More About The Criminal Attorney Flint
The criminal defense lawyer's task is to equalize the struggle between the individual and the state. The American justice system is an adversarial one, which assumes that a battle between highly motivated, equally matched opponents will produce both true and just outcomes via fair procedures. The criminal attorney flint serves this overriding goal even in the many instances when his client is guilty of at least some charge. Our system requires that no person be deprived of life or liberty without substantial proof€"proof beyond a reasonable doubt€" that he committed the crime charged. The defense lawyer challenges the strength of the prosecution's case, for example, by cross-examining witnesses to challenge their credibility (they may be lying, mistaken, or confused) or by pointing out gaps in the ^evidence or prosecutorial misinterpretations of the law.
Even when a client is convicted, the defense counsels efforts may result in a conviction on a lesser charge, such as manslaughter, rather than the greater one actually charged, such as murder. Similarly, a client may have committed a seemingly criminal act, perhaps shooting and killing his alleged victim. But defense counsel might offer evidence supporting an affirmative defense€"one that the law imposes on the defendant to prove€" such as insanity, resulting in an acquittal. Additionally, when there is a conviction, defense counsel can offer mitigating evidence in favor of a lesser sentence than the one the prosecutor pro-poses. An offender may be in treatment for the drug problem that led him to act, or he may take a job to earn the money to compensate his victims, or he may be incorrectly portrayed by the state as a repeat offender when the records of previous convictions were simply wrong. Any of these options may lower the sentence.
Criminal attorney flint also challenges unfair procedures inconsistent with constitutional or statutory rights. By posing various sorts of questions, defense counsel asserts rights that protect the innocent and guilty alike. No one wants the police to invade his home without good reason and the approval of a neutral magistrate. Nor would anyone want to languish in jail for months or years without a chance to contest the charges against him. Furthermore, no one would want, nor should the system approve, convictions based on coerced confessions, tainted lineups, or racially prejudiced juries. Evidence so obtained may be unreliable. Even if it is reliable, the means of getting it violates the dignity of, and respect for, individuals, perhaps involving the state itself in criminal conduct, such as the police beating a suspect to make him confess.
Even when a client is convicted, the defense counsels efforts may result in a conviction on a lesser charge, such as manslaughter, rather than the greater one actually charged, such as murder. Similarly, a client may have committed a seemingly criminal act, perhaps shooting and killing his alleged victim. But defense counsel might offer evidence supporting an affirmative defense€"one that the law imposes on the defendant to prove€" such as insanity, resulting in an acquittal. Additionally, when there is a conviction, defense counsel can offer mitigating evidence in favor of a lesser sentence than the one the prosecutor pro-poses. An offender may be in treatment for the drug problem that led him to act, or he may take a job to earn the money to compensate his victims, or he may be incorrectly portrayed by the state as a repeat offender when the records of previous convictions were simply wrong. Any of these options may lower the sentence.
Criminal attorney flint also challenges unfair procedures inconsistent with constitutional or statutory rights. By posing various sorts of questions, defense counsel asserts rights that protect the innocent and guilty alike. No one wants the police to invade his home without good reason and the approval of a neutral magistrate. Nor would anyone want to languish in jail for months or years without a chance to contest the charges against him. Furthermore, no one would want, nor should the system approve, convictions based on coerced confessions, tainted lineups, or racially prejudiced juries. Evidence so obtained may be unreliable. Even if it is reliable, the means of getting it violates the dignity of, and respect for, individuals, perhaps involving the state itself in criminal conduct, such as the police beating a suspect to make him confess.
