|
For too long we have devoted our training efforts to developing skills that only enhance opportunities for “not guilty” jury verdicts. This training is needed, but training directed exclusively or primarily toward this goal is disproportionate to our predominant task.
Our options for effective representation well over three-fourths of the time do not include a realistic chance of having our client found "not guilty". Yet, almost exclusively, we train and focus our representation goals on the Holy Grail of criminal defense representation, "not guilty". For many justifiable reasons we must waltz with the concept that our client is "not guilty", but when the entire focus of the representation is based upon a "not guilty" verdict, statistically the results are devastating.
In representing a person accused of criminal activity, most often, at some point, we have to acknowledge the person's factual involvement, and extremely persuasive evidence of that factual involvement. This fact being a statistical reality, we then need to focus earlier in the representation process on dispositional fairness as one of our primary goals.
An enhanced understanding of the models of representation will provide us with a guide to distinguish between techniques that are no better than Ouija board decision making and techniques that are based upon sound judgment.
|