If you’re a barrister…

[JackanorysStories]

Have you ever defended someone you KNEW was guilty and they got off with the crime? If so, how did you feel about it? Do you just have to detach yourself in such cases? Or do you only take cases where you believe the defendant to be innocent? I guess that’s not possible otherwise clearly guilty defendants would never have anyone on their case. So you try and convince the person to admit their guilt or do you just have to give them all the possible outcomes and go with whatever they decide?

No judgement from me, I’m just curious about it from a personal perspective.

OP I don’t understand why you think @itadak is being rude. There is nothing rude at all in her post. She is just stating facts.

@Neveralonewithaclone It’s traditionally been the situation that solicitors don’t advocate in court. Some do now and I think are solicitor advocates. The training is completely different and barristers have a different function. They manage the court process for the client. The training for barristers is different and they are effectively consultants when cases go to court. They work closely with solicitors though. The bundles are produced for the barristers but that might just be the start of managing the case as it progresses.

No-one can be sure the client is guilty unless the client says so or unless they were there at the time. Remember there have been countless cases where juries were sure someone was guilty and they have been found to have been wrong.

On the issue of feeling bad about a guilty person going free: I was once on a jury where we were all 100% sure the defendant was guilty of a crime, but not the crime she was charged with. When we found her not guilty, the prosecutor looked absolutely furious. We didn't feel bad about it, because we reckoned it was the prosecution's fault for bringing the wrong charge and/or failing to prove their case.

It also depends upon the evidence gathered by the police. Prosecutors have to work with the evidence. Also juries must listen to the summing up by the judge. They are guided somewhat regarding decisions.

I see a few say they can't work with a client anymore due to professional embarrassment

I'm not a barrister but when I took a law course we had a talk from an elderly lawyer who had once worked on a particularly nasty murder case.

They all knew that the man had killed his wife and baby; he'd confessed to it but when the trial came he claimed the confession wasn't true and he was innocent - he suddenly blamed his landlord, who was a pillar of the community. The defence did a professional job but they "knew" him to be guilty, and weren't sorry to see him convicted and hanged.

Nobody in the world thought that Evans was innocent until his landlord later confessed to being a serial killer.

Is it really like on "The Lincoln Lawyer" etc, where Barristers act as detectives and go looking for evidence that their clients aren't responsible? Or do you just work with the paperwork and evidence you're given?

@AndSoFinally My DD is a barrister but not a criminal barrister. However I cannot imagine any barrister would ever look for evidence. Thats the job of the police. They work with the evidence they are given which of course might have inconsistencies and irregularities in it that don’t add up. It’s their job to probe this or get their client to provide answers for the inconsistencies. Criminal barristers would know more but as far as I’m aware, each side presents their evidence but if new evidence comes to light then I’m there are court procedures for this. It’s important to understand the justice system isn’t tv programmes.

Similarly, everyone ‘knew’ the (multiple) post office employees were guilty of theft. After all, the only way they couldn’t be was if there was deliberate concealment of problems with the computer system which multiple computer experts had said was fine and that’s just a ridiculous conspiracy theory. Get out the tin foil hats.

Oopsie.

Edited to say not a barrister, I just watch TV and even that shows (in the news / documentaries not fictional) multiple cases where everyone ‘just knew’ the defendant was guilty but it later turns out they weren’t.

Rather pompous and condescending you mean

If evidence has been concealed and an incorrect verdict reached, then there are appeals. Had the Post Office postmasters not come up against this, they might not have been found guilty. The post office prosecuted its own employees which is unusual in the uk.