1 Comment

"....[criminal] defense attorneys are known to pride themselves on finding creative ways of rationalizing absurd, unethical, immoral, and otherwise indefensible conduct. And, like partisans, they do so with a direct, singularly-focused sense of purpose: protecting their client."

Where did you get this idea? Please provide some examples. That they're known to do this may be true in some circles, but it's largely mythical. I don't deny that sometimes lawyers do this, but usually they're spouting nonsense - falsely bragging at parties or to friends.

Any competent criminal defense attorney knows his audience - in legal matters it's the judge and, in factual matters it's usually the jury. The incompetent ones learn quickly or go into another line of work.

Although an attorney's legal duty is to pursue his client's legal interest "zealously within the bounds of the law [including the cannons of professional ethics]," he knows that this means catering to the judge and the fact finder - in criminal cases, usually the jury. Some say that the certain laws or legal procedures are absurd. But that is an entirely different matter. Any lawyer not taking advantage of a law or legal procedure favoring his client is committing malpractice. Trial judges are under oath to apply the laws even if they ardently disagree with them.

Judges are not fools. Neither are juries as a whole (generally speaking) - I know from personal experience that when they deliberate they collectively exhibit seriousness of purpose and wisdom. Any attorney who argues for a legal ruling that has no (legal) reasonable basis not only sullies his reptation to that judge he is also subject to sanction. Any criminal defense attorney who argues absurd facts to a jury to get his client off, usually appears a fool to the jury and the presiding judge.

If the facts and the law are against a client, his attorney will almost always urge him to accept a settlement that lessens his damages. Sometimes a criminal defendant will not accept his attorney's stern advice. Not infrequently, a criminal defendant will urge his attorney to tell the jury an absurd rationalization of his behavior that legally exonerates him.

Because a criminal defendant has an absolute right to testify and because a criminal defense attorney may not betray his loyalty to his client, the criminal defendant can say anything he wants to the jury., only subject to cross-examination by the prosecution Whether his attorney supports the defendant's absurd rationalizations to the jury in closing argument is a professional judgment he must make. If he does so, he struggles to keep a straight face before the jury - to say he is proud of this, defies logic.

If a criminal defense calls other witnesses or tries to introduce exhibits into evidence that "...rationaliz[es] absurd, unethical, immoral, and otherwise indefensible conduct.," he certainly know he is making a fool of himself. He's undoubtedly not proud of this, and would rather his client accept a plea deal.

As for a criminal defense attorneys "...finding creative ways of rationalizing absurd, unethical, immoral, and otherwise indefensible conduct....", they frequently use such conduct as a sacrifice for criminal conduct, e.g. "My client was a poor - perhaps even abusive - husband and a terrible Father, but that is completely different from being a murderer - the evidence does not show that he killed his wife."

The juxta position is that, in the court of public opinion, talk is cheap - VERY cheap. It's not uncommon for lawyers in high profile cases to blather nonsense before the public, nonsense that they would have the good sense not to spout in court - except that a few lawyers, like Rudy Giuliani and that chick who worked for Trump, get so intoxicated by their BS that they forget their audience or their professional obligations when they enter a courtroom.

Likewise, politicians and other public figures can and not infrequently do "find[] creative ways of rationalizing absurd, unethical, immoral, and otherwise indefensible conduct...." Their statements are frequently aimed at a particular demographic of voters. Given the increasingly tribal nature of politics, this conduct is often effective. Their comments are not subject to a controlled and rigorous cross-examination. They are not accountable to a judge, a jury or to the rule of law.

Expand full comment