An Unbalanced Defense

The $40/Hr Defense Lawyer: 'Making A Murderer' Attorney Dean Strang Discusses The Economics of Innocence

 Please read the entire 2-Part article written by Allen St. John of Forbes. Here was my commentary to this article:

"The presumption of innocence is implied, but is not always afforded by the system. The battle is never balanced and you are "out-gunned" by the state with all its resources and determination to win. Ideally, a cap should be placed on both sides with equal access to resources. We know that will never happen. There were too many errors and inappropriate actions during these investigations. There was an ample amount of doubt that should have raised many red flags; but two juries got it wrong. They ruled on emotion and fear. I define fear as False Evidence Appearing Real. If there wasn't enough evidence of this in Avery's first wrongful conviction; it was completely ignored in his second. The sad things we see time after time in wrongful convictions is the fact that rarely does a prosecution accept blame for their actions. Traditionally, they stand firm on their actions and believe, in spite of the real lack of evidence, that they still got it right. This should scare anyone who may be so unfortunate to wrongfully come into the sights of our legal system."

Even if you or your family can afford to hire (most can't) a lawyer that is specialized in the case that you face; the on-going expenses will generally break the bank. The state or the prosecution, does have unlimited resources at its disposal. The taxpayers are footing the bill and they want to be sure that justice is served and they are protected from the evil that may be walking their streets.

Maybe look at this another way. Your tax dollars are funding the prosecutor that you are also funding your attorney to fight against. Talking about a double edge sword! You know going in that your personal budget will never match that of the prosecution; so how can this ever be a fair fight? Its not.

Can you additionally afford the filing fees, the experts, the testing or even a private investigator that is usually required in serious cases? These are a phone call away for the prosecution. Many are are on retainer and many are "paid" as well. You just have to think, if they are paid by the prosecution, are they not swayed to find in their favor as well? After all, its the prosecution's job to seek justice, not necessarily a conviction - right? Ethically yes, but in all reality, it's about winning, conviction stats, public opinion and of course, being re-elected! Come on...if its all about truth and justice alone, then why are we discovering so many wrongful convictions? I know, they get it right "most" of the time...but do they really?

Now lets say they offer you a plea deal...and they will. But you're innocent. Why would you ever plea to being guilty? Well, believe it or not, RISK of an conviction is the leading reason why! I don't know about you, but I watch a lot of Dateline, 20/20 and the like, and time after time, we see people getting convicted by juries without a shred of physical evidence linking them directly to the crime. Nothing more that circumstances and theories strong enough to convince jurors of your guilt. Are you willing to bet the bank or your future on that system? It may very well be a question you could have to face. And when your attorney has weighed the risks based upon their experience and they recommend you take the plea? Now you have a huge life altering dilemma on your hands. What do you do now?

So you stand on your innocence and turn down the plea and go to trial. You know, your innocence will shine through. There's no direct evidence against you and a jury will surely see it regardless of what that credible local prosecutor says to the contrary. Right? Pray you're right, but remember, this was never a fair and balanced fight in the first place. Every juror on that panel is going to first ask themselves why a prosecutor that only seeks the truth and justice ever continue to prosecute a presumably innocent person? Watch this documentary "Making a Murderer" and answer that question yourself.

So if you win, congratulations! It's all over...right? Think again. Some will simply believe you got away with it. Your life will never be the same. Society tends to be cruel unless your innocence was so obvious and they believe just was served in your behalf. But why did the prosecution pursue it in the first place if that was so true?

But what if you lose? You can always appeal, right? Sure, but again, its more money into a very slow and enduring process. And generally, unless you have something more compelling than what you presented at your trial, there's not much chance of being successful at the whole appeal process either. Your $25k lawyer has turned to $50k to $75k and beyond, that is if you had the money to continue this fight.

The bottom line is, can you really afford justice? The Duke Lacrosse defendants were able to hire million dollar attorneys to fight their battles and win. Not everybody is so lucky. Maybe you can catch the eye of the Innocence Project and they will take on your case. Unless you have a case based in DNA along with some notable mistakes and errors, your case will likely never make the cut.

Your obvious conclusion and remedy to this entire debacle is to never commit a crime and get arrested. Well that's true...unless you happen to become a person of interest and the real perpetrator is nowhere to be found and you become the "focus" of determined investigation and prosecution. Then, unfortunately, you find yourself someplace you never dreamed possible. Now you may understand why the likes of Steve Avery was so easily targeted and regardless of all the obvious errors and questionable actions of the investigators, he was able to be convicted again. And in my opinion, wrongfully convicted based upon the lack of direct forensic evidence and tons of reasonable doubt.

What do you think?