So, I was reading the Washington Times at lunch today (yes, I actually bought a dead-tree paper) and I ran across the most amazing statement. The article is about a doctor who was convicted of rape and faced decades of incarceration. The Defendant remained on bond until his sentencing hearing. He was supposed to wear an electronic anklet but his attorneys were to arrange it to be put on later. In a shocking development, the doctor fled rather than face a possible 55 years in jail.
And who is responsible? The defense attorney:
"Today is the 35th day that convicted rapist David Fuster has remained a fugitive. This is simply intolerable. We understand that [the defense attorney] was only doing his job by working to get his client the best possible deal. On the other hand, [defense attorneys] need to understand that, as officers of the court, they have a responsibility to the public as well. They are endangering the community when they fight to allow clients, especially sexual predators, to remain free after their convictions. The possibility of flight and the potential danger to public safety are too risky."So, I'm supposed to stop representing my client?
As I see it there are three people who have differing duties in that courtroom. The defense attorney has a responsibility to represent the citizenry's liberty rights, rights as enumerated under the constitutions, rights as reserved to the citizenry under the 9th Amendment and rights bestowed upon the citizenry under the 5th and 14th Amendments. He is constrained in this endeavor by his duties as an officer of the court to not lie to the court, not participate in a fraud upon the court, and not stand by while he has knowledge that his client intends in the future to break the law (the latter two requiring actual knowledge - not just a strong suspicion or even a belief that something is probable).
The prosecutor has a duty to represent the citizenry's interest in upholding the laws of the government (generally those outside the rights guaranteed but theoretically those as well), safeguarding the citizenry from those dangerous to it, and seek vengeance for the wrongs done to citizens. He is constrained in this endeavor by his duties as an officer of the court to seek justice (which I admit is a higher and more difficult standard than that to which defense attorneys are held).
The judge represents the citizenry's interest in balancing the positions of the two advocates and ensuring the laws and rules are followed in a manner which is fair to both the defendant and the government.
All that said - THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG IN THIS CASE. The prosecutor screwed up his case by not getting his evidence to the lab and back within a six month wndow with which he is provided. Still, even the prosecutor is not the person who should take the lion's share of the blame. The Judge always has to approve any deal. In fairness, the judge may have felt - after he got the prosecution's explanation for the deal - that the only way justice could be served would be to accept the deal. But I suspect that if the defense was willing to plead guilty there probably remained evidence which would likely convict. And even if there wasn't, there was nothing keeping the judge from holding the defendant at least until the anklet was placed on him.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment