Criminal Defense Lawyers: They're Not Perry Mason

Moulay Idriss, Morocco - photo by JoAnn Sturman

Scott Sturman
fliesinyoureyes.com

“Reasonable doubt begins with the payment of a reasonable fee.”
Murray Richmond - Successful and highly paid New York City Criminal Defense Lawyer.

Several years ago a prominent personal injury and criminal defense attorney passed away. The newspaper extolled his career and lionized him as an advocate of the poor and disenfranchised. Many who knew him felt every bad guy in town had this attorney’s phone number in his pocket. No criminal wants to pay hefty fees and lose, and successful trial lawyers need to win to keep the cases and money coming their way. It is business; a business which specializes in defending criminals.

Why is it when some defendant beats a murder rap, the guilty person cannot be found? This never happened to Perry Mason, Erle Stanley Gardner’s iconic trial lawyer from the 1950s and 60s. His clients were wrongfully accused, and Mason was able to elicit a confession from the killer at the conclusion of every episode. He didn’t pack the jury with incompetents or resort to dishonest means to absolve his client. He relied on intellect and reasoning ability to see that justice was done.

Perhaps there never was or will be a criminal defense attorney like Perry Mason, but one wonders how far today’s version has strayed from the ideal. The pressure to win at all costs and to maintain lucrative lifestyles are so great that no one in the criminal trial business is exempt from the temptation of resorting to questionable tactics. There is a moral problem, as well. If by deceitful means, an attorney earns an acquittal for a guilty client, who later commits another crime when set free, the attorney bears much of the blame. Ever glib and resourceful in argument, trial lawyers deny this link. According to them, they are unaware of their client’s guilt and act solely to provide the defendant the rights afforded by the Constitution. For a profession where knowing who is lying and who is telling the truth is as essential as a hammer to a carpenter, it is difficult to listen to this sanctimonious claim with a straight face.

There is an economic incentive governing professional conduct in private practice professions. Just as a surgeon, who looses patients on the operating room table due to sloppy technique and judgment, will see a career in shambles, a criminal defense attorney can ill afford to be labeled a loser. Livelihood is dependent on reputation for winning in the court room. Why not improve the odds by selecting malleable jurists or stretching the truth a bit? Once this becomes the modus operandi, it is not so difficult to rationalize these antics in constitutional terms.

When sitting in the jury box, one weighs the evidence and discerns whether the defendant and witnesses are telling the truth. A verdict is only as accurate as the information presented by opposing attorneys. If it is corrupted by innuendo, exaggeration, omission, or falsity, then the jury is less likely to properly determine whether a defendant should be released or sent to jail. With few Perry Masons and much money at stake, I would be skeptical if a criminal defense attorney declared George Washington was the first President of the United States.