In which Gideon wishes more prosecutors were reasonable
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
This job is tough enough as it is. The law itself is not kind to criminal defendants and those that mount their defense. If that were the only thing we had to struggle against, it would be an uphill battle. When you throw unreasonable prosecutors into the mix, however, it just becomes exasperating.
Every criminal defense lawyer knows what his case is worth. We all know what we would accept in order to resolve a case. After all, plea bargaining is 94% of the criminal justice system. So why do some prosecutors not get it? Why are some so damn difficult to work with? They must know what their case is worth. So why is it easier to make deals and settle with some prosecutors, when oftentimes, with better facts for the defendant, the prosecutor is just so damn reluctant to make a deal?
I couldn’t tell you the number of hours that have been wasted litigating stupid, small issues. Don’t we all have something better to do? Do 6 lawyers need to litigate a case where 120 days of incarceration is at stake?
The one “rationale” that I get from these bullheaded prosecutors over and over again is that it would “open the floodgates”. “Well, if I give your guy that deal, I’ll have to give it to everyone.” Really? If you give the guy with the simple possession charge 6 months suspended you’ll have to give the same offer to the triple murderer? Really? Everyone?
No, I think not. It has nothing to do with the floodgates. It has to do with a lack of knowledge of controlling caselaw and a failure to recognize the weaknesses of your case. Perhaps there’s an ego trip hidden in there somewhere. I’ve found that the easiest prosecutors to deal with are the ones that have been around forever. Those that know how the game is played. As for the rest… I don’t know. I have just one question:
Do we have to try everything?
Life, A-D also bemoans the lack of reasonable prosecutors.
Sphere: Related Content
Loading ...
Some prosecutors probably just don’t like defense attorneys.
Why do you even bother?
Why not? Honestly, I think a lot of you guys are full of yourselves. You hold yourselves out as protectors of liberty etc. etc. And I agree that public defenders provide a service that we need. But make no mistake, abetting witness intimidation, exulting over destroying victims on the stand etc. etc. tick a lot of people off. And there are prosecutors who have the same self-righteousness as you guys do, and they make you work. Forgive me if I don’t feel your pain.
You, my good sir, are now officially a troll.
Fine, I’ll ask another question, and this is with good intentions. Have you ever thought that prosecutors think that they are in the business of protecting society from the predations of your clients? Perhaps, some are a pain in the ass because they honestly believe that being a hardass all the time results, on the whole, on increased safety for society. Put in that perspective, their hardassness may be reasonable.
Believe it or not, if I were a prosecutor, I would likely not be a hardass. But if I thought a defendant a real danger to society, I would drive a very hard bargain.
Lastly, and I am well aware that prosecutors and PDs have different functions, but do you as a PD, where the conduct is worse than the run-of-the-mill case with the same charge as your client, ever make yourself easier to deal with? Do you ever cave a little on a case to make your credibility better on others? Ethically, the answer is no. So when a prosecutor acts the same, is that so bad?
SPO - Yes, I think that most prosecutors are acting on a good faith belief that they are protecting society. But they also need to seek justice and make effective use of the system. It’s a balancing act that some prosecutors can’t seem to handle. Prosecutors should not be in that profession if they are interested in litigating for purposes of winning and losing. Go work on the civil side. I think in criminal court, for prosecution and defense work, egos need to be left at the door as much as possible.
On the defense side, to answer your question, yes, ethically, I zealously represent my client and do everything possible to get the best result for him/her. But obviously, my tone, attitude, and conduct will be different when, for example, I feel a case is worth no more than 2 years in prison, and the offer is 10, as opposed to where the offer is 3. I wouldn’t “cave in” on the 3-year offer, but I can tell you that I would have a much more reasonable and productive conversation with the prosecutor. With the 10-year offer, after I laughed, my comments would be something along the lines of, are you f-ing serious?? This is not a negotiation about money for damages - it’s about justice. I have little patience or respect for those prosecutors who behave like there is no difference.
So, while I would pursue what I thought was an appropriate outcome in either case, my behavior and attitude would be very different in the two scenarios, if that is what you are asking. I have had the pleasure of dealing with some very reasonable prosecutors, who I don’t think anyone would accuse of being “soft on crime.” It’s when the system is at its best - I do my job, they do theirs, and everyone ends up with a result we can all live with.
Without question, prosecutors have to look at resource allocation. One pet peeve of mine is the utter pointlessness (and cruelty) of some prosecutions. The “buttslap” case in Oregon springs to mind. I think also, if I were a prosecutor and some guy spent a few months in jail because he didn’t make bail and it turned out that he flat-out didn’t do it, I would apologize to him in person.
But, were I a prosecutor, I would go against the grain with what things are “worth”. I would push for the max on a lot of violent crimes, and I would creatively use the law to ensure that people got hammered. For example, if the defendant were an illegal alien and violent, I would throw the book at him.
Immigration status and violence are two completely separate and distinct things.
Even as a PD, I understand that violence (both the conduct alleged and the defendant’s history) needs to be considered. But immigration status?
Okay, so you’re anti-illegal-alien. I may disagree, but I get it. That said, wouldn’t it make MORE sense just to get ride of the people who aren’t legally here? Under your own rationale, why allocate resources (housing folks in crowded prisons isn’t free) to those who shouldn’t be here?
If you don’t like illegal aliens, wouldn’t you rather ICE ‘em than “throw the book” at ‘em?
Book, time, then ICE. If I were running the show, deported violent aliens who were found back in the US would face either death (if the deported crime was murder, att. murder, rape, three violent felonies) or LWOP.
The reason I would hammer illegals is that I’d want to send a message that if you weren’t born here, and you commit crimes in my jurisdiction, you will get crushed. That goes for gang graffitti. Anything. Plus, illegals often simply flee back to whence they came, making prosecution more difficult and justice harder to come by. The hammer would come down. Big time. Actually, I think any illegal alien committing a serious crime should be death eligible or face LWOP.
And who said the days of the Compassionate Conservative are dead?