My reading is primarily non-fiction, so I’m pretty picky about which novelists I’ll spare reading time for. One is Scott Turow, a former attorney whose fiction set in courtrooms rings true to my own experience after years as an arresting officer, police department prosecutor, and expert witness. His latest, this year’s “Presumed Guilty,” ran true to form.
Here’s one thing he wrote there which I consider a truism: “’God save me from the innocent client.’ That is the watchword of defense lawyers. When I was a prosecutor, I never really understood the phrase, except as a smartass expression I often heard from a lawyer on the other side, since they’d usually follow it by saying, ‘But God has been good to me in this case.’ Yet there is a grim truth in the maxim. The burden of this case has increased enormously in the last few days. It’s no longer enough to commit every fiber to doing my best. I must – must – win.”
I’ve found that to be absolutely true. However, he followed with something I would debate in part: “Innocent clients are also harder to represent in a fundamental way. They are unpredictable. Guilty clients will lie, deny, blame others. They have a certain limited register of reactions. Innocent clients, caught in their nightmarish predicament, cannot be counted on to be rational because they have understandably lost all faith in reason as a governing principle of the social world.”
I’ll buy the loss of faith part, for sure. As Turow says, it’s understandable. However, I’ve seen again and again that a properly prepared defendant, testifying to the truth, can get that truth across to judge and jury. I do primarily self-defense use of force cases. They are not “whodunnit” but “why did she or he do it,” and only he or she who fired in self-defense can truly, fully explain why.
I found “Presumed Guilty” an excellent read, and recommend it. The trial tactics and dynamics therein are pretty much spot on.