill and drink water out of anything that's on hand, or urinate into same.

powderizedbookworm

Defense lawyers keep the state honest.

It's about holding the state accountable. I don't care if my guy did it. If we let the state lock him up without doing its job properly, that means next week it could be you, or me, or your mom that gets sent up for something we didn't do.

murderousbudgie

Protecting your rights as a defendent is a multi-job affair.

Public defender here. I describe my job as part doctor, part tour guide. Like a doctor, sometime I can cure you but sometimes I can just try to make it hurt less. Sometimes I can't do either. Then I'm a tour guide who makes sure that you understand what is happening, why it is happening, and try to give you as much choice in the matter as possible. At the very least, I sit next to you in court so you don't have to face the judge by yourself.

roryismysuperhero

Guilt or innocence are not the main issues.

I'm a defense lawyer.

95% of clients are factually guilty.

No it makes absolutely zero difference to our motivation.

It's a huge misunderstanding that the justice system determines guilt and innocence. It doesn't.

It determines whether the state has enough evidence to lock a human in a cage against their will.

So a client actually being guilty has nothing to do with that question.

Moreover, the vast majority (90+% even if you're a very aggressive attorney) end in a plea. The issue is usually that your client is guilty of something for which they have sufficient evidence, but the state has over charged. You find a reasonable balance based on the strength of the states evidence.

A trial is a broken negotiation and typically only happens if one side is being completely unreasonable, is dumb, or has nothing to lose.

EDIT:

hi all, I dont have time to reply to everyone individually, but let me address the biggest topic of conversation: overcharging.

Couple points - yes it happens all the time. all the time. Especially in lower income communities. Police and prosecutors start from the very highest thing they could possibly charge.

Heres what doesn't happen, which has been brought up a lot in the comments. Guy steals a pack of gum, state charges him with murder, we plea to robbery.

Bargaining in a legal case isnt like haggling for a car. Theres not a high ball and low ball and we land in the middle.

That's because the defense is (supposed) to see the evidence so we know what the reasonable charge would be.

It's more like this: guy steals a pack of gum. Stage charges robbery, battery, assault, and resisting arrest because they allege a scuffle happened during the theft.

I look at it and say, ok the states got great evidence of the theft and really weak evidence of the scuffle and medium evidence for resisting arrest.

So we'll plea to the theft, f*ck off with the robbery battery and assault, and we haggle over the resisting.

If I think maybe maybe they get the robbery than I advice my client to eat the resisting because it really doesnt add to much and the penalty for robbery is 10 years. If I feel confident that they're f*cked on robbery we hold strong and only plea to theft.

So basically, if you have a good attorney we just bash through the overcharging.

Does it move the needle? Yes. Do people cop to charges a bit higher than they should because of the threat of the the overcharged crime? Yes. But are people pleading out to absurd things they didnt do because the state is waving bogus murder charges over their heads? No. Good attorneys dont let that happen.

mayormcskeeze

A lawyer's duty doesn't depend on guilt or innocence.

An attorney has an ethical duty to represent their client zealously. That is true whether we know a client is guilty or not. Whether in court or during pre-trial proceedings we will challenge and evaluate the state's evidence. True whether trying to get a client off all charges, looking to plea, or just figure out a defense strategy. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is a heavy burden. It is a higher standard than guilty by clear and convincing evidence and by the preponderance of the evidence. The reason is simple. If the government is going to take a person's liberty or even their life they had better not be overreaching. The burden is therefore on the prosecution. A defense attorney holds the prosecutor to that.

gaybear63

Lawyers cannot knowingly have their clients lie in court.

I'm late to the party but one thing I've noticed is missing from many top comments is discussion of a lawyers ethical obligations to the bar and to the court. If your client confesses his guilt to you, you cannot elicit false testimony from your client on the stand. You cannot knowingly present false information to the court and if you become aware of that falsity after the fact, you have an obligation to correct the record.

It can get comicated with things like your client testifying. You can choose not to call your client's friend to the stand if you know he will lie, but your client has an absolute right to testify. When you know that your client is guilty but he insists on testifying that he is not, you can have him give narrative testimony in which you, as his lawyer, do not participate.

The standard is typically whether or not you know that something is untrue, not whether you strongly suspect it is.

OldOlleboMP

Lawyers are a check on an aggressive system.

I am a defense lawyer as well.

TLDR; the criminal justice system is so oppressive I don't care so if a guilty client or two gets off scot free. On the whole it benefits society.

There are two kinds of defense lawyers; the ones that live for getting an innocent client off, and those that live for getting a guilty client off. I am probably the latter kind.

At the end of the day most defense attorneys-especially those in more rural areas believe the sentencing and fines for most offenses are outrageous, especially for indigent clients, and perpetuate a system of oppression of the disenfranchised.

Marijuana possession? ~$600 2 days jail and substance abuse classes

Operating while intoxicated? Whether sitting in a car with the engine running because it's cold, or legit drunk driving, easily ~$2000 a long with license suspension, increased insurance costs and 2 days jail. Often sentences come with 1-2 years of probation which drags on with 90-180 days in jail if they don't do well enough.

EDIT: didn't expect this kind of response. Thanks for the lovely discussion.

feefiveforfun

There are some things that sound too good to be true (spoiler alert: they usually are), but there are also plenty of things that sound too ridiculous to be true. These facts that just plain sound like lies were the subject of a recent popular AskReddit thread.

Keep reading... Show less

Unbreakable. It's a miracle.

The nation fell in love with Ellie Goulding as the starry-eyed, spunky Kimmy Schmidt who began a new life in the Big Apple after spending the better part of her adult life locked underground in a bunker.

Along the way, we met (and loved) several other inhabitants of the big city, such as Titus Andromedon, our favorite performer/Times Square costume character; Lillian Kaushtupper, the eccentric landlord of Kimmy and Titus's apartment; and of course Jacqueline Voorhees, the completely out of touch rich socialite from whom Kimmy gets her first job.

Keep reading... Show less
Photo by Emma McIntyre/Getty Images for Hulu

The Handmaid's Tale, Margaret Atwood's searing novel, was written at the height of the Reagan administration and satirized political, social, and religious trends of the 1980s. It's also a hit television series on Hulu that returns on June 5.

While we still have a long way to go before we can find out what's next for June/Offred in the Republic of Gilead, we can, at the very least, regale you with some cool facts about one of the most enduring stories of the last three decades.

The Trailer for Season 3 Plays Off a Slogan from the Reagan Era

Perhaps the best thing that came out of the Super Bowl––aside from the memes haggling Maroon 5 frontman Adam Levine, that is––was the trailer for the third season of the Hulu series.

The trailer lampoons former President Ronald Regan's 1984 "Morning in America" political campaign television commercial.

"It's morning again in America," you hear over a soundtrack and images that resound with boundless optimism. Things turn dark from there. Soon the camera freezes on Elisabeth Moss's face: "Wake up, America," she says.

Margaret Atwood's Follow-Up Will Be Released Later This Year

Margaret Atwood will release a sequel to The Handmaid's Tale titled The Testaments in September 2019. The Testaments is unconnected to Hulu's adaptation and will feature the testimonials of three female narrators from Gilead.

This literary device keeps with the metafictional epilogue that follows Offred's story in the original novel. The novel ends much in the way Season 1 ends: with Offred entering the van at Nick's insistence. The epilogue explains how the events of the novel were recorded onto cassette tapes after the beginning of what scholars have come to describe as "The Gilead Period." An interview with a noted academic implies that a more equitable society, one with full rights for women and freedom of religion restored, emerged following the collapse of the Republic of Gilead.

Serena Joy Waterford Is Likely Based On A Noted Conservative Activist

As the series goes on, we learn more about Serena Joy Waterford (Yvonne Strahovski) and her beginnings.

Serena was a conservative activist who, along with her husband Fred, spearheaded the Puritan movement that ultimately gave rise to Gilead. Inspired by women whom she perceives to have "abandoned" their families in the name of female autonomy, Serena Joy delivers impassioned speeches at venues around the nation calling for policies that would place women back in the home. She even wrote a bestselling book, A Woman's Place, that served as the vessel for much of her conservative dogma and inspired many of the Commander's Wives who become her friends and neighbors.

Serena was likely based on conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, who established herself over many years as one of the fiercest antifeminist and anti-abortion advocates in the United States. Schlafly was also a vociferous opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment, which she considered an attack against traditional gender roles.

The 1990 Film Adaptation Had a Messy Production

A film version of The Handmaid's Tale was released in 1990. It starred Natasha Richardson as Offred, Faye Dunaway as Serena Joy, Robert Duvall as Commander Waterford, Aidan Quinn as Nick, Victoria Tennant as Aunt Lydia, and Elizabeth McGovern as Moira.

The film was not well received and had a messy production. Director Volker Schlöndorff replaced original director Karel Reisz amid internal bickering over a screenplay by Harold Pinter. Schlöndorff asked for rewrites, and Pinter, who was reluctant to do them, directed him to author Margaret Atwood, who was one of several who ended up making changes to Pinter's screenplay.

Pinter told his biographer years later [as quoted in Harold Printer, p. 304] that:

It became … a hotchpotch. The whole thing fell between several shoots. I worked with Karel Reisz on it for about a year. There are big public scenes in the story and Karel wanted to do them with thousands of people. The film company wouldn't sanction that so he withdrew. At which point Volker Schlondorff came into it as director. He wanted to work with me on the script, but I said I was absolutely exhausted. I more or less said, 'Do what you like. There's the script. Why not go back to the original author if you want to fiddle about?' He did go to the original author. And then the actors came into it. I left my name on the film because there was enough there to warrant it—just about. But it's not mine'.

Star Natasha Richardson reportedly felt "cast adrift" when much of Offred's interior monologue was sacrificed as a result of cuts made to the screenplay.

The Film and TV Series Aren't The Only Adaptations of This Seminal Work

There are several different adaptations of Atwood's seminal work, including, but not limited to:

  • an audiobook read by Homeland actress Claire Danes that won the 2013 Audie Award for Fiction
  • a concept album by Canadian band Lakes of Canada
  • a radio adaptation produced in 2000 for BBC Radio 4
  • an operatic adaptation that premiered in 2000 and was the opening production of the 2004–2005 season of the Canadian Opera Company.

Elisabeth Moss, the Star of the Hulu Series, is a Scientologist

Between The West Wing, Mad Men, Top of the Lake, and The Handmaid's Tale, Elisabeth Moss has a reputation for starring in critically acclaimed television shows.

Much has been made, however, of her casting as Offred. Moss was born into the Scientologist belief system, which the German government has classified as an "anti-constitutional sect," the French government has classified as a cult, and the American government has allowed individuals to practice freely though not without considerable contention. Moss also identifies as a feminist.

Asked by a fan about the parallels between Gilead and Scientology (namely the belief that "outside forces" are inherently "evil") Moss responded:

"That's actually not true at all about Scientology. Religious freedom and tolerance and understanding the truth and equal rights for every race, religion and creed are extremely important to me. The most important things to me probably. And so Gilead and THT hit me on a very personal level."

An Episode During Season 2 Highlighted President Donald Trump's Border Crisis

Last summer, President Donald Trump and his administration created a crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border when he and Jeff Sessions, his former attorney general, announced their "zero tolerance" family separations policy. The president blamed Democrats for the policy, imploring them to "start thinking about the people devastated by Crime coming from illegal immigration."

As images and stories of children ripped away from their parents at the border began to circulate, the Season 2 episode "The Last Ceremony" showed just how timely the show really is: After Offred is raped by the Waterfords, Commander Waterford (Joseph Fiennes) allows June/Offred (Elisabeth Moss) to visit her daughter, Hannah, in an undisclosed location. June is given 10 minutes with her daughter before a guard forcibly separates them again.

The episode, written well before the crisis was initiated, premiered just as Homeland Security admitted that more than 2,300 children had been separated from their parents.

Another Episode During Season 2 Appeared to Predict Canada-U.S. Relations

The fallout between the United States and Canada during the G7 summit appeared to have reached its peak once President Donald Trump refused to sign a joint statement with America's allies and threatened to escalate a trade war between America's neighbors. He also referred to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as "weak."

The Season 2 episode "Smart Power"––in which Canadian diplomats ban Gilead's representatives from the country and choose to stand with the women imprisoned in the totalitarian nation in a nod to the #MeToo movement––was written and premiered before the G7 blowup, but is no less prophetic.

In Season 2, Kate Bush's "This Woman's Work" Becomes an Ode to Female Resilience

"This Woman's Work," a ballad written by singer Kate Bush that is also one of the tracks on her 1989 album The Sensual World, serves as an ode to female power and resistance in the horrifying Season 2 opener, where June and the other handmaids realize they're about to be executed. The women are forced to summon strength at a moment of debilitating weakness. As the camera pans over the bleak environs of Fenway Stadium, Bush starts to sing:

Pray God you can cope
I'll stand outside
This woman's work
This woman's world
Ooooh it's hard on a man
Now his part is over
Now starts the craft of the FatherI
know you've got a little life in you left
I know you've got a lot of strength left
I know you've got a little life in you yet
I know you've got a lot of strength left
I should be crying but I just can't let it show
I should be hoping but I can't stop thinking
All the things we should've said that I never said
All the things we should have done that we never did
All the things we should have given but I didn't
Oh darling make it go
Make it go away
















"It was shattering and perfect," said Bruce Miller, who created the Hulu Handmaid's Tale adaptation. "One of the things I really like about the song is that on its face, there's a bit of very interesting lyrical play. It's nice that that's going on while you're watching."

"The Handmaid's Tale" Was the First Streamed Series to Win the Best Drama Series Emmy

Hulu beat out Netflix and Amazon to become the first streaming service to win an Emmy for Best Drama. Unfortunately, because the third season doesn't premiere until June 5, it's ineligible for the 2019 Emmys. Guess we'll see the show back onstage in 2020!

Driving can be pretty boring, especially if you're stuck doing it for hours. Sometimes it can get a little too interesting for comfort though.

Keep reading... Show less

People do horrible things, and there's often nothing we can do about it. Treating people and animals kindly shouldn't be controversial, yet some individuals just don't get it.

iMDirtNapz asked: What have you seen genuinely sh*tty people do that they thought was perfectly acceptable?

Submissions have been edited for clarity, context, and profanity.

Keep reading... Show less