r/funny • u/MinaLovesShibas • 1d ago
just because you did it, doesn't mean you're guilty
1.4k
u/nanadoom 1d ago
I asked a defense attorney once how it felt defending people he knows are guilty. His response was "my job, as an attorney, isn't to prove you didn't do it, its to make the government prove you did. That means poking holes in everything they present, it means framing any narrative they build in a different way."
789
u/mortavius2525 1d ago
I like the explanation that the lawyers job is to make sure that the accused gets a fair trial. If that means the evidence proves guilt, so be it.
358
u/urmumlol9 1d ago
A defense attorney’s job is to keep the prosecution honest.
They make sure that the prosecutor can actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a crime, that the crime the prosecutor is accusing the defendant of is the one they’re actually guilty of, and that the evidence collected against the defendant was collected legally.
You don’t want a shoplifter to be convicted of murder, even if you’re 100% sure they’re guilty of shoplifting.
120
u/SharkFart86 1d ago
Yep, it should not be easy to imprison a person, full stop. The prosecution should have to work hard to do that.
Like to the point if you’re on a jury, even if the defense’s argument is weak, you still really should consider if the prosecution held up their responsibility to definitively prove their case. If they didn’t, then you shouldn’t vote to convict.
53
u/RedditDummyAccount 23h ago
This is something that’s truthfully really hard to wrap your head around when you’re a juror.
Sometimes you know the person did something but by the responsibility of a juror, you can only base it on what the prosecutor is showing you, and whether or not that person is guilty of that exact crime they’re being prosecuted for.
Like being prosecuted for larceny vs grand larceny, or assault vs aggravated assault and determining if they are actually guilty of grand larceny or aggravated assault
22
u/casualsax 22h ago
That's the objective of the law, but your perogative as a juror is yours and yours alone.
25
u/Mystborn10154 21h ago
not trying to be "that guy" But I literally just learned this year that "prerogative" has an r right after the p. Literally blew my mind and I still don't quite believe it
19
u/casualsax 21h ago
Cool, thanks for a chance to improve my spelling.
17
u/Mystborn10154 21h ago
I was more hoping to blow your mind than fix your spelling lol
13
u/casualsax 21h ago
Hahaha once I learned how epiphany was spelled I stopped believing I knew how English works
5
u/alvarkresh 10h ago
"colonel" has entered the chat and is messing with etymology and pronunciation :P
6
u/RedditDummyAccount 19h ago
Like technically, yes but there’s a level of it that makes sense to you as an ethical person. Drawing your own conclusions, or saying yeah they’re not guilty of grand larceny but larceny yes, so I’ll say they were guilty, is pretty bad.
9
u/commandercool86 17h ago
Most dont know this. Jury nullification is always an option
→ More replies (1)18
u/friendandfriends2 8h ago
This is why I get so annoyed when people rail on defense attorneys and accuse them of all being scumbags. Corrupt and/or incompetent prosecutors inflict an unfathomable amount of damage to our justice system, and without good defense attorneys we’d slide into an unjust anti constitutional hellscape.
21
u/pingveno 20h ago
One of my brother's teachers had jury duty where this kind of came up. The prosecution didn't err. But when the jury met, the foreman immediately told everyone else that they had decided before any evidence was presented that the person was guilty. Either previous knowledge of the defendant or simple bias.
After that happened, there was no way to get a fair judgement. That jury was forever biased because the one juror mouthed off. The teacher reported this to the judge and a mistrial was called. The teacher was livid. Total waste of everyone's time. But props to the teacher for not just staying silent and letting an injustice pass.
11
u/technobrendo 20h ago
This likely happens a lot, although most people probably have the wherewithal to keep their mouth shut.
6
u/Taminella_Grinderfal 17h ago
Self defense is one that comes to mind. I may have shot someone, but the circumstances matter.
→ More replies (3)14
u/phonetastic 22h ago
you also don't want a murderer convicted of murder even if you're one hundred percent sure they're guilty of murder-- IF the evidence was collected, or some aspect of the trial was conducted, in a way that would cause harm to contemporary or future non-murderers accused of murder
66
u/jfudge 1d ago
It's also a good framing because, if we don't try to make sure everyone gets a fair trial, then there is a much greater risk for anyone else to not get a fair trial.
16
u/bloodyell76 1d ago
Yup. There should never be a religion, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, immigration status, accused crime, anything that lets the state skip any procedure or have any special rule they can use. If there can be any exceptions to due process or fair trail, then more exceptions can and will be added.
17
u/CodenameMolotov 1d ago
It sucks that the wealthy can afford better defense though
16
u/tiredofthehate 23h ago
So much of legal defense is being able to withstand the cost of fighting it. The other part is being able to pay the experts that support your strategy.
4
u/tuxedo25 23h ago
War on drugs = war on the poor. Another war America can't win.
2
u/failedopportunities 22h ago
Hmmm. I’m not even sure where to start the list of the “elitist” people who’ve roamed the earths surface that have/had serious drug addictions. You do know why they call cocaine the rich man’s drug right? Don’t even get me started on opioids…
2
u/tuxedo25 20h ago
Yeah. Catch a possession charge when you're 18, and your parents don't have any money: criminal record, maybe probation or jail. Good luck getting the best jobs after that.
Catch a possession charge when you're 18 and your parents are rich: no consequences. none at all. Life has no consequences.
The system is rigged, it's a crime to be poor.
→ More replies (1)5
u/wufnu 23h ago
I remember watching a video of some big time defense lawyer (in NYC I think). He said he would gleefully represent Hitler (despite him being Jewish). His reasoning was that everyone, even the monsters, deserve the best defense they can get; this is what keeps the legal system honest and provides quality control for the justice system.
3
u/morpheousmorty 14h ago
the best defense they can get
The "they can get" part is dangling pretty obscenely here. Should Hitler be able to get a big time defense lawyer? Shouldn't the poorest among us be able to get one too? Should the idea of a big time defense lawyer even really be a thing?
96
u/ACuddlyVizzerdrix 1d ago
It's like the lawyer defending the guy in Florida who ran over the protesters, he brought up some wild bullshit but it was at the request of his client but also so that same client couldn't appeal on the same BS later
→ More replies (3)28
u/gwillen 1d ago
It's a delicate situation for a lawyer when their client wants to say some bullshit. They're not allowed to lie to the court, or knowingly help their client lie on the stand. And they're not really supposed to advance horseshit legal theories that just waste the court's time, but I think there's a bit more leeway there if the client is insisting.
→ More replies (1)16
u/miraculum_one 1d ago
It's not even enough for the evidence to prove guilt. The evidence has to be considered admissible, e.g. collected in a way consistent with The Constitution.
9
u/kinyutaka 1d ago
More importantly, "if I did my job right, and you're still sent to prison, you probably deserve it."
5
u/jackofslayers 1d ago
I have a maybe slightly more intense view. The government does not put people in prison who commit crimes. The government can only imprison people that it can prove committed a crime.
7
u/SeeShark 1d ago
I think you're basically saying the same thing, provided we're working under a framework of "innocent until proven guilty."
5
u/TwentyTwoTwelve 23h ago
Their statement is closer to "It's only illegal if you get caught" or "What you cannot enforce, don't command." If you want to get philosophical.
2
u/JTtheLAR 20h ago
Its like in that book "The Lincoln Lawyer". He explains it like the prosecution are one of those plate spinners that balances multiple plates on poles. And as a defense attorney his job is to knock those plates off, one by one.
36
u/bs2k2_point_0 1d ago
I prefer the view that it’s to ensure their clients rights are being upheld.
3
u/SeeShark 1d ago
When it comes to civil rights, an individual's rights and the government's responsibilities are basically one and the same.
→ More replies (2)13
u/CaptainPunisher 1d ago
I have some friends who are lawyers, and one of them said that a big part of their job is to make sure that the police, prosecutor, and everyone else on the other side did their jobs properly. If they find weed in your car but had no probable cause to stop and search you in the first place, that's a problem for the prosecution.
65
u/thissexypoptart 1d ago edited 1d ago
Exactly. Defense attorneys ensure that justice is properly carried out. Preventing a mistrial is incredibly important, especially when the defendant definitely did that shit.
People who don’t understand this about criminal defense attorneys are actual drooling morons.
If someone convicted of a heinous crime gets a mistrial declared, that delays justice and even lets criminals walk early in some cases. Awful
9
u/goraak_the_barbarian 21h ago
Eddie Greenspan said it best:
How can you represent a guilty man? There is a very simple, quick, and complete answer. Our whole system of criminal justice is built on the basic premise that every man is presumed innocent until he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. His guilt must be shown by evidence produced by a prosecutor in a courtroom — not in a newspaper or a news broadcast.
I haven’t the slightest moral conflict defending people accused of homicide, sexual assault, business fraud, environmental offenses, or even crimes against humanity. I don’t “draw the line” at anything. If I defended crimes, maybe I would — but I don’t defend crimes. I only defend people, innocent people. Until they are found guilty there are no other kinds of people for me to defend, and what difference does it make what an innocent person is accused of?
If you are a criminal lawyer, you stand between the abuse of governmental power and the individual. If you are a criminal lawyer, you stand between the abuse of judicial power and the individual. If you are a criminal lawyer, you are helping to mold the rights of individuals for generations to come.
In the search for justice, the criminal lawyer has a pivotal role to play. It is his or her responsibility to see that the accused is not unfairly deprived of his freedom. By protecting defendants, whether guilty or innocent, from the abuse of power by the state, the criminal lawyer protects us all.12
u/TheoreticalZombie 1d ago
Also, their job isn't necessarily to even contest guilt- sometimes it's about getting them the best deal under the circumstances. And, at the end of the day, all the lawyer can do is advise the clients of the options and risks- the client chooses.
I have seen defense attorneys work hard to get a great deal, only to have the client refuse and walk into a long sentence. For example, had a great lawyer get an offer of 12 years (parole eligible after 3) for a 50 something year old sex offender failure to register where he was looking at 25 to life for bathing nude in a public park in the middle of the day and admitted he refused to register. Had prior FTRs (underlying offense was a burglary sex assault of a mother and daughter), agg assault, assault on a peace office, etc. No mental health/competency issues. Refused the offer, went to trial got a quick guilty from a jury and 60 years from the judge (jury was mad he didn't get life). Another was a habitual drug dealer turning down 15 on a dope case and got 80 from a jury.
And don't get me started on the CP cases that want to go to trial....
6
u/Kaiisim 13h ago
Also sometimes "you did it" but what you've been charged for isnt "it".
Most people don't understand the law. You may believe you committed a crime, but the lawyer understands you lack an element of it (like intent)
→ More replies (1)3
u/PrettyAverageGhost 23h ago
So they didn’t answer your question: how does it FEEL?
→ More replies (6)3
5
u/thisonesnottaken 8h ago
I like how people ask this question pretty regularly, but almost nobody asks prosecutors how they sleep at night prosecuting people they know are innocent or aren’t sure.
2
u/brucek2 23h ago
Even when the accused is guilty of something and even if they want to plead guilty, the defense lawyer may still have work to do in getting the charges reduced to fairly describe what actually happened, in presenting the legally allowed mitigations when it comes time for sentencing, etc. etc. It's an adversarial system and relying on just the cops/prosecution perspective is not necessarily justice.
2
u/mrbiggbrain 19h ago
I always liked the statement "If my client is guilty then I damn well hope the state proves it."
If the state can prove it they can prove it and if not it's better that 1000 guilty people go free then a single innocent person be falsely imprisoned.
2
u/thephantom1492 16h ago
Also, for example, at a trafic stop, they need a reason to stop you. The reason may be as simple as "we are stopping every few cars" (not always allowed but shh), but they can't go "We decided to stop that car for no valid reasons". In other words, if they stopped you for no reasons, then the stop is illegal. Everything found during that illegal stop is not valid and everything need to be throw out the window and can not be used against you.
The job of the lawyer in this case would be to have the police prove that it was a legal stop. If they can not then you are a free man.
And even if the stop was legal, ex you speeded. If they extended the stop for too long then it is also illegal for them, and everything they find after that point is also to be throw out. In this case you will get the speeding ticket, but not the jail time for the drug they found in the trunk.
That being said, I'm sure that even if the police is legally required to delete/destroy everything they obtained illegally, I'm sure that they will keep some info somewhere unofficially. It can be a post it... So if you do something illegal then you might want to move after that :D
→ More replies (51)6
u/Citizen-Kang 1d ago
Sounds like he side-stepped the question. Granted, that's their job...
5
u/SeeShark 1d ago
Their job is to guarantee your civil right to a fair and speedy trial. Defense attorneys are quite literally the only line of defense against government abuse of the justice system.
If that means some guilty people get to walk, then that's a trade I'm willing to make.
3
432
u/thefightingmongoose 1d ago
Why should you go to jail for a crime someone else noticed?
102
17
16
12
u/notjerryjeff 1d ago
I can’t believe that for the second time today I’m going to comment That’s a Loblaw Law Bomb.
2
→ More replies (1)13
u/Gingeronimoooo 1d ago
Nah it actually makes sense, I was mentally ill and off meds and basically had 1 sided cyber sex with my ex gf on fb messenger. Embarrassing I know. She reported me to police and they charged me with harassment.
The Thing is MORALLY, I did harass her. But legally I did not. As soon as she told me it was unwelcome , I stopped. Continuing after knowing it's unwelcome is required for the charge in my state.
It's a humiliating story but it's an example that works. I have been stable for 10 years, always take my meds, have my own apartment, decent car, job caring for pets. Date. Been a model citizen Etc.
→ More replies (4)
194
u/rawbface 1d ago
That's right though. The crime you committed and the charges thrown at you are not always the same thing.
48
u/FinnegansWakeWTF 1d ago
And prosecutors are quick to throw 8 charges on a defendant, then lower it after the defendant gets a lawyer
23
u/SimpleLobsters 1d ago
It's easy to get someone to a plea deal if they drop charges.
Charged with x y z. But we'll drop x and y If you plead
10
u/Killshotgn 1d ago
Yep sadly that's what gets a lot of innocent people to plead guilty of something they didn't even do that and a mix of fear and not being able to afford a legal fees.
5
u/HannasAnarion 17h ago
This. There are also various excuse defenses that can make you not criminally liable for a criminal act, like self defense, necessity, duress, mental incompetence.
Basically every statute is covered in the word "unreasonable" because some times weird stuff is reasonable
→ More replies (2)3
43
u/Borkleton 1d ago
You need Bob Loblaw! After all, why should you go to jail for a crime somebody else noticed?”
You don’t need double talk; you need Bob Loblaw
Bob Loblaw, No Habla Español.
7
13
11
16
u/CaliforniaDre 18h ago
I have a lawyer friend who wants to be a district attorney, but does criminal law for now. I asked him once, if a guy told you he did do the crime, would you still defend him? He said yes. It’s not the lawyers job to prove he didn’t do it, it’s the lawyers job to prove the states theory as to why he did it is wrong.
→ More replies (5)7
u/CptNemosBeard 9h ago
I know some people don't like this. But that's exactly what a lawyers job is. It's not to prove guilt or innocence morally. But to make sure the law is fair and being fairly executed. Otherwise we end up with laws like "black people can't use the WHITES ONLY bathroom".
Please understand that this is hyperbole.
15
u/ArnoldFarquar 1d ago
That’s actually true in many cases. For example, you may have killed a guy, but you will not be found guilty if you can prove you were acting in self-defense.
16
u/ProteusRift 18h ago
I mean... In the eyes of the law (innocent until proven guilty), the sign is spot on
Source: I watched Breaking Bad AND Better Call Saul... so trust me bro
→ More replies (2)
12
u/Sochinz 1d ago
It's true.
For example, concealed carry dad (CCD) killed a 16 y/o boy yesterday...because he was an active school shooter.
CCD "did it" in the sense he committed homicide. He shot the kid dead. He isn't guilty of anything because killing someone who is actively murdering children isn't a crime.
5
20
u/Erathen 1d ago
Yes? That's how law works
Intent is relevant
→ More replies (2)2
u/ImOnHereForPorn 18h ago
Also a ton of other factors, like for example: if the police violate your rights you can get a lot of evidence against you (or even the charge itself) thrown out.
14
u/snarkpix 21h ago
Just because you did [act] doesn't mean you're guilty of [crime]. That can actually apply to lots of 'Prosecutors discretion' crimes where if you're charged depends on who you are.
4
u/Sefthor 21h ago
Also mens rea is a thing; if you did the act without the appropriate intent you wouldn't be guilty of the crime.
→ More replies (3)4
u/NessTheGamer 20h ago
Also even if you’re certainly guilty, the actual sentence you receive can range massively
3
u/xclame 17h ago
Exactly, just because you are guilty doesn't mean we should stop trying. You should get the appropriate punishment and nothing more, no giving the person a harsher penalty just because they are a unpleasant person or lighter sentence because they are a pretty person and they volunteer at a animal shelter.
2
u/JustaRandoonreddit 13h ago
Isn't that part of the point of character witnesses?
→ More replies (1)
10
11
8
9
u/spitfire451 19h ago
You need the mens rea to be guilty.
3
u/Hrothgar_unbound 18h ago
You also need to be convicted (or plead) to be guilty. That’s the tricky part
→ More replies (1)3
3
6
10
u/timf3d 20h ago edited 20h ago
They're talking about necessity defense. For example if there's a blizzard, you're allowed to break into a house if that's the only way you would survive the blizzard. (Of course it helps a lot if you didn't touch anything in the house while you were taking shelter.) Self-defense is a kind of necessity defense.
Or let's say you're driving down the street and you t-bone another vehicle. Well, normally you'd be liable for that, but the fact the other vehicle ran a red light directly into your path matters.
Basically if anything beyond your control happens to force you into a situation where you had to commit a crime, then you'd admit to the crime but you can't be held responsible for it.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/BadHombreSinNombre 19h ago
I mean, I know a woman who shot her husband to death and was acquitted because he had threatened her life and came at her with a weapon. She never denied killing him. She denied committing the crime of murder.
6
4
u/xdrkcldx 18h ago
I mean, that’s how it works, legally speaking
3
u/Grimlokh 18h ago
It is not.
There are tons of examples of such situations where the facts of the case are not in dispute, other than intent, or application of the law.
Did you shoot and kill them? Yes. One side thinks murder, the other side self defense.
→ More replies (2)5
u/tucson_catboy 15h ago
No, it is. U/xdrkcldx is correct.
Committing a crime and being guilty of said crime are two very different things, even when there are no affirmative defenses like "self-defense."
Source: former public defender.
4
u/ISmellLikeBlackTea 16h ago
That's actually a valid defence for politicians and women. Temporary insanity seems to be working just fine when you wanna murder and steal, and not go to jail for it
2
2
2
2
2
u/stephawkins 22h ago
Lol. Most people too oblivious to an obvious situation - killing someone in self defense. Plenty of others - breaking a car window to save a puppy in a locked hot car in the Summer, pummeling the shit out of someone in an mma fight, and the list goes on.
2
2
2
2
u/Informal_Process2238 1d ago
My 24 year old co worker mike was arrested and charged with supplying alcohol to minors. Defending himself to me mike claimed that his lawyer said he didn’t do it. I asked if he bought the liquor and he nodded yes I asked if he sold it to them kids and he said yup so I looked him in the eye and said you did it
4
u/januarytwenty 1d ago
Lawyers are great aren’t they?
21
u/BigDamnHead 1d ago
They are. A particular action may or may not be a crime depending on a lot of factors. Just because someone performed an action doesn't mean they are guilty of a crime.
9
u/nohopeforhomosapiens 1d ago
My lawyer has saved me a lot of headache just by writing letters pointing out I will take legal action. People leave me the fuck alone, just as I like it. He's great.
14
u/OnTheList-YouTube 1d ago edited 1d ago
You killed that man! 25 years in jail.
AND it's your fault I'm bald! Another 25 years in jail!
.
You'll want a lawyer to tell that the 2nd accusation is bs.
4
u/scottrycroft 1d ago
Alex Pretti DID bring a gun to an ICE operation and assisted a person they were targeting.
He was NOT guilty of anything.
2
2
2
u/Gr0ggy1 1d ago
Would be better as: "Even if you did it you may not be criminally or civilly liable"
As an example; You may have committed a homicide, but if it was in self defense you are not liable.
→ More replies (1)4
1
1
1
u/Navitach 1d ago
Looks like the acting gig wasn't working out for Brett any more so he had to find something else.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Balls_Deep92 1d ago
There’s a law firm by me in a commercial they did the tagline was “Representing people in masks since before COVID”
1
1
1
1
1
u/TrandaBear 1d ago
Yep knowing and proving are two different things. The government said better to let a guilty man go free than to convict an innocent man and boy did they do a lot of the former while still fucking up the latter.
1
u/InvalidUserNemo 1d ago
I thought this was a church sign with a Bible quote on it for a hot 3 seconds. Reading comprehension isn’t my strong suit.
1
1
u/Lumpus-Maximus 1d ago
just because you committed a misdemeanor doesn’t mean you committed a felony.
Just because you walked onto property that isn’t yours doesn’t mean you trespassed.
Just because you did ‘it’ doesn’t mean you’re guilty of ‘that.’
1
u/Mirror_Actions 1d ago
Great view of the truth of our justice system. If you can’t prove it, you didn’t do it. OJ Simpson - I’m looking at you
1
1
1
1
1
u/saver1212 1d ago
While there are many principled attorneys who believe in the right to a fair trial, that it's to ensure that the prosecution follows the rules to prove the charges,
The reality is that many humans hire lawyers like mercenaries. They explicitly pay loads money to high powered and well connected attorneys to win at all costs. Attorneys know they are twisting the law in unnatural ways arguing "Well Technically..." and using the most tortured interpretation to SLAPP down their clients enemies.
They use the reality of time and money to exhaust the actually riteous party into withdrawing, settling, or plea bargaining out of their cases even when settling would be getting far less than justice just because the party with ill gotten gains can use the booty to outlast the aggrieved party.
The insane history of false convictions, especially those overturned by DNA evidence once it was accepted as evidence (an inconvenient tool opposed by prosecutors who didn't want to be embarrassed they either knowingly or ignorantly convicted an innocent guy), should be more than enough to at least question the naive concept that lawyers are intrinsicly allies of justice.
In almost every case, one lawyer on one side knows they shouldn't be getting what their client is paying them for. Sometimes, it's both lawyers.
1
u/TimTomTank 1d ago
If law movies thought me anything, it's that this can be absolutely correct.
Law enforcement is as much about interpretation as anything. Anyone can be framed as guilty.
1
u/KoburaCape 23h ago
It's not always about guilt vs not guillt, sometimes it's abo being overcharged, or just holding the prosecution to the intended standard of proof.
1
1
u/Aggravating-Diet-663 23h ago
Thats technically how the justice system works
I know Saul Goodman wish he came up with this slogan
1
u/RaynOfFyre1 23h ago
When the going gets tough, you don't want a criminal lawyer—you want a criminal lawyer
1
1
1
u/jefbenet 23h ago
Just because you reuse an old sign doesn’t mean we can’t still see what it used to say….
1
u/WiseAct446 22h ago
Does it work the other way? Just because you're guilty, doesn't mean you did it?
1
1
u/mezolithico 22h ago
Anyone who's been selected for jury duty should know this. Criminal law isn't about if the person did it. The jury is tasked with determining if the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did it. In many jurisdictions there is a no contest plea which maintains your innocence but accepts the DA has enough evidence to convict, so just accept the punishment to avoid a trial.
1
1
u/Qanonjailbait 21h ago
"My fellow Americans, I have not been entirely truthful with you. I did gigoogity that girl. I geschmoigiddied her geflavaty with my googus, and I am sorry."
1
1
1
u/cheesebot555 21h ago
Change just a few words, and you got a sign from out front every catholic church.
"Just because you didn't do it, doesn't mean you're innocent".
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.