What does it mean when a defense lawyer says this:
“I believed before opening statements and I believe today that (my client) is not guilty.”
Does it mean that the lawyer believes that the prosecution went after the wrong dude? Or that the lawyer believes that the prosecution never had a strong enough case to warrant a conviction?
The quote comes from an article in today’s SJ-R and it struck me because of its equivocalness. The lawyer could have said his client was innocent, if that’s what he really believed. Maybe he’s not sure himself.
The case in question, which you can read about here, concerns Jeff Pelo, a Bloomington police officer recently convicted of raping four women. There was no physical evidence, DNA or hair samples or the like, tying the defendant to the crime scenes or victims. Prosecutors contend that as a 17-year law enforcement veteran, Pelo knew how to scrub a crime scene of evidence. There was, however, eye witness testimony and other circumstantial evidence that was persuasive enough to convince the jury, if not the defense attorney.
I’ve always been curious about the job of criminal defense lawyer. Do they even care if their client did it?
I know that everyone deserves their day in court and a vigorous defense, but it always seems to me that it’s the defense lawyer’s job to just make stuff up. That doesn’t seem to be the best way to arrive at the truth.
If you followed the R. Kelly trial, where he was accused of pedophilia and other sexually deviant acts, you’d have read about how his team of attorneys threw a slew of improbable theories or unlikely defenses against the wall in hopes that one of them would stick. One did. But if Kelly was truly not guilty of the charges brought against him, wouldn’t there have been one angle of defense stronger than the rest – the truth?
After the OJ trial, that proved that sometimes police will frame a guilty man, I started to wonder if in the future, the only way you’d be able to convict a rich man* is by having a video of them committing the crime. Well, they had a video tape of Kelly committing the crime, and he still got away with it.
Given that Kelly had previously reached financial settlements with four other girls or women who accused him of sex crimes, information that was withheld from the jury, I feel pretty confident that he’s a guilty man. But he was acquitted and he’s free to go about making records in which he drops hints about liking young girls.
As for Pelo, he’ll be going away for a long time. And rightly so.
Justice, go figure.
*By rich man, I mean someone who can afford the best that lawyering has to offer.
Loading ...
Dan, I struggled with that issue for a lot of years. I came ot underatand that “everyone” deserves equal and fair protection under the law. I began to see that it was the defense’s job to make sure that the prosecution had done theres correctly and accurately. There are a lot of cops and prosecutors that don’t make a lot of money out there and they are dealing with people’s freedom. Many times there are not i’s dotted and t’s crossed that are essential.
Whether or not the defense beleives his client is guilty or not is not the question. His equal and fair protection overrides that. A not guilt plea is just asking for documentation (discovery) and time to review whether prosecution did their job.
Dave H | Jun 20, 2008 | Reply
Defense Lawyers, have a great responsibility to make sure an accused get’s a fair and just trial by his peers. even if that same Lawyer knows of his guilt or innocence. Simply because everyone deserves to be heard and given a trial by jury or plead guilty t6o begin with of the charges for the crime they are being accused of. Problem.. people that have broke the law knowingly have a very hard time pleading guilty to the crime they know they are being charged with. Not Guilty is the only option one has unless they want to sentance themselves to a jail, prison, or death row. depending on the crime they have knowingly done. This is to be a given that most knowing they have a chance of being found innocent will plead not guilty because they already know that evidence is sometimes not always allowed that would certainly convict them.
O.J. Simpson trial I watched. whom on the jury did not understand that the Leather glove that was so kindly given as evidence that did not firt the accused hand missed the evidence that it had been wet, wet leather when it dries shrinks. so of course it would then not fit as it should have would it. So whom missed that bit of info. Or was the wet Glove a set up to help him be found innocent. or was the glove really never wet to begin with. surely if the Glove was the used Glove in the crime and it would have had blood on it to be washed off hmmm evidence lost is evidence that cannot be given ad without much of the Convicting evidence the Guilty can be set free andmany things that are a true evidence can sometimes make the innocent look guilty so the guilt or innocence of any one person has flaws in the process. In the case of our right to a trial of guilt or innocence, sometimes confessing ones guilt to begin with would be the better choice. for all concerned. The truth is, wisdom is truely needed by many in the courtroom of any trial of the guilty or the innocent because mistakes can and do get made and what appears to be a truth is not and what appears to be a lie is not so what can lawyers, Jury memebers, and the judge on the bench do, to make absolutely certain that death does not come to one that is really innocent of PREMEDITATED, THOUGHT OUT, PLANNED, AND CARRIED OUT MURDER OF ANOTHER of HIS FELLOWMAN? I do not know the answer Because the wisdom of Solomon is not among many today, if any at all.
Yet killing a person is not necessarily Murder. this is the point. Giving aDeath penalty to someone that is VICIOUS, WICKED, AND evil enough to rape and murder an innocent child is not in my opinion anyone that deserves less then the death penalty. many kill people because of many reasons, yet to rape and murder a INNOCENT CHILD is beyond a right to any longer be entitled to a life. OF course this is Just my opinion. anyone being accused of such and is guilty never wants anyone like me or me on the Jury. as for other cases these must always have very many evidences to make a right decision for any Death sentance to be given to an adult or a Child old enough that knows RIGHT from wrong to begin with. Our Court System is not perfect NONE ARE. I do however believe it is the best we have and it could be improved by less LIES and more truth and allowed Evidence to be given. all that is LEGALLY possiblt that is. this of course will not make much difference when it comes to a Defense attorny’s JOB , DUTY, and RIGHT to at least give the best defense he can without Violating a RIGHT TO also protecting the Rights of the Victim and the due justice for a Crime to be given some sort of punishment rather then to just let the crimnal walk free without any at all.
Sometimes even the FREED GUILTY will be judged because of his own knowledge of what he has done. The guilt and consequences of the act. is and sometimes is what gives it’s own punishment to the CRIMINAL if they have any consionce REMORSE at all. Make no mistake there are some that have no conscience or remorse. These are just plain evil, wicked, that are among us in this world. I have absolutely no doubt that many can have at least one or two cases that would come to mind that would fit this catagory of CRIMINALS.
Suzie | Jul 1, 2008 | Reply