How do you defend those people?!

Whenever I get asked this question I am always confused as to who "those people" are referring to.  Are you talking about poor people?  People who have criminal records?  People who admit their guilt? Or just people you assume are guilty because they have been charged?  Usually I ask for clarification and the question becomes "How can you defend people you know are guilty?'  After years of kinda floundering to clearly explain my thoughts on this  I have finally come up with a pretty standard way to express my thoughts on it.

First I think people ask this question in regards to trial and I rarely go to trial.  This is not a rarity.  Regardless of what most tv law procedurals show, most case are resolved by plea, pre-trial diversion programs, or pre-trial dismissal by the state.  The largest percentage of my cases are resolved via plea deals that usually involve a good amount of negotiations to come up with a resolution that both sides can agree to.  When you take the very small percent of cases that actually go to trial, I rarely if ever KNOW that those people are guilty.  The only people who actually know 100% percent what happened are the people involved in the incident.  I was not there thus can never be certain.  Sure I can have my suspicions but that is not the same as knowing.   

And let me tell you people hate that answer.  Their response is always  followed by "come on you might not know know but you know."  And to answer that yeah in some cases I do, but it is fundamentally import to remember that being charged with a crime does not automatically equal being guilty.  Sometimes an innocent man does get accused.  But even if my client isn't an innocent man, my job isn't to judge. My job is to represent my client and to advocate for his rights. The state prosecutes an action but a defense attorney defends the person. In almost every circumstance, representing does not equal agreeing with their actions or decisions.  My job is to defend a person's rights.  It is to ensure that the state has met its burden of proof and that the rights and protections our country guarantees us are properly given.   Everyone must be treated equally under the law when a case is being built.  Police cannot change the rules for the good guys or the bad guys, because the question then becomes who is the person who decides who is bad.  Creating a sliding scale of rights is a slippery slope.  Normally I hate that phrase because people use it to connect ridiculous things that don't connect (like the crap about allowing gay marriage is a slippery slope for allowing man-animal marriage...complete bullshit) but in this case slippery slope is exactly what it would and can create.  When you allow those in authority to alter what rights a person has slowly more and more people get slid into the range of undeserving.  When will you the ordinary citizen slide over to the unprotected side of the list?  Is it when you get a speeding ticket or do a non-complete stop?  Or is it when you go to a protest? Or when you are an outspoken opponent of the President?  Where is the line?

What I just said might sound all conspiracy theorist and over dramatic but that is what it basically boils down to. The state has a very serious job of protecting society as a whole from dangerous individuals.  I respect that job and am glad that honorable people work hard everyday to do that job.  Good people risk their lives as law enforcement officers and other good people work hard to convict criminals in court.  But that being said I, and many other criminal defense attorneys, will not give them a free pass to do it. Its our job to hold the state's feet over the metaphorical fire and make sure they use the correct procedures to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty before they can take away our most basic of rights, Freedom.   Wouldn't you want that if it was your mom or brother or child sitting in the defendant's seat?

Okay stepping off soap box and ending rant.