This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Public Pretenders
The difference between a public defender and a private attorney can often be measured not in skill, but in pinstripes.
The defendant had dropped a rhetorical bomb in court. He lobbed the grenade of all insults. He called his attorney (may Allah forgive me for repeating this) a public pretender. The courtroom's sparse decorations afforded plenty of space for the silence to permeate. The room was almost empty as they were basically done with that morning's calendar. Early too, which meant the judge had some time to fuck around.
The judge adopted the familiar tenor of a police interrogation — the verbal equivalent of a slow-moving suffocation. He turned to the so-called public defender and started asking him questions.
"Mister Weber...did you even go to law school?"
"Yes Your Honor."
"Well...are you even licensed to practice in this state?"
"Yes Your Honor."
The judge was hamming it up with the weight of a Shakespearean monologue and the public defender did his best to stifle his laughter, just enough to utter out a coherently monotone answer. The judge continued, savoring every liminal pause for dramatic effect.
"Mister Weber...I need you to answer this next question truthfully...are you — are you a real lawyer?"
This was the final Yes Your Honor, what finally broke the tension. The judge's demeanor visibly relaxed and he shifted back in his dais. He turned back to the defendant and said "Thank you very much for bringing this serious accusation to my attention, but I am relieved to find out that Mr. Weber is indeed a real attorney and is not just pretending to be."
Oh yes the defendant was being blatantly fucked with, but the artificial gravitas was a sufficiently plausible deniability shield to keep him guessing. Besides, what the fuck was he going to do anyway? Pull a rhyming dictionary out of his ass and look up another entry for defender? Maybe next time he can come to court prepared with a more original barb than calling his attorney a public pretender.
Make Me Feel Mighty Real
Money is what makes it real. Which is why I, a public defender, am fake as fuck. I am free of charge. I am the budget option. I am also functionally the default.
Choosing to navigate the legal field without an attorney — also known as "rawdogging it" in the parlance[1] — doesn't usually work out very well for reasons I previously wrote about. And yet, the modern public defense system exists entirely because of a handwritten appeal to the Supreme Court scrawled out on prison stationary. Easily history's most successful pro se filing. Gideon v. Wainwright is why if the government finds itself primed to shove you through the prosecution grinder, they are at least magnanimous enough to give you an attorney. They'll even go so far as to foot the bill if your ass is broke as fuck. Noblesse oblige is not totally dead!
But how good is this default, really? It's Complicated™.
Anyone seeking to examine the criminal justice system by comparing public defenders with privately retained attorneys will find themselves stymied by the fact that public defenders basically are the system. Any poor schmuck (notice I didn't say blameless) unfortunate enough to capture the attention of our nation's indefatigable law enforcement apparatus is almost by definition financially destitute, and that's all you need to qualify for the free option. How much of a shit a jurisdiction gives about people [nose scrunched up in disgust] accused of a crime will vary, and this will be reflected in detail within boring public finance documents. But regardless of that variance, courtrooms are brimming with such a glut of indigent defendants that when the BJS looked into this decades ago, they found that roughly 80% of state felony defendants were represented by a public defender. Point at any random spec of meat pushed through the grinder and you can reasonably assume a public defender is chained along for the ride.[2]
Another confounder is that many public defenders are...private attorneys.[3] Some towns are way too small to have a dedicated agency with full-time government employees, so they farm out indigent defense to local attorneys who can periodically step in as needed on a contractual basis. Even big cities with gargantuan public defense departments rely heavily on private attorneys as gravel to fill in the gaps left by conflict of interest recusal (something like an entire agency withdrawing from a case because one of their lawyers had previously represented the victim or something) or just when they're over-capacity. At the federal level, private attorneys take up about 40% of public defense cases. Every private criminal defense attorney I know takes on public defense cases as a supplement to their paying clients. No need to advertise your services or chase after the inevitable unpaid invoice when the local government takes care of both problems.
The overwhelming majority of criminal defense is not financially sustainable, and would not exist without the constant injection of taxpayer money. The reason for this discrepancy is obvious. Rare is the criminal defendant who has enough of their shit together to afford a defense attorney at market rate. As authentic as Better Call Saul! was overall in its depiction of criminal defense life (and I can't praise the show enough on that front) the idea that Saul Goodman could financially sustain a criminal defense practice by marketing to the dregs of society was pure fantasy. I once had a client stab a dude in broad daylight, in front of a dozen witnesses, slightly fewer surveillance cameras, and screamed his own name in the process. This is not a dude with the temperament to get a regular paycheck every two weeks. Financial security (either directly or as a confounding variable) also gives you the respectability, influence, and resources to shield any potentially criminal behavior away from the prying eyes of law enforcement. Money is great, and I highly recommend having it.
All this to say that any attorney working in criminal defense is necessarily working with a skewed clientele pot. Without some adroit specialization, there is no cash to wring out of this crowd. The options are limited for carving out a private practice that doesn't feed at the public defense contract trough. Some freak attorneys do so by launching their stature to the stratosphere, high enough to sustain a steady living off big-ticket celebrity defendants. The more realistic solution is to be selective in your fishing, pursuing only the practice areas most likely to deliver on the narrow Venn diagram slice of "accused of a crime" and "has money". A reliable eddy for this approach is to be boring as fuck and dedicate yourself almost exclusively to drunk driving cases.
Sartorially Deficient Efficiency Machines
I got my start at a public defense agency and while we did indeed have caseloads stacked high to the ceiling, this doesn't tell you the full story. For one, the benefits of functionally being part of the system means you can spread some fixed costs across several clients (e.g. handling dozens of clients during a single morning calendar). The other part is that public defenders naturally become machines of raw unbridled efficiency.
You can usually easily tell them apart from their privately-funded aristocratic colleagues. One of the best public defenders I know wears the exact same cringe-inducing blazer to court, with the sleeves nearly a foot too long drooping over his hands like a monk's robe. He doesn't give a shit though as he's pared down his repertoire of tools down to the bones, leaving behind only the things that will actually make a difference for his client's cases.
The sheer volume of cases also comes with some supernatural scrying abilities. The prosecutor's office we worked with handled thousands of cases, and they used internal plea deal standards to maintain some semblance of uniformity across the thousands of cases they handled. Their (at times robotic) devotion to fairness chafed at the idea of giving two similarly situated defendants vastly different plea deals. And while they never shared those internal standards with us, all it required was churning through a few dozen cases before the standards became obvious to anyone paying attention.
For DUIs, the biggest factor was blood alcohol concentration. The scale public defenders operated at made it trivial to figure out the BAC threshold for getting a one level reduction in the charges, or even two levels if you were lucky. We also knew which factors could tip the scales for edge cases (Practice Tip: crashing into a trailer home and narrowly hitting a sleeping twelve year-old is Very Bad).
We used a checklist to quickly triage our never-ending DUI caseload. Tell me just a handful of details about a case and I can predict its ultimate conclusion with startingly accuracy. Most of our cases were obvious enough that they were on auto-pilot to a predictable plea deal conclusion, and we could then focus our attention on the edge cases that were most liable to topple over. With the volume of cases I had, the median DUI misdemeanor probably took me maybe two or three hours of work total, including all the time spent in court waiting. This was all boring, tedious, and predictable work.
Besides all that, I got to know all the player's tics. Jennifer the court clerk was a total sweetheart, and she was the one I should talk to if I need to overset on an already full morning calendar. Brett the prosecutor really did not like repeat offenders, so I continued those cases until he finished his rotation and I had to deal with someone different. And you memorize the judges especially. I had a client who was summoned to court because her drug treatment provider kicked her out for "contraband". I assumed that meant she brought drugs to rehab, but turns out the "contraband" was just a cell phone. Before the court even knew what was going on, she had re-enrolled voluntarily and completed a month of inpatient treatment. When she told me all this I figured it was a shoo-in for the judge to impose no sanctions. I said "You were proactive, which is something this judge really appreciates. Also, the judge absolutely hates the prosecutor on this morning, so this hearing should be a cakewalk." Five minutes into the hearing, the judge was yelling at the prosecutor already. My client and I exchanged knowing glances, and she marveled at my divination.
Private attorneys knew we had a finger on the pulse, and we were often asked for input. Sometimes it was something as banal as asking for a temperature check on a judge right before sentencing. By far the most jaw-droppingly alarming was when a client walked into the courtroom about to plead guilty to a DUI. His attorney paused at the door where I happened to be loitering and asked me "Hey my client is a green card holder and he's going to plead guilty to a marijuana DUI. That's not a big deal is it?" That could've been a catastrophe, to the extent you consider immediate deportation to be a big deal.
America's Universal Crime
There's a reason DUIs come up frequently in my writing — they're the bread and butter of misdemeanor criminal court and what virtually all defense attorneys cut their baby teeth on.
Americans love drinking. Americans also love driving. If you're concerned about this concatenation, worry not commie scum because the third branch in this triumvirate is another perennial American favorite: an unrelenting police force. Hands wiped, problem solved.
You have not experienced the unique essence of America until you are drunk as hell at a strip mall parking lot at 2AM, locked out of the Applebee's that just closed for the night, your designated driver friend nowhere to be seen, and with the only legal option to get to your house in the suburbs being a $70 Uber ride. Prime setting to chance it. No surprise then that out of the ten million or so criminal arrests that happen every year in this country, 10% are just DUIs, more than all violent crimes combined. Drunk driving is one of the most intersectional of crimes. Rich and poor alike, this is the universal criminal temptation.
When someone is arrested for drunk driving, they get handcuffed, their vehicle is towed away into the abyss, and they might spend a few hours in jail if they're particularly unruly or the cop is in a shitty mood. When they're released from the precinct into the cold morning hours, they're handed a gift bag with some terrifying paperwork informing them DUIs are punishable by up to three hundred and sixty four days in jail. That's just the statutory maximum that never (almost, we'll get to that) gets imposed, but they don't know that, so naturally they panic. They panic and google.
I've written before about how useless I am, and I am especially useless with DUI cases. DUI cases are so boring because of how straightforward they usually are. They were drunk. They were driving. And more often than not, they admitted their drinking to the cop that saw them using their car to recreate a crochet weaving pattern across multiple lanes of traffic. Despite these lopsided conditions, establishing someone's guilt through the constitutionally-mandated public jury trial avenue remains a pain in the ass for the system — way too expensive, takes way too long, and [gasp] might not actually work if the jury doesn't buy the government's story. The prosecutor takes the tack of "it sure would be super if you saved us the hassle and just admitted you're guilty." (No, history doesn't repeat itself, why do you ask?) and they incentive this outcome with plea deal offers that are entirely within their discretion. At least ninety-four percent of defendants take them up on it.
Keeping the assembly line humming was most of our job. We negotiated plea deals in whatever crevices in the courthouse building we could spare. Sometimes the prosecutors would find a spare jury room and set up shop there with their laptops, and all the defense attorneys (private and public alike) would crowd inside and wait in line to talk about the merits of their case. The open air atmosphere inside that room was chummy, but we also would witness negotiations happening transparently in real time.
One private attorney seemed particularly attentive to his appearance, and was that day glamorously adorned with a pinstripe suit and a lumbering gold watch that seemed uncomfortably heavy. When it was Pinstripes' turn in the pit, his pitch to the prosecutor was as succinct as the insider's lingo could sustain: "No priors, no aggravators, and the blow is in the low teens. Negligent amendment?" The prosecutor was nodding along and flipping through their notes and pulled out a template form to memorialize the deal. No surprise given the circumstances, I could've secured the same deal in my sleep for any of my clients.
But if you can swap in virtually any attorney into the slot without affecting the outcome, how would any individual attorney stand out from the rest? Theoretically a private attorney can devote their craft and grind away to become the best goddamn DUI lawyer to ever roam the land, but the infinitely more efficient approach to standing out is just by dialing up the marketing. They play the search engine optimization game and dump a thesaurus' worth of synonyms for the "I got a DUI and I'm not poor" query to capture those panic-stricken google searches. Their billboards are conveniently located near every major highway exit, with a photo crossing their arms to showcase how hard they'll fight the cops for you. One law firm required their attorneys to show up to court in a muscle car splattered with letters as tall as a toddler spelling out "DUI?" along with the firm's phone number. The specter of up to three hundred and sixty four days in jail ricocheting inside a client's head is all the sales closing you need to rack up a five to ten thousand dollar retainer. Three hours of my time as a public defender was a windfall to a private attorney lucky enough to snag a client with money.
Pricey Asymmetry
Outside of the courtroom and outside of the negotiation room, there were the hallways. The courthouse building was old enough to lack the luxury of private conference rooms, so every attorney would find an empty spot on the hallway pews to have a "confidential" meeting with their client. There was an unspoken code of honor not to eavesdrop, one which even the court marshals and deputies earnestly respected, but sometimes you can't help but overhear.
Pinstripes came out of the negotiation room, holding that basic bitch Negligent Amendment plea offer in his hands. His client was sitting in a pew, anxiously fidgeting.
"The prosecutors gave me hell for your case, but I put those sons-of-bitches through the ringer until they caved! They're willing to offer you that negligent reduction we talked about."
The sigh of relief from the client felt like it was forced out by bellows. He visibly relaxed, managed to crack a smile, presumably relieved he was finally allowed to drop the emotional rucksack he'd been carting around.
A necessary throat-clearing: an attorney's competence and commendability is not at all predicated on either their practice area or the source of their compensation. Pinstripes was a competent attorney. He delivered on effective representation, and his client was fully satisfied with the resolution. Pinstripes may have been exaggerating his own contributions, but he was under no formal obligation to notify his client of any cheaper competitors. All I point out here is how different circumstances can lead to different incentives. Mr. Monk Sleeves above had over the years whittled himself away into a finely-honed and effective apparatus, devoid of any extraneous adornments. It didn't matter how stupid his sleeves looked, he was still going to be appointed to clients. Privately retained attorneys face a different set of incentives. They need the hand that pays to feel good about the transaction and so have every incentive to exaggerate their efforts. The fact that their client has money to pay them very likely means they've never been in trouble before, never needed a lawyer before, and never had to face the bore end of a judge before. The paying client is unlikely to get arrested again, and even if he did he never would attain the bird's eye view of the system necessary to evaluate Pinstripe's comparative utility. Classic information asymmetry.
Can money help tip the needle? Yes, of course, sometimes, and typically only when gargantuan sums are levied. OJ Simpson had the means and motivation to throw loot at objectively hopeless needle in a haystack endeavors. For DUIs, I knew of one case where the guy blew a 0.12% BAC (not that bad by my caseload's standard) and managed to get acquitted after sinking about $20,000 to fly in three different nationally-recognized breath test experts to testify at his trial in podunk district court.
But most of the time, no. The primary benefit of money is as a paradoxical prophylactic — the fact that you have it is a very good indicator you won't need to use it.
364 Days
I'll end with one last story. If someone is still in jail by the first appearance hearing, the court assumes they are indigent and expects the public defender's office to handle it unless a private attorney told them otherwise. I scanned through the dozens of cases on my jail calendar docket and quickly triaged them based on a brief skim of the docket and police reports. One guy stood out to me as uniquely fucked. It was a DUI, of course, except he was already on probation for a third DUI with the same court. Nothing within the police report raised any evidentiary red flags, this was a plain vanilla clean case as far as I could tell. I saw through the Matrix and read the green letters directly, and they spelled Doom.
Seated on the molded plastic chairs the jail uses as he wore some ill-fitting Crocs, I delivered my grim prognosis, appropriately qualified given my limited vantage point. I advised him not to bail out, as the money would vanish within the coffers of a bail bondsman and only provide a vanishingly temporary reprieve from jail. Spending several thousand dollars to be out for a few weeks didn't seem worth it to me, but I reminded him it was his and his family's choice to make.
The next time I saw him was in court, and he was not wearing jail scrubs with Crocs. I walked up to talk to him but before I could get a word in, he cut me off brusquely and flat-out declared he didn't me because he had retained private counsel. All delivered with the haughty cadence that would make a Royalist blush. I shrugged and moved on to my next entry. With him having bailed out and hiring a private attorney, his expenses were steadily mounting.
What the judge eventually did with his case was highly unusual, but not at all surprising to me, given my scrying ability. He plead guilty, because of course, and the judge was so fed up with his repeat offenses that she didn't even bother giving him a probation period to right his wrongs, just imposed and closed. He was sentenced to the maximum three-hundred and sixty four days, to this day the only time I ever saw it happen. His lawyer could've been a pillow and nothing would have been different.
I must confess schadenfreude. Despite my own feelings about the carceral state, someone else's liberty is a small price to pay for gratifying my own ego and affirming my prognostications.
If you're in trouble with the law, do your best to qualify for a public defender. They may not always have pinstripes, but they know the system and the players inside and out. The Constitution guarantees your right to change your mind at any point after, but there's no harm in test-driving the budget option first. You might get to the same destination, just with a lot more money in your wallet.
[1] I made this up.
[2] The number of methodological issues inherent in comparing public defenders and private attorneys is way too long to get into here.
[3] For those who are curious, this is me. I got my start working for a public agency but then opened my own private practice. So I'm technically a private attorney, but one whose caseload is 100% indigent defense. It's much simpler and still accurate to just call myself a public defender, and no I will not change my Tinder bio.
I keep wondering if cases like the DUI wouldn't be better handled with sticking an Antabus implant into them for a period of time and being done with it.
I bet some state would try that, or something similar.
One penalty that my state applies to DUI convictions is they have to do a tour of the local hospital's Trauma ward to see how bad car crash injuries can be, and also attend a 'Victim Impact Panel' where Drunk driving victims explain how much trauma they've suffered due to the crash.
I'd say your method would be more effective overall, since it directly addresses the 'problematic' behavior and doesn't depend too much on the individuals willpower.
In driving school we were shown a montage of the typical result of the most common very fatal crashes, which in my count are early morning crashes of carloads of young people returning from discos or pubs.
More options
Context Copy link
Everyone dies sometimes. And many different types of deaths cause trauma. So this seems fundamentally unfair, since the drunk drivers don't get to negative-visit traumatic deaths that don't happen because someone died from a drunk driver instead of dying from cancer or something else traumatic later on.
Decades worth of difference there.
Cancer kills old people, drunk drivers strike at random.
How's that relevant? If the person didn't live on to die of cancer, that cancer didn't cause any suffering. The total suffering caused by the drunk driver is the suffering caused by the accident minus the suffering from the cancer.
And life years lost.
Perhaps greatest is loss of potential offspring. Instead of grandchildren a parent has to bury their kid and see their line end
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Having seen DUI court myself, I have to say there is a wide variance in lawyer competence both within the PDs office and the private attorneys. The worst one I know is a private attorney who misses court dates, hopelessly failed to help his client's paperwork all the time, and generally angered judges. The best is probably a different private attorney. About 2/3 of the PDs are pretty awful, with the rest being pretty much in the top % of handling cases quickly and effectively.
More options
Context Copy link
Is there any reason you need a law degree for what you do? Or is it 98% just learning the processes of how cases work?
Wish I could share my stories. I’ve got a few but not Dui’s. But don’t want to give away things that could be traced. I’ve always hired an attorney. Usually thru a friends parent who had a friend. One time I was a bit rowdy at a high profile bar but they let me in the next day so I knew no one would show up at the date but paid a lawyer 1k to show up for me. Probably get a little more service paying but I’d assume you’re correct that you get the same thing from a public defender. Everyone should honestly go to jail once or twice it’s an interesting experience if you’re the kind of person who likes getting an inside view. I’d also assume the attorney somewhat enjoyed giving me a play-by-play as a slightly more intelligent client.
I wish their was some way we could get rid of the trial penalty, but there are too many cases and it would clog the system when most of the time your guilty and we just need to do the process.
Edit: at some point I’ve seen things where people advertise themselves as former prosecutors/law enforcement. I always assume that by paying them you get a better deal because you’re paying for the current prosecutors exit strategy.
No, law degrees and law schools are practically useless in my opinion. The most they helped with is probably the writing classes that teach you the intricacies and minutiae of legal writing. I see degrees/schools as just the apparatus of the profession's cartel in restricting the supply. Specialization matters a ton, and there's no way to quickly inject the experience of knowing the difference between on paper versus in practice. All that comes with on the job experience.
One possible way we could return to the norm of jury trials could be to relax evidence standards. Something as simple as playing a video requires witness testimony to "authenticate" the recording, which means someone either present at the scene or whoever is the "custodian" of the video tapes. It feels needlessly stringent.
Advertising yourself as a former prosecutors/LEO is just a way to showcase how much respect those professions get from the public, and adds a nod about knowing how the system works. I know plenty of former prosecutors who are now defense attorneys; some immediately flame-out because they can't deal with clients, and the rest tend to be stellar at their job.
More options
Context Copy link
Heh, divorced of context this could apply to many areas of legal practice.
It is probably true that you could just train somebody on a script and that would suffice for like 70% of cases, but there are always those odd/edge cases where there's no substitute for experience and knowledge + being able to think on your feet.
This is usually implying (probably correctly) that they have the inside connections to get things handled more quickly and they know exactly how the prosecutors are trained and how their internal guidelines for sentencing and such are set up so they can very accurately tell you what the prosecutor is going to offer and your odds of actually going to jail.
For the last part I was implying that there is an implicit bribe. I assume the local lawyer has those connections after doing a few hundred cases. But by hiring the former cop/prosecutor the current prosecutor knows you are paying one of their people.
They would certainly have the connections. Curious if paying into the system and the revolving door has any effect.
I've seen very little evidence to suggest that there's a 'bribery' aspect actually going on. I'm sure there's some places where there is such corruption, but it likely isn't the rule.
Its indeed very natural for someone who quits being a prosecutor for the private sector to go into criminal defense work, those skills and knowledge don't directly transfer anywhere else.
I remember one time I heard Ken Griffin use identical language as Jerome Powell introduced 2 days later. Citadel has paid Yellen etc for speeches when she was out of office.
Bribe might be too strong. But I always assumed hiring the guy just out of the prosecutors office offered a benefit more than he knows the system.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Excellent post, I'll just add my 2 cents (earned from my legal career) on this question:
I have been on both sides of the equation at this point. Both a public defender and handling private crim defense for, among others, DUI cases. My experience may not be particularly applicable outside of my state or even county, but I think there's a lot of basic ideas that are near-universal.
The one factor that can actually allow you to 'stand out' is earning the reputation as the guy who absolutely can and will go to trial and give the prosecutor a run for their money regardless of the true merits of the underlying case. Who is never afraid of the hard work and showmanship required in jury trials.
Because when so much of the job of criminal defense is just keeping the client calm (and out of custody) and negotiating a plea deal, the attorneys can reliably coast for years without ever being forced to pick a jury and try a case. They get in a mode in which trials are a serious inconvenience and this effects how they handle clients, indeed they may even try to persuade them to take plea deals to AVOID trial risks, even on very winnable cases!
And those who haven't flexed that muscle in a while are generally KNOWN to be less likely to push a case all the way through to trial. Maybe it's even rumored that they're scared of actual trials, where the consequences can be unpredictable.
And I genuinely think that's the factor that makes any meaningful difference. All attorneys have access to the same legal databases, they attend the same CLE classes and seminars, and generally speaking every new development in the law is easy to locate and digest. Some attorneys may be more... creative about how they apply a new development (think Saul Goodman-esque arguments, but dialed back a bit to pass the sniff test) or be able to present their arguments in a more majestic style. Some may excel at motion practice and have top notch paralegals prepping their filings.
But end of the day, the one thing that the prosecutor doesn't want to do is work. And trials mean LOTS and LOTS of work.
And it means the possibility of a hung jury (MORE WORK) or a not guilty. So this means rather than take the first plea offer that comes along, a lawyer with established trial rep can play the game of chicken with the prosecutor as the trial date looms nearer and nearer and suddenly some truly generous offers come on the table, which might not be easily obtainable if there wasn't a credible threat of forcing a trial.
Incidentally, as a Public Defender I once took three separate cases to trial over the course of three consecutive days, mostly just to show the prosecutor that I would. I called it my 'trialathalon.' Unfortunately that reputation doesn't persist much outside of the county in which the cases occurred.
Yes I think you are correct. My comment was just about boring DUI cases, I didn't mean to imply that individual lawyers made no difference in all instances.
I myself tend to get some really generous plea offers. I have no idea exactly why that is the case, but I did have a jury trial where one of the stunts I pulled was calling the prosecutor to the stand as a witness (in front of the jury) and I somehow also convinced the judge to allow it.
Did you write about this somewhere? I'm really curious as to what sequence of events could possibly allow this to occur!
More options
Context Copy link
DUI cases are still a PITA to set for trial compared to a plea. You have to get the officers in court. You have to get their breathalyzer certifications (if there was a blow) you need to prep them with their reports so they know which of the hundred DUIs this guy actually was. You might need to prep bodycam footage to play in court. Sometimes you need a nurse who did a blood draw. And states attorneys have even more cases than PDs. They are typically handling an entire courtroom either solo or as a pair. Prepping for a trial is a whole days work or more. Which means they need to magic into existence prep time for the other cases in the courtroom. Because, yeah, there are 10 duis on the docket, 10 more reckless/high speeders, 10 driving without a license and registration, and 10 more without insurance. And the state has to get all the arrest reports from the police, and crash reports, and look up the defendant's criminal record, and that's all just for the initial court date (some of that can be put off a bit longer), and whoosh, the defense gets all that for free in an email after court. Not that its hard to get (mostly) its just 3-4 forms, plus navigating several websites, but the point being that it all takes time. And records are inevitably lost and have to be re-made from time to time. The ASAs, are, of course, in such courtrooms, new. Often less than a month into their time at the office. They will have quit or been promoted within the year of first being in court for a DUI. In some your opposing counsel as a defense attorney might not have even passed the bar yet, or might even still be in law school!
Trial is, indeed a good weapon even in "boring dui" cases, because the prosecution has to get so many ducks in a row to win a trial. And, if you think they've done it for a day, defendant can simply say they are not ready, ask for another date, and all they've lost now is a bit of tolling on their speedy trial demand. But if the state isn't ready they basically automatically lose in 3-4months.
More. Definitely More.
The fact that burden of proof is on the state, and the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" means that ASAs have to bring as much evidence as they can muster (Cops at least reliably SHOW UP on given court dates) and have it all laid out so even the most brain-dead juror can follow along.
Meanwhile the Defense attorney can show up with a single legal pad and pen, no witnesses, no evidence, spend the entire case doodling drawings on the pad and never speak a word during the trial and STILL WIN (although if he does that and loses he'll catch a deserved Bar complaint).
Hence the leverage that a Defense attorney has is asymmetrical because the only thing the State can fire back is "We're going to trial and if you lose, we're asking for the Judge for the maximum sentence."
Defense attorney: "If."
(and if the defense attorney knows the Judge well, they can usually predict whether they'll actually hand down such a sentence on a guilty verdict)
And you can further leverage this power if you have MULTIPLE CASES lined up for trial with the same prosecutor (as PDs inevitably do). Forcing a prosecutor to stare down the prospect of prepping multiple cases in short succession OR start handing out plea deals like they're on clearance is like getting an armbar on your opponent in a Jiu-Jitsu match. They can try to fight it and risk breaking their arm, or they just tap and submit and give you what you're asking for.
Occasionally you get the Prosecutor who decides 'fuck it, not my money' and will throw down the gauntlet if they really want a defendant convicted, but they usually don't stick around long as they'll either leave to the private sector where they'll make more money or they get promoted up and out where their drive is more useful.
One last thing about this, is that from what I understand, technology has made the state's job even harder even though you'd think not. Back in the day when I was clerking for a judge, the state might just call the two POs who made an arrest. One would say, "well we saw a car crash into a parked car, the driver then slurred when we talked to him, we administered 3 field sobriety tests, he failed, then refused to blow, we arrested, blah blah." And the judge would listen to that and convict. Now, from what I understand, judges demand to see the body cam footage at trial, which does little to nothing in making the case stronger/weaker in almost all cases. Its just another nuisance for the prosecutor who has to comb through it all for the relevant timestamps blah blah.
The biggest way that body cams keep police (and other involved people) honest is that since the body cam will show what actually happened, they won't lie, or bring a case that requires lying, in the first place.
So of course in all the cases that get to a judge, and for all the evidence that the judge gets given, the body cam takes time and doesn't show anything useful. The body cam had its effect before that step.
Perhaps. From my experiences (limited to larger jurisdictions) bodycams seem to be accepted by cops as personal protection devices because false accusations were orders of magnitude higher than real ones, and railroading is just a waste of their time, outside of "getting" a known murderer with a fake non-cop "eyeball" witness. Now, out in the burbs where the cops and DAs treat minor DUIs like they are a high felony, IDK.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not really in my experience. I've beaten almost 100% of my own petty traffic tickets based on this. For DUIs they show up a bit more often, but the state answers not ready due to officers not in court for the majority of cases in major cities.
Which most judges will never give, and, in fact, most places don't even ask for. In Chicago, the standard post-conviction offer for a DUI is the same as the plea deal + more community service.
Certainly on one guy. Usually because the defendant or defendant's attorney done fucked up. I've seen an ASA spend 3 days prepping and hectoring officers just to get a guy because he was drunk and shattered a person's leg. I've seen the same because the attorney was jerking them around. But a mildly competent attorney should not have such problems in their entire career.
In my County most cops are expected to take the time to testify in all cases in which they had a hand. Including traffic cases. And since most traffic cases they handed out tickets for are put on the same court dates, it is not too much hassle for them to attend the hearing. This isn't their primary duty in their line of work though, so most of them don't want the hassle of having to actually testify across multiple matters.
This has gotten easier for them when a lot of hearings moved to Zoom/Videoconferencing. I've seen them give testimony while sitting in their patrol car.
This is truer for some jurisdictions than others. This is another value of a PD/Attorney, they know which officers show up and how often.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link