That's the title of my latest article in The Hill. Below is the introduction. Let me know your thoughts.
Hate mail. Distancing from friends and family. Criticized and second-guessed by the media. All criminal defense lawyers can feel for attorney Eric Nelson and what he has gone through during his high-profile representation of a deeply unpopular client, former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, who was convicted on all charges Tuesday in the killing of George Floyd.
It’s hard to fight any case at trial. Defense lawyers often face hostile prosecutors, judges, prison guards, and probation officers every day — but in a high-profile case, add to that a hostile media, public, and even popular movements.
CNN’s Jake Tapper said Nelson was gaslighting the jury during the closing. While the jury was deliberating, the President of the United States said he was praying for the victim and that the evidence was overwhelming. A congresswoman said that if the jury returned a verdict of not guilty, protestors should become more confrontational. And I’m sure closer to home, Nelson’s friends and family asked him “How can you represent that person?”
There’s no other profession in America where everyone is rooting against you.
If Chauvin had been shot on his way to the courthouse, it’s hard to imagine anyone sending hate mail to or criticizing the surgeon who operated in an attempt to save his life. No one would protest outside of the surgeon’s office or home. That’s not the same for the criminal defense lawyer.
It’s hard to fight any case at trial. Defense lawyers often face hostile prosecutors, judges, prison guards, and probation officers every day — but in a high-profile case, add to that a hostile media, public, and even popular movements.
CNN’s Jake Tapper said Nelson was gaslighting the jury during the closing. While the jury was deliberating, the President of the United States said he was praying for the victim and that the evidence was overwhelming. A congresswoman said that if the jury returned a verdict of not guilty, protestors should become more confrontational. And I’m sure closer to home, Nelson’s friends and family asked him “How can you represent that person?”
There’s no other profession in America where everyone is rooting against you.
If Chauvin had been shot on his way to the courthouse, it’s hard to imagine anyone sending hate mail to or criticizing the surgeon who operated in an attempt to save his life. No one would protest outside of the surgeon’s office or home. That’s not the same for the criminal defense lawyer.
13 comments:
#JohnAdams
Criminal Defense lawyers defend the constitution, not their clients.
11:56 do you tell your clients that? That you don't represent them you represent a piece of parchment.
It is only by defending people that the Constitution is protected.
"If Chauvin had been shot on his way to the courthouse, it’s hard to imagine anyone sending hate mail to or criticizing the surgeon who operated in an attempt to save his life. No one would protest outside of the surgeon’s office or home. That’s not the same for the criminal defense lawyer."
The service that surgeons and physicians perform for their "clients" or "patients" does not usually entail them making public excuses for their client's behavior, or blaming their clients' victims for their own deaths, or trying to discredit sympathetic people who saw their clients' commit whatever act. The representation and advocacy that lawyers do for their clients involve antagonizing and attacking people and beliefs that the public may care about. When that happens, the public may respond accordingly.
The fact that a lawyer may not personally sympathize with his client or client's conduct and that he only defends him out of belief in "due process" or to make a living does not grant the lawyer immunity from public ire. If your enemy hires paid mercenaries to fight a war against you, the paid mercenaries don't get to say "You can't shoot us, because we're only doing this for money!"
But since you bring up the issue of doctors and surgeons, even they are not immune from recrimination when they perform acts that outrage the public. The fertility doctor that helped "Octomom" get pregnant suffered much opprobrium and lost his license, to the point he was tearfully apologizing for ever having helped "Octomom."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/octomoms-fertility-doctor-has-license-revoked/
When "Octomom" hired a publicist to advocate for her, the publicist quit soon after getting death threats.
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/octuplets-mother-nadya-suleman-publicist-steps-death-threats-agent-article-1.389373
Or sometimes, even being related to a reviled person makes you eligible for sharing in their shame and punishment.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-threat-painted-king-suspects-parents-home-2010mar03-story.html
So it's not just lawyers who are eligible for public condemnation when they assist or facilitate reviled people.
And don't pretend medical professionals are unflappable figures who would always treat every patient before them and be immune from public sentiment. When Canadian serial killer Karla Homolka went to the hospital to give birth, nurses refused to treat her.
"Criminal Defense lawyers defend the constitution, not their clients."
What about criminal defense lawyers (like Eric Schwartzreich) who work for police unions and only represent police officers charged with misconduct? Lawyers who fight tooth and nail to make sure such cops never suffer any consequences and who fight any attempts at police reform or accountability? Are they also defending the constitution?
@5:19 - yes they are. The constitution protects everyone, even "bad" cops. It seems you forget how this works. If one person, any one person, does not get the full benefit of due process and vigorous defense, then the right is meaningless.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
The criminal defense lawyers who say they defend the constitution are all former prosecutors who are ashamed about what they do for a living.
"@5:19 - yes they are. The constitution protects everyone, even "bad" cops. It seems you forget how this works. If one person, any one person, does not get the full benefit of due process and vigorous defense, then the right is meaningless."
So the way to defend the constitution is to fight really hard to make sure bad cops never face consequences for violating the constitutional rights of defendants?
Spare us the "they came for the..." speech. The bad cops, the Roger Stones, the Jeffrey Epsteins, the Claus Von Bulows of this world have never wanted for "due process and vigorous defense." They have it in spades. They enjoy way more than the benefit of the doubt if ever they're in the dock. Yet despite the scrupulous regard for the due process rights of privileged white men, it did not share or trickle down to the legions of wretched black and brown defendants. And it never will. The constitutional rights of wretched masses were rendered "meaningless" long ago.
@1:15 - and so your solution is to further erode due process rights?
I'd prefer to lift up those who don't have rather than bringing down those who do.
"I'd prefer to lift up those who don't have rather than bringing down those who do."
When defense lawyers prevent bad cops from being prosecuted, convicted, or disciplined, that brings down and keeps down people who already have the least (if any) due process in this country. When they lobby and litigate against attempts at police accountability and do everything possible to maintain police impunity, they suffocate the constitutional rights of those at the mercy of their police clients. The people who zealously guarded the due process interests of Jeffrey Epstein and Roger Stone are the same class of people who throw truckloads of black and brown people into prisons every day. This isn't a rising tide that lifts all vessels. It's elevating a class of people above the law so they can continue to kick and spit upon those beneath them. You don't lift up those who don't have by forever elevating those who took it away.
So in the wretched world as it is, yes, people do take delight in seeing the occasional white police office or rich white person punished and suffering.
@2:53 - I am sorry for you and the burden of hate that you carry.
I suppose that's the difference between your view and mine. I don't see the world as wretched. I see it as beautiful and wondrous, and I can see that in spite of its very real flaws. But ultimately, the world and reality is what we make it.
And I prefer to make my world better by holding myself and those around me to lofty ideals rather than by trolling in the gutter and trying to bring down those who I see as my enemies.
"And I prefer to make my world better by holding myself and those around me to lofty ideals rather than by trolling in the gutter and trying to bring down those who I see as my enemies."
The defense attorneys who defend venal police are the ones who "troll in the gutter" and "bring down" people. When they defend cops who beat or killed a detainee or falsified a report or planted evidence, their number one strategy is to claim the person the cops abused is just some drug addicted scumbag who had it coming. When police unions lobby against any reform or accountability, they scare the public with tales about how the animals and savages in the city will run amok unless the thin blue line is allowed to beat and shoot with total impunity. When the expensive army of defense lawyers and facilitating prosecutors drafted Jeffrey Epstein's sweetheart deal, they characterized Epstein's underage victims as prostitutes and whores as a way to diminish Epstein's offenses. The "lofty ideals" of due process you extol inevitably involve attacking and bringing down people.
The world will not change for any better until those who make it bad finally face harm and consequence for what they do.
I wonder when will judges start protecting due process in their courtrooms instead of just making excuses and covering for prosecutorial misconduct and civil rights abuses as far as the 11Cir will let them.
Is it any different when the physical force is exchanged for prosecutorial home court advantage?
Post a Comment