Defense Lawyer
How to Find a Good Defense Lawyer
By Johnthaon Eyslier
Hiring a good defense lawyer is an extremely important decision because your freedom or lack thereof will depend on the expertise of your lawyer. An attorney to defend your legal rights is crucial if you have been accused of a crime or believe you are going to be arrested. When you need representation, naturally you will want the very best, so do not try to spare expenses.
Expensive does not Always Mean Better
Of course, just because a lawyer is expensive does not mean they will be the best one, so keep a few other things in mind when searching for the best attorney for your needs. A good defense attorney will have experience in the court room as well as plea bargaining experience. Check the reputation of the lawyer you are considering hiring when it comes to the number of losses and wins they have. One with many losses may not be the one you want to hire to protect your rights.
Qualified and Experienced Attorneys are Crucial
Their qualifications are extremely important as well. How long have they been practicing law? Do they plea bargain more than they actually go to court? Are they comfortable in the court room? You will want to ask about the cost of your defense if this is going to become a long, drawn out process. How many years have they been practicing? All of these questions are important to find an attorney that is experienced enough to handle your case.
The last thing you want to do is walk into court with a lawyer who has never handled a case before a judge. When you find one that you think could handle your case, you will always want an initial consultation so you can meet the lawyer and see how you feel about this person. Are you comfortable with them?
Do they seem knowledgeable especially in the area of the law that concerns your case? Lawyers defend different types of cases and you will need one that is very knowledgeable in the type of charges you are facing. If your charges are going to be plea-bargained rather than going to court which many cases are, the lawyer you choose should also have experience in this area as well.
The lawyer needs to be a good negotiator to ensure that you get the best plea bargain possible. They are going to be advising you on the favorable and non-favorable aspects of accepting a plea bargain. So it is imperative that they know what they are talking about - after all this is your freedom that is in jeopardy.
A good defense attorney will have the proficiency to research your case. Many cases have been won by finding laws that set precedence in the type of case you may have. Searching old laws via the Internet or using law books is a must for researching your charges and effectively arguing your case.
This is a decision that should not be made in haste. Choosing the first one you find on the Internet or in the telephone book is not going to be in your best interests. If you were having a major surgery performed would you just choose the first surgeon you found? Find a good defense attorney by doing your research and asking the right questions.
January 18, 2011
3:06 am
Mike, I am sorry, but what you have posted is not an important question. What you have posted is nonsense.
Any defendant can plead insanity. The issue is whether it can be proven. Why don’t you go to the library and read up on the insanity defense. Maybe after that you can post a question that isn’t gibberish.
January 19, 2011
2:52 pm
What would be the ethical things for a defense lawyer to do in the following situation?
A defense lawyer is defending someone accused of a violent crime such as rape, murder, or assault, and the lawyer knows the client is guilty because the client confessed to him or he has access to evidence that clearly shows the client is guitly.
Is it unethical for the lawyer to try to get the client declared “not guilty” so he can walk free unpunished, or is the attorney’s ONLY obligation to his client?
Or does the attorney have a moral and ethical obligation to society to insure the guilty party is punished?
What is the bigger purpose: defending the client or defending society?
January 20, 2011
3:32 pm
Look at it this way: If the prosecution doesn’t have enough evidence to convict a person, and that person has exercised his right to remain silent when speaking to the police, should the authorities be able to lay a charge with the expectation that the accused will talk to his lawyer, and expect that they’ll be able to rely on those statements to the lawyer in court?
It completely undermines the right to remain silent and the right to counsel, if your statements to your lawyer are fair game for making out a case against you.
That said, such knowledge isn’t without a consequence. If an accused confesses to his lawyer, that lawyer’s duty to the court prevents him from being able to adduce evidence of things he knows not to be true. Thus, alibi evidence is off the table, evidence that somebody else is the guilty party is off the table…basically, any evidence that the accused is innocent cannot be adduced, because the defence lawyer would be knowingly misleading the court, and thus violating his duty.
Still, the lawyer still has a duty to challenge the prosecution’s case against the accused. If the prosecution doesn’t have the witnesses and/or physical evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the court cannot convict, and it’s the defence lawyer’s duty to see that the court realizes that it cannot convict.
It it’s not an admission, but physical evidence in the lawyer’s possession, then other obligations kick in. A lawyer can’t conceal evidence. (There are some grey areas if he intends to bring it up in court himself, but he can’t just take the murder weapon and hide it away.) In Canada, at least, there’s a practice trick called the ‘brown bagging’. If a defendant brings you the murder weapon and tells you to deal with it (and refuses to take it away himself)…defence counsel can’t just bring it to the police himself; it would be easy enough for the police to zero in on the suspect just by watching who he represents in court. Instead, defence counsel should put the object into a paper bag, retain another lawyer (thus invoking privilege with the other lawyer), and have the other lawyer bring the object to the police, telling them only that it might be relevant to some investigation.
January 20, 2011
8:10 pm
What must a defense lawyer prove to get a psychopath back within substantial capacity test ?
Hey i have a very important question that has to be answered. What must a defense lawyer prove to a judge or jury in order to get a psychopathic client back within bounds to qualify for the “substantial capacity” test to plead insanity considering a psychopath is excluded otherwise. All the help would be greatly appreciated thanks very much.
Mike,
January 20, 2011
11:13 pm
Defense Lawyer?
So at school we are pretending to actually be in court. I have to be a lawyer and I have to research the basic rules and things about being a lawyer. I need to know when to object and when not to.
I have no clue about anything! Please help! >___<
January 21, 2011
6:50 am
A lot of answers so far seem to focus on the US. If you’re in the UK, however (wouldn’t it be useful if the site showed where people are?!) then the following will apply:
First you need a law degree. You should make sure it includes the core modules decreed by the Law Society as necessary to qualify as a solicitor or barrister.
You then need to decide whether you would want to be a solicitor, who, typically, provides initial advice to people and represents them in the lower (magistrates) courts, or a barrister who tends to specialise in more specific areas and represents people in the Crown and higher courts (I’m guessing this is what you’re thinking of)
To become a barrister is a long and, often, very expensive process. You need, after graduating, to gain a ‘pupilage’ at an established chambers (practice). Competition for these is very stiff indeed.
Many barristers (and defence solicitors) start out working for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). It’s a steady income and considered to be excellent training for moving over to defence work
January 21, 2011
5:44 pm
You are working for a criminal defense lawyer. She is representing a man accused of kidnapping, raping and vi?
You are working for a criminal defense lawyer. She is representing a man accused of kidnapping, raping and videotaping the murder of a two year-old child. How would you feel about assisting the attorney on the case? Are there ethical issues in allowing one’s personal feelings to be expressed in working on a case? What if you have strong feelings against the client’s position?
January 21, 2011
6:06 pm
What course would I need to undertake to become a Defense Lawyer?
I realise it would be at a University. Is there a specific course to become a ‘Defense’ lawyer, or would it be a general legal studies course where I choose my units type thing. Lol anyone know?
January 21, 2011
6:29 pm
You have to give the defendant the best possible defense. If it were shown that you had not, you jeopardize his prosecution.
January 21, 2011
11:45 pm
Ok, there is a rule about “objecting” that is often difficult to learn. One should only object when what the other guy is doing is hurting your case.
One of the most common objections is an objection to a leading objection. A leading question is one that suggests the answer such as “The light was green, wasn’t it?” or “isn’t it true the light was green.” These types of questions are ones you can ask on cross-examination (questioning witnesses called by your opponent) but cannot ask on direct (questioning your own witnesses). If your opponent starts asking these kinds of questions when he is questioning his own witness, you can object by saying “Objection your honor, leading.”
Another common objection is relevancy. Relevant questions are those that are pertinent to the issue. So if, for example, the case is a criminal case and the defendant is being charged with burglary, a relevant question to ask the eye witness would be “Were you wearing your glasses that evening:?” or “Describe the lighting near the front door where you observed the man with the crowbar in his hand.” These are relevant questions because the ability to see the person who committed the crime is pertinent to the issue of whether the defendant is guilty or not.
However a irrelevant question is one that has nothing to do with the case. For instance, take the same eye witness, an irrelevant question would be ” Now, Mrs. Smith, isn’t it true you have been married eight times.” The fact that she has been married 8 times is not relevant to whether she was able to see the person who committed the burglary.
Relevancy is a bit tricky because evidence of a person’s bias, motive to lie, etc is always relevant. However, if a question is not pertinent in any way to the case, one can object by saying “Objection, your honor, irrelevant.”
Finally, you can object if your opponent is badgering the witness or being argumentative. The purpose of questioning the witness is not to argue the case. So if your opponent keep asking the same question even though the witness is answering each question or starts raising his voice while questioning a witness because he does not like what the witness is saying, you can object “Objection, argumentative” or “Objection, counsel is badgering the witness.”
Good luck!