How do solicitors/lawyers defend bad people

DEFTLEFTHAND · 04-06-2016 11:55AM

I watched a documentary on John Gotti recently and his lawyer Bruce Cutler is unbelievable.

To this day he maintains that Gotti was never in the Mafia. He was a hard working plumbing supply salesman from Howard Beach. The only reason the FBI were on his back was because they're prejudiced against blue collar Italians.

Icemancometh · 04-06-2016 12:03PM

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Supposing he sits on his backside and makes no objection to the introduction of inculpatory evidence (which should be excluded due to a breach of rules of admissibility of evidence), resulting in his client's conviction?

That might be a good day's work for the State but it might cause sleepless nights for the defence lawyers.

Absolutely. Mine isn't a rational position, it's emotional. You can't be reasoned out of emotion! A victim might want a brutal punishment as retribution, but that doesn't mean it's reasonable.

wokingvoter · 04-06-2016 12:10PM

the evasion_kid wrote: »

Lawyers...awful soulless creatures..

Until you need one because your in trouble.....

Samaris · 04-06-2016 12:26PM

Top lawyers can turn down a case if they just really can't cope with it, and the "ideal" situation for a defense lawyer is probably to have an actually innocent man with the weight of prejudice and circumstantial evidence against them and to argue so brilliantly in public that they swing everyone around to their point of view. But that doesn't really often happen. And a junior lawyer can't really afford to be too picky about the cases they take due to emotional attachment because they'll be seen as someone who is emotionally lead and unable to participate in the full justice system.

That faint sense of "how could someone defend that piece of scum" might be part of the distrust towards lawyers though. Maybe it feels somewhat dishonest to go against your own convictions for a legal system, a bureaucracy that many people disagree with elements of.

harry Bailey esq · 04-06-2016 04:00PM

They are paid handsomely to do so,morality goes out the window.

Muahahaha · 04-06-2016 04:13PM

During the Graham Dwyer murder trial the prosecuting barrister for the DPP was Sean Guerin. Remy Farrell was the barrister trying to get Dwyer off the hook.

Then just a few weeks ago we had the trial of David Mahon who killed his own stepson with a knife. On that occasion Remy Farrell was the prosecuting barrister for the DPP and Sean Guerin was defending David Mahon.

You could imagine the craic between Remy Farrell and Sean Guerin in the Kings Inns bar after a case- 'Got you that time Remy'! 'No worries Sean, but your client in this next case is going down'!

Its funny how it plays out that one case you're prosecuting a crazed murderer and the next you're defending one. But that's their job at the end of the day and they're obviously quite good at it if they're in such demand for high profile criminal cases.

bodice ripper · 04-06-2016 04:32PM

Creepy ad to go with thread...

Cienciano · 04-06-2016 04:55PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The answer to this goes all the way back to student debating, and the principles that it stands by.

I remember asking once, "how does one prepare an argument for something they, themselves, are against?"

The answer I got, "...with great difficulty."

It forces you to be clear of mind, to dismiss emotion & anger as false Satans that would consume us all Walking Dead style if we let it.

Lawyers are debaters, they don't have any convictions themselves. they pride themselves on being about to squeeze every drop, every morsel of good points for their side, whichever it may be. Their opinion of a case doesn't matter. It can't matter. The entire point of a court is that you wipe the slate, put all the facts, right and wrong, on the table and decide what is most just. For that to happen, you need the balance of the devil's advocate. A court with one side isn't a court, it's a lynching. And if one criminal deserves a lynch court and another a normal court, who's to decide that "THIS guy gets the lynch, THIS guy gets the normal court"? A judge?

This is a great answer

degsie wrote: »

It's called the justice system. Google it.

This is a retarded answer

OP asked an honest question, fair play to seaslacker for replying with a good well thought out answer

uck51js9zml2yt · 04-06-2016 04:58PM

Money speaks a lot louder than integrity for some people.
Saw it first hand a few years ago. The barrister was almost asking us to cannonise the toe rag.
A list of criminal activity as long as your arm !

04-06-2016 07:02PM

Icemancometh wrote: »

It's on the emotional level that I'm lost. That a good barrister leaves work thinking I've put a good shift in today, used my extensive training, talent, and experience to get that rapist back on the streets years earlier. It's keep me awake at night anyway.

But again that misses the point of their job. The barrister has not "put a rapist back on the street early", the determination of guilt is one for the Court, the assessment of the length of the sentence is again for the Court, or the prison system may decide to release a prisoner early. The barrister's sole function is to present the accused's case, not to add or change one single fact or instruction, to assess what is relevant at law etc. No barrister would present something he or she has made up, as you can appreciate the first person to complain will be the client. A lawyer can't even assert what they know to be untrue, it would be highly dangerous. And even in presenting the case, they must do so as officers of the Court - have seen Judges reprimand lawyers for trying to go down avenues that are offside in presenting a case such as making accusations about the victim or witness in an assault case.

Peter Anthony · 04-06-2016 07:09PM

Deleted User wrote: »

have seen Judges reprimand lawyers for trying to go down avenues that are offside in presenting a case such as making accusations about the victim or witness in an assault case.

Are you not allowed to do that, ie question the character of witnesses or victims ? Would have thought their previous character, and reliability was very relevant, and if not up to scratch should be brought up!?

monkeysnapper · 04-06-2016 07:28PM

wokingvoter wrote: »

In other parts of the world, in countries much bigger then Ireland, there is really no justice system.
If a teenage virgin unmarried girl is gang raped, there are no judges, no juries, no solicitors, no evidence
A meeting of village elders will decide that she was to blame
Would you prefer that kind of system?

I stumbled across a video on YouTube one night where the locals including small children watched while people beat a young Lady then set her on fire , when it looked like fire might be about to quench another lad doused her in petrol . absolutely horrendous stuff .

Everybody deserves a fair trial . like has been said here there's a lot of innocent people ever spent a life time in jail .

Icemancometh · 04-06-2016 09:17PM

Deleted User wrote: »

But again that misses the point of their job. The barrister has not "put a rapist back on the street early", the determination of guilt is one for the Court, the assessment of the length of the sentence is again for the Court, or the prison system may decide to release a prisoner early. The barrister's sole function is to present the accused's case, not to add or change one single fact or instruction, to assess what is relevant at law etc. No barrister would present something he or she has made up, as you can appreciate the first person to complain will be the client. A lawyer can't even assert what they know to be untrue, it would be highly dangerous. And even in presenting the case, they must do so as officers of the Court - have seen Judges reprimand lawyers for trying to go down avenues that are offside in presenting a case such as making accusations about the victim or witness in an assault case.

Doesn't all of that assume that all barristers are equal. Surely someone pays these fees to get better representation to get a reduced penalty. In that instance can't it be said that the barrister reduced whatever penalty they receive?

04-06-2016 09:28PM

Peter Anthony wrote: »

Are you not allowed to do that, ie question the character of witnesses or victims ? Would have thought their previous character, and reliability was very relevant, and if not up to scratch should be brought up!?

There are rules about cross examining character, it can be dangerous and a Judge will warn that if you go too far down that road it can open up the accused to character evidence eg. submitting details of prior convictions during the hearing itself. So again the lawyer must clearly warn the client if the instructions are to do so. Even implying blame in a case such as an assault can see a Judge remind the lawyer that the witness is not on trial. I have seen Judges demand that lawyers apologise to witnesses if they have implied some wrong doing on their part.

04-06-2016 09:31PM

Icemancometh wrote: »

Doesn't all of that assume that all barristers are equal. Surely someone pays these fees to get better representation to get a reduced penalty. In that instance can't it be said that the barrister reduced whatever penalty they receive?

But the barrister is only there to present the accused's defence in the best way possible, and cross examine the evidence or testimony against his or her client. They will challenge the evidence and attack any weaknesses, but that's perfectly legitimate and indeed welcome in any functioning democracy where the legal system and fundamental civil liberties such as the presumption of innocence and the right to be heard are respected.

Cee-Jay-Cee · 04-06-2016 09:38PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If it happens, could you cite one case where a solicitor or barrister "blatantly lied"?

I am not sure if you understand what happens. Lawyers take their clients instructions and present the case. No one is got to risk their practising cert to step outside that and tell lies. Of course they rely on what their client tells them, but any lawyer who stands up and goes against instructions and lies, risking their career for a client, is a fool.

People seem to forget that it's not the function of Solicitors or barristers to determine whether people are good or bad, or whether they are telling the truth or not. That is the function of the Courts.

Yes I could but I won't in an open forum. I attend court regularly as part of my job, I've been to court literally hundreds of times. I see solicitors suddenly coming out with excuses based on Guards evidence. Yes they always spin the 'my client will say...' ****e but the client never says and never did say as the excuse only popped into his head based on something said in evidence.

And the one that really irks me is the solicitor defending a case and denying his/her client done what they're accused of yet when judgement is passed the solicitors suddenly have an excuse for why their client done what they denied they done 5 minutes previously.

riclad · 04-06-2016 09:45PM

The law in ireland is if you are on a low income ,
you are entitled to legal aid.
You are presumed innocent before you go to court,
who says so and so should not get a lawyer,
a drug dealer, someone who sells untaxed cigarette,s .
a burglar ?
Look at the innocence project in the usa .
Many people are in prison in the us cos of made up evidence .
eg hair sample evidence from the fbi lab
which was found to be false or misleading .
Many people have been released after 10-20 years in jail due to dna evidence
showing them to be innocent .

04-06-2016 09:50PM

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

Yes I could but I won't in an open forum. I attend court regularly as part of my job, I've been to court literally hundreds of times.

I have been going for 20 years myself and know one thing.

Not one of us think our practising cert is worth lying to get some fellow we'll probably never see again a few months off a sentence.

And that's not based on some morality thing. It's simply self preservation. If I lied and the client got jail anyway, I'd expect a fairly serious complaint to the Law Society and possibly a civil action against me. And your suggestion, that I can say I lied because I thought it would (or did) benefit him, would be no defence at all. Because the first person they blame after a verdict is their own side.

I have never ever used the "my client will say" without clearly knowing that my client will actually say it. Because if he doesn't, well that's just fairly stupid. It's a very bad lawyer who doesn't clearly know what his client will say to any relevant matter appearing in the evidence (and remember we have the book of evidence or Gary Doyle Order papers before, so we know what the prosecution and Garda witnesses will say and would have taken instructions on it).

lazybones32 · 05-06-2016 01:34AM

hairyslug wrote: »

There is a case over in England at the moment of a paedophile of possibly raped up to 200 kids, they can pin about 70 on him cause of videos and pictures he took and shared on line.
Before sentencing, his lawyer pleaded for a lenient sentence as he was young and had no previous convictions.
How can anyone try and defend people like this, even his parents, once they found out contacted the police.

This bugs the sh*t out of me. It really does...Elton John's bf being in a 3some in a paddling pool deserves the full protection of the Law but an obvious danger to humanity is afforded protection because he/she can afford it.

feargale · 05-06-2016 01:41AM

hairyslug wrote: »

I mean morally, how can they stand up there and say "look, this guy isn't as bad as it looks, it's all a big misunderstanding" knowing full well the extent of the crimes

I understand everyone has the right to be defended but surely a lawyer has the ability to say no.

You should read up a bit on law and jurisprudence, because, quite frankly, you haven't a clue.

B.A._Baracus · 05-06-2016 01:53AM

Interesting points made in the thread so far.... But it does have to be said that there are solicitors out there who really don't care who they defend. All about the money. Conscience doesn't matter sadly.

endacl · 05-06-2016 02:13AM

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Interesting points made in the thread so far.... But it does have to be said that there are solicitors out there who really don't care who they defend. All about the money. Conscience doesn't matter sadly.

Sure, people engage in all kinds of professions 'for the money'. So what? Is everybody supposed to be a vocational idealist?

BuilderPlumber · 05-06-2016 02:21AM

Why does Ayatollah Ali Khamenei front for a violent paramilitary army that took control of a once great nation and destroyed it?
Why does a person smuggle drugs in a suitcase to get from one country to another?
Why does a person kill a rival drug dealer on behalf of another drug dealer?

The REASON is that all three above are paid by criminals to do something they cannot do themselves. Legal professionals take that to another level and have to provide the defense for the criminals they are being paid by (or if they are poor criminals, that the state pays for) and to abide by the legal system we have.

B.A._Baracus · 05-06-2016 02:37AM

endacl wrote: »

Sure, people engage in all kinds of professions 'for the money'. So what? Is everybody supposed to be a vocational idealist?

Picture yourself as a solictor in the example the OP said >>

hairyslug wrote: »

There is a case over in England at the moment of a paedophile of possibly raped up to 200 kids, they can pin about 70 on him cause of videos and pictures he took and shared on line.
Before sentencing, his lawyer pleaded for a lenient sentence as he was young and had no previous convictions.
How can anyone try and defend people like this, even his parents, once they found out contacted the police.

As quoted above, Some solictors will feel that everyone has a right to legal council. but some will not care what such a person has done. Morals, conscience and everything goes out the window for the paycheck. We're not talking about working in the stockroom in Argos here after all.

... actually i feel a bit weird saying some solicitors will feel the right to legal council. feel like i am censoring myself. let's just call a spade a spade. Some people will do anything for money and gladly look themselves in the mirror.

Cathy.C · 05-06-2016 03:15AM

The lawyer (David Aylor) for the cop (Michael Slager) that shot a black guy (Walter Scott) in the back as he ran away from him after a traffic stop in April of last year, without question quit as soon as he became aware of his clients guilt. Or at least aware that the cop's story didn't match up to video footage that became available a few hours before he decided to quit.

aphex™ · 05-06-2016 03:43AM

I remember some english comedy writer who had previously been a solicitor for a number of years said he used to ask his clients if they were guilty.
He'd say "Now, you have to be honest with me" to try to get them to give him the real story. He said none of them ever said they were innocent.
That was about 300 cases.

The reality is that if it gets that far to court a lot of things have to add up.
Unless you live in Donegal in which cased you're ****ed.

05-06-2016 05:12AM

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Why does Ayatollah Ali Khamenei front for a violent paramilitary army that took control of a once great nation and destroyed it?

Snap.

The sound of the elastic band in your point breaking, when it was stretched to blaming lawyers for the Ayatollah and the destruction of Iran.

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

As quoted above, Some solictors will feel that everyone has a right to legal council. but some will not care what such a person has done. Morals, conscience and everything goes out the window for the paycheck. We're not talking about working in the stockroom in Argos here after all.

... actually i feel a bit weird saying some solicitors will feel the right to legal council. feel like i am censoring myself. let's just call a spade a spade. Some people will do anything for money and gladly look themselves in the mirror.

The worst had to be the lawyers for the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4. As you know, they DEFINITELY did it. Whoever represented them had no conscience or morals at all.

05-06-2016 05:14AM

aphex™ wrote: »

I remember some english comedy writer who had previously been a solicitor for a number of years said he used to ask his clients if they were guilty.
He'd say "Now, you have to be honest with me" to try to get them to give him the real story. He said none of them ever said they were innocent.
That was about 300 cases.

The reality is that if it gets that far to court a lot of things have to add up.
Unless you live in Donegal in which cased you're ****ed.

Dear God.

"If you are prosecuted, you kinda hsve to be guilty".

Do people actually not understand how democracies, as opposed to police states, work?

B.A._Baracus · 05-06-2016 05:47AM

Conor74,
Are you a solictor? or have a family member or a someone close who is one? Your replies and the amount of times you've posted in this thread is very defensive. It comes off as an vested interest that opposes to any negative opinion.

pickarooney · 05-06-2016 08:16AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The prosecution runs the cases together.

If there was a risk of consecutive sentencing , I think the chances of guilty pleas would drop dramatically, trials would become much longer and more expensive. Why would the accused in the case referred to above for example plead guilty if he was going to get 28 years (longer than the average life sentence for murder)?

And of course lawyers would target the weakest link, the most questionable accusation, in the hope it would set up a domino effect.

When you're on concurrent sentences do you get two breakfasts?

How do solicitors/lawyers defend bad people

Comments