375
submitted 6 months ago by ylai@lemmy.ml to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 months ago

Sorry, I'm not following. You mean the defendant is fucked and his lawyer he stabbed will try to get revenge on him?

[-] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

If the lawyer does a very good job, then the defendant has no path to later appeal his case. Many defense attorneys aren't there to get their clients out of trouble, especially in high profile cases, they exist to make sure that the law is applied fairly.

[-] johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

If the lawyer does a very good job, then the defendant has no path to later appeal his case.

This is complete nonsense.

[-] Katana314@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

IANAL, but: It circles back to the right to fair representation.

Say he's convicted, but at a later court, claims "After my totally involuntary psychotic episode, now verified by multiple behavioral psychologists, my lawyer held my unintentional actions against me and did a demonstrably poor job in the remainder of the case. I deserve the right to a fair trial."

That COULD be enough to get the case declared a mistrial and re-scheduled.

[-] johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

But there's also a billion reasons you can make an appeal. Most of which have nothing to do with that. Also, being able to make an appeal is a low bar. Most criminal convictions can be appealed...the chance of that appeal overturning the conviction remains low.

[-] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Are you saying you think a defense attorney's job isn't to do their best to defend their client?

[-] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

There could be issues with witnesses or evidence that wasn't handled properly. The attorney could point out all of those flaws in order to best defend their client. That of course would leave the defendant with nothing to try to apply with. A less thorough attorney might not find those issues.

[-] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 months ago

OK, but your previous post says:

Many defense attorneys aren't there to get their clients out of trouble, especially in high profile cases, they exist to make sure that the law is applied fairly.

Do stand by what you said about defense attorneys not "there to get their clients out of trouble?"

[-] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Yes, they are there to present eveey possible defense to the alligatons even if the client is clearly guilty. Reasons for appeal could include improper handling of evidence, interviewing witnesses improperly, or jury issues. If the attorney catches those and brings them up at trial, then they can't be used during an appeal in order to get the client of on a technically.

[-] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago

You're really arguing that a defense attorney's job isn't to get their client out of trouble (or in other words, defend them)? Do you realize how ridiculous that is?

[-] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago
[-] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

From your link:

For several reasons, lawyers should defend their clients vigorously regardless of whether or not they believe them to be innocent.

From your previous post:

Many defense attorneys aren't there to get their clients out of trouble

Their job is specifically to get their clients out of trouble.

[-] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

It's to provide the best defense possible, there's a difference.

[-] TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

This should not be hard to understand.

The police find that man A kills man B. A is now the defendant in a criminal trial. The job of A's lawyer is to introduce facts that improve the outcome of the trial. Sometimes, that's fighting because there isn't enough evidence available to assert that man A actually killed man B. Other times, it's getting their client to plead guilty because it's the easiest thing to do in a case that they're guaranteed to lose. Other times, it's to get a lesser sentence because B was abusive to A and A couldn't escape. It could be that A was acting in self defense.

Removing all nuance and saying that the one and only goal is to get their clients out of trouble is incorrect. Not every defendant is guilty, and not every criminal needs the maximum punishment.

this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2024
375 points (98.7% liked)

Not The Onion

11931 readers
711 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS