Letters to the Editor
-
Mr. Franklin,
He could ask his client if he is guilty for one. Are you saying that defense attorneys never believe their clients to be guilty? If the client started to voluntarily confess his guilt to would you hear him out and then go to the judge and say that your client is guilty or would you tell you client not to tell even you.
-
fetboy
Just because a crime was committed (any crime, not just rape) but a person was not convicted does not mean a travesty of justice occurred. You see that don't you? I mean, you do still require the state to present evidence sufficient to convince the jury of guilt, don't you? You're not arguing that we should take the word of anyone and everyone who claims to be the victim of a criminal wrong, do you? (The reason I ask is that some feminists believe exactly that in rape cases. And of course you've never answered my question about the issue of corroborating evidence which I find a bit suggestive. Should I?) The vast majority of those cases you allude to don't result in guilty verdicts because there's not enough evidence to get an indictment, bring them to trial or convict the accused. Your post is alarming. It suggests that you have little regard for the rights of those accused. It further suggests you want the state to have considerably greater power to imprison the innocent. I hope that neither is the case, but you seem perilously close to both.
I have several attorney friends who do criminal defense work. They describe the criminal "justice" system as a conveyor belt that begins at arrest and ends in jail. That is their view of the inevitability of the process. There are thousands of innocent people in jail this very minute because of that inevitability. The fact is that the deck is stacked against defendants. You want to stack it further. From a civil libertarian's point of view, I find that dangerous. Your affection for state power concerns me.
But please, I've asked you once and I was serious. What's your view of the corroboration issue?
-
How does a lawyer no if his client is lying or not?
Do defense attorneys take their clients to have lie detector tests to see if they pass them to make sure that they are defening only innocent people? Or do defense attorneys not want to know if their client is really guilty?
-
How is the deck stacked agaist defendants?
They are presumed innocent to begin with. The jury must presume them innocent.
-
The jury must be confused.
If the jury is told to presume the defendant innocent it is the same as saying that the person who was raped is a liar. It is the presumed innocent person who has the jurys favor.
-
Anonymous
As a practical matter, defense attorneys never ask their clients if they did it. The reasons are many, but mainly, doing so creates mistrust between the attorney and the client. But if the client blurts it out, it tends to dictate the direction the defense takes, i.e. the defendant doesn't take the witness stand.
Yes, of course defense attorneys often believe their clients to be guilty. Mostly they assume it. That's a far different matter from "knowing" it though, don't you agree?
As to lie detector tests, the only time defense attorneys ask their clients to take them is when they believe strongly that they are innocent. If they pass the test, they take it to the prosecutor as support for a Motion to Dismiss.
But you're not answering my question about corroborating evidence in rape cases. I've answered your questions; please answer mine.
-
So if the defendant is guilty
The trial starts as a lie. The jury is instructed to presume a lie.
And if the defendant is innocent, it would be wrong to presume him guilty.
What is wrong will no presumption? Or maybe juries are not smart enough to hold no presumption in the beginning. Maybe some people think juries are really dumb.
-
But you're not answering my question about corroborating evidence in rape cases. I've answered your questions; please answer mine.
Ha ha Mr. Franklin. Despite what you say you must think juries really are dumb it you think they are not smart enough to weigh testimony. Both parties can tell their story can't they? If they don't find the accusers story make sense then they can just continue to presume innocent. Right? I thought you had big faith in juries.
-
Anonymous
The deck is stacked against criminal defendants in a huge number of ways regarding admissibility of evidence, trial procedure, etc. But the main way is that, while the law presumes the innocence of the defendant, the jury does not. It is the rarest of jurors who does not harbor a strong notion that, if the defendant weren't guilty, he/she wouldn't be accused and sitting there in that courtroom. An attorney can try to commit them to put those feelings aside, but it's a rare juror who does. That's the main reason so many people are in jail on such slim-to-nonexistant evidence.
As to the presumption of innocence, it means one thing: the state has the burden of proof at trial. What that means is that the prosecution must produce evidence of guilt. If it fails to do so, the defendant goes free. The defendant does not need to prove his/her innocence. The defendant does not need to put on any evidence at all. That is why the prosecution always goes first at trial. Therefore, the jury is instructed that if the state has not produced enough evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must return a verdict of not guilty. That's the nut of what 'presumption of innocence' means. Don't take it beyond that.
Corroborating evidence? Anything for me on that?
-
I am really confused.
If juries are as smart as Mr. Franklin says they are then why are our prisons filled with all these innocent peoples. Are smart juries deliberately sending innocent people to prison?
Seems bad.
Or are prosecuters slicker than the honest defense attorneys so that they pull the wool over the eyes of these very smart juries and convince the jury system that all these innocent people are guilty? Must be prosecutors are pretty sharp.
-
Anonymous @ 4:31pm
I don't get your point. I do indeed have a high regard for juries, but I understand some of their prejudices too. As I've said, they're not perfect, but I don't ask them to be.