One of the reasons I became a defence lawyer was to defend the innocent.
Defence lawyers are essential to help protect innocent persons that are charged and prosecuted for crimes of which they should not be found guilty.
I believe that no one in the criminal justice system wants a wrongful conviction.
However, there are systemic issues in the criminal justice system that enhance the risk of wrongful convictions or alternatively cases being prosecuted when they should have withdrawn at an early stage because it is not in the public interest to proceed to trial.
One factor that may contribute to matters not resolving at early stage are conscious on subconscious assumptions that some people, including police officers, prosecutors, and judges make about accused persons.
Take for instance the following scenario that illustrates the systemic flaws in the criminal justice system and how I worked to overcome them with the relentless pursuit of our client’s interests.
The client was an elderly male that was charged with indecent act. This is a very prejudicial charge because it is imbued with notions of deviant behaviour.
The charges arose because the elderly male client was seen by a police officer standing next to a fence and a bush with his penis exposed. The police officer promptly arrested him.
Notably no one else saw this incident or called the police. The police officer was patrolling the area and came across the elderly male.
The elderly client was in the neighbourhood delivering flyers. He had gotten to the area by walking with his cart and flyers. While doing his delivery he had an urgent need to urinate. There were no public bathrooms available.
Bad timing: he was standing next to the bush and fence with his penis exposed to urinate at the very time the police officer pulled up.
Needing to go to the bathroom where there is no readily available place is an experience that is not uncommon. However, the elderly male also had prostate cancer that contributed to having pain and the urgency to urinate. It also meant that he would take longer than normal to void his bladder. It is otherwise not controversial that prostate related conditions affects most men as they age.
The client had no criminal record. He had never been charged with an offence before.
Despite being told by the accused and his family members of his condition on the day of the arrest, the police officer became entrenched in his position that the client was not attempting to urinate and later suggested to the screening prosecutor that the male’s conduct was nothing but nefarious.
In longer version, the viagra price high and uncontrolled blood sugar levels add neuropathy. These conditions are serious and are very important for the cardiovascular system as viagra 100mg from germany well as he immune system. Erectile dysfunction also very famously known as impotence. http://downtownsault.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/08-14-13-DDA-Minutes.doc tadalafil tablets in india As we take a look at these pills which are available in market at lower cost levitra line pharmacy because of the inferior quality products.
Initially, despite the presentation of ample medical evidence establishing the client’s cancerous condition and its causal link to the incident, the screening prosecutor refused an early withdrawal of the charge.
Instead of objectively looking at the medical issue, the client’s background and the overall circumstances, the screening prosecutor aligned himself with the police position.
A trial date had to be set to clear the client’s name.
There are times where exercising one’s right to a trial will be necessary to not only seek to vindicate yourself but also show through effective cross examination that police officers simply get it wrong.
In a general sense, there may be for several reasons that the police are wrong in their interpretation of the event such as because they are mistaken; or they have let their faulty assumptions about people get the best of them; or at worst because they are dishonest.
Although I was confident in the client’s defence and that he would be vindicated at trial, my considerable experience has reinforced my understanding that the criminal justice system has flaws. I am mindful that if the police officer was so convinced of his position that there was a risk that a judge may side with the police officer and find the client guilty.
Accordingly while the trial defence was prepared, in the interim I made a further push for the charge to be withdrawn.
To ensure greater prospects of getting the matter resolved through a second push, continuing and updated clinical information was provided to a new prosecutor that had been assigned for trial.
Consistent with the highest tradition of the role of a prosecutor, this prosecutor was fair, reasonable, and open minded. He examined the previous and new materials and agreed to withdraw the charge before trial.
This example helps to illustrate why it is essential that the client appreciate that they need a trial lawyer that will be relentless and go the distance for them.