Results 1 to 10 of 14

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Default Re: Is It Prejudicial, Impassioning and Inflammatory for a Prosecutor

    Say the defendant paid 5 or 6 figures for legal counsel, would it be prejudicial for the prosecutor to incorrectly state the defendant was represented by the public defender? Appointed Counsel?

    Is there a difference between the Public Defender and appointed counsel? Other than the title and oath, I don't think so.

    The prejudice resulting from the jury hearing that which is not relevant and contrary to the defendant's 6th amendment rights, is the jury panelists are paying for both sides and one might be a bit desensitized not to believe a panelist will harbor a natural bias against somebody that cannot afford counsel as opposed to a defendant that rolls in with a law firm everyone knows costs at least as much as a down payment on a home, if not a home.

    I'm thinking years of outcomes reflect juries generally believe wealthy people are less likely to be guilty.

    I suppose the flip side might be a jury may actually expect less vigorous defense by a public defender regardless of innocence or guilt, that could work either way.

    Thanks for being open minded and asking.

    For the purposes of this discussion of a hypothetical, the USA is sufficient and what was said was 'the defendant is represented by the public defender' during prosecution's opening and the public defender introduced themselves the same way during their opening.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Behind a Desk
    Posts
    98,846

    Default Re: Is It Prejudicial, Impassioning and Inflammatory for a Prosecutor

    There's really no point in trying to discuss this as a hypothetical, with evolving and changing facts, as the answer will depend upon the actual facts. Also, laws and rules of ethics vary by state, so if you want a fifty state analysis you should think about hiring somebody to do that research for you.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Is It Prejudicial, Impassioning and Inflammatory for a Prosecutor

    AS IF, the actual venue made any difference in this typical-of-"here" non-discussion about a very simple concept. I don't recall such a point ever being made in any United States District Courts.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Behind a Desk
    Posts
    98,846

    Default Re: Is It Prejudicial, Impassioning and Inflammatory for a Prosecutor

    If you merely want to chit-chat, go to "banter" or "debate the issues".

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,238

    Default Re: Is It Prejudicial, Impassioning and Inflammatory for a Prosecutor

    Quote Quoting JustANobody
    View Post

    For the purposes of this discussion of a hypothetical, the USA is sufficient and what was said was 'the defendant is represented by the public defender' during prosecution's opening and the public defender introduced themselves the same way during their opening.
    Then unless the defendant’s financial means was somehow relevant to the trial there is almost certainly no chance of prejudice in a simple statement that the defendant is represented by a public defender.

    Quote Quoting JustANobody
    View Post
    The prejudice resulting from the jury hearing that which is not relevant and contrary to the defendant's 6th amendment rights, is the jury panelists are paying for both sides and one might be a bit desensitized not to believe a panelist will harbor a natural bias against somebody that cannot afford counsel as opposed to a defendant that rolls in with a law firm everyone knows costs at least as much as a down payment on a home, if not a home.

    I'm thinking years of outcomes reflect juries generally believe wealthy people are less likely to be guilty.
    Your logic is flawed. In most trials, the wealth (or lack of it) is not presented to the jury, and there are no reliable studies that suggest that juries tend to think that wealth alone bears on the issue of guilt, or even plays any significant part in it. What you do see is that people with wealth can afford to buy the best legal services, and that better representation then shows in the outcomes that the person gets. In other words, the jury is persuaded by the good representation, not by the mere fact that the defendant is wealthy. It is just simply the fact that wealth allows a person to buy that good representation.

    In most circumstances I don't see a defendant getting any traction making an issue over a statement that he was represented by a public defender.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    24,521

    Default Re: Is It Prejudicial, Impassioning and Inflammatory for a Prosecutor

    Public defenders attend the same law schools, pass the same exams, take the same Bar exams, and receive the same law license by the same licensing body. The difference between a paid attorney and a public defender is that the PD has chosen to represent the poor instead of the wealthy. They are not some kind of lesser being that indicate a poor representation, or guilt, simply by their existence.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,238

    Default Re: Is It Prejudicial, Impassioning and Inflammatory for a Prosecutor

    Quote Quoting cbg
    View Post
    Public defenders attend the same law schools, pass the same exams, take the same Bar exams, and receive the same law license by the same licensing body. The difference between a paid attorney and a public defender is that the PD has chosen to represent the poor instead of the wealthy. They are not some kind of lesser being that indicate a poor representation, or guilt, simply by their existence.
    While I agree with that, the degree to which a public defender (PD) can match the time and resources available to a well funded private attorney vary significantly across the U.S., and in most states for most types of offenses the PD will not be able to deliver the kind of service that a private attorney is able provide, paid for of course by his client.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    24,521

    Default Re: Is It Prejudicial, Impassioning and Inflammatory for a Prosecutor

    That is true. It is still not something that automatically puts the defendant at a disadvantage and needs to be hidden.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    California
    Posts
    459

    Default Re: Is It Prejudicial, Impassioning and Inflammatory for a Prosecutor

    Public defenders are lawyers and take the same oath as every other attorney. In fact, they take it twice--once when sworn into the bar and once when sworn in as a PD. As to resources, virtually all PD offices are understaff and under funded but they do what they can. In many states, the court will have to fund some things like investigators and experts. With that said, however, for serious felonies, most people can't afford to pay an attorney to defend that type of case and will have a public defender or a contracted defense attorney represent them. There's nothing wrong with defense counsel identifying themselves as a public defender or the prosecutor referring to them as that. If they are private counsel, they can certainly correct the misstatement if they want to.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Is It Prejudicial, Impassioning and Inflammatory for a Prosecutor

    So you say there is nothing wrong with it, yet, in a criminal trial, jury or not, all words matter.

    What is right about it and justify such detailed information being relevant or necessary?

    It can only prejudice and if you don't believe that, you don't understand human nature and are unwilling to accept a jury being predominately ultra-right conservative.

    There is zero need to dignify the comments about the PD's being the same when it is clearly established across the country that our nation has a long way to go to meet the holding in Gideon.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Court-Appointed Lawyers: Public Defenders
    By pawlinc in forum Criminal Defense Lawyers
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-01-2010, 08:31 AM
  2. Retail Fraud / Shoplifting: Public Defenders for Shoplifting
    By tc498 in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-30-2009, 04:49 AM
  3. Court-Appointed Lawyers: When Public Defenders Don't Care
    By littleblu in forum Criminal Defense Lawyers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-16-2008, 07:00 PM
  4. Retail Fraud / Shoplifting: Public Defenders
    By BustedMonkey in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-05-2007, 01:03 PM
  5. Retail Fraud / Shoplifting: Public Defenders
    By xmorbidxdementiax in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-20-2005, 03:34 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources