"Sullivan's lawyer, Mack Plant, had a straightforward job: to investigate whether Sullivan was guilty of just the burglary or the rape as well. Plant also should have found out if Sullivan's friends got reduced sentences because they flipped on him, as well as what their criminal histories were."

Unfortunately many people would agree with the above statement. It indicates, however, how twisted our justice system has become. A defense attorney is not supposed to be an "investigator" -- despite all those nifty TV shows where the attorney plays private investigator and saves the day after some swell adventure. A defense attorney is supposed to be *given* an investigation, done by the police, and argue the defendant's case from it. Making the defense attorney investigate is shifting the burden from the state to the defense -- the defense must investigate and "prove innocence" rather than the state investigating and proving guilt.

I've had prosecutors tell judges that "it was the defense's duty to investigate" when they fail to turn over material that they were supposed to (like information on witness plea deals). Which is almost every trial. According to my job description, I sit behind a desk and review files (including the police investigation). I do not get time alloted to "investigate" -- visit crime scenes, search databases, etc. other than perhaps some witness interviews. And I have not been trained in photography, crime scene reconstruction, or medical science. As per 'Law and Order' it is "the police who investigate crimes" --- THEY are supposed to gather facts both for and against any particular person, which are then given to the defense and prosecution to argue over. I have police officers testify in court, however, that they are under no obligation to 'investigate' anything. Quote "My job is to get probable cause for an arrest and close the file." Likewise, for every enlightened District Attorney with an "open file" policy there are probably two who play "hide the ball" and hoard evidence, ignore Brady, etc.

In theory an incomplete investigation would mean there can not be proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" and people would be found 'not guilty' -- and the police would have incentive to do better investigations. In reality, however, juries are asked to enquire of the defendant (not the state) "Why can't you prove this?" For example, in a burglary case the police don't even bother to look for fingerprints. Then the prosecution argues in closing "The defendant could have hired someone to get all the fingerprints off the door and prove they weren't his...." Well, no he couldn't, because he has no money. [in theory there are many legal arguments/defenses that can be made in situations like this. In reality, however, the justice system is leaning towards simply telling defendants "get your own police"].

Wow, this is a real eye-opener. It's also very sad how justice gets meted out--to the rich and powerful.

It appears you are a defense lawyer, perhaps a young and frustrated defense lawyer. I walked in your shoes through over 100 felony trials, including 20 homicides. Among the many disappointing things I learned was this - If you believe the police are going to investigate for you, your clients can kiss their ass goodbye now.

Your professional obligations extend beyond routine discovery and Brady requests no matter what your job description says.

" I have not been trained in photography, crime scene reconstruction, or medical science"

Well then get trained. "Practical Homicide Investigation" from Elsivier press is a good primer. And how much expertise do you need to interview witnesses, take photos and make measurements anyway? I can prep a cross examination of a ballistics expert by taking an hour out to research the issues by computer. Couldn't you?

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but you may want to re-evaluate your career choice.

I agree completely. There is a name for defendants who have criminal attorneys such as this one: inmates.

"Sorry if this sounds harsh, but you may want to re-evaluate your career choice."

Perhaps you misunderstood the tenor of my post. I am not complaining about investigating -- it is often very interesting. But the reality is that I (a public defender) am not given time to do it, nor resources to do it, nor training for it. And the law also does not give me much *authority* to do it. The police have guns and badges, and doors swing wide open for the DA, but a mere "defense attorney" does not have much authority and going to the court for its authority is often fruitless.

The biggest problems are not cross-examing an expert witness -- they are when evidence is not gathered at the scene and can not be discovered later. A typical example: Two guys get in a fistfight in a parking lot. Cops charge one. You ask the cop "Were there witnesses?" He says "Yeah, but we didn't bother writing down any names." On TV the attorney would have his hot-looking paralegal go the business and sweet-talk a copy of a great surveillance video and then they would stake out the bar for several weekends to find witnesses, and fall in love in the process.....

Me, I've got 300 open cases, zero budget and not even my own secretary. And senior judges tell me it doesn't matter, "because you'll get what you need via discovery....". I should also point out that murders are a tiny minority of cases and do get far more resources, which is natural since they face much harsher sanctions (in many places maybe death). But that does not make it easy to tell someone "Sorry, you're going to do 18 months because the judge won't approve a lab test and our budget is being spent on that Page 1 murder case."

I am under no illusions about the police dedicating their lives to "the search for the truth." But I am also under no illusions about me -- or most other defense attorneys -- being able to somehow levitate above "the system" and provide resources I simply don't have.

Besides, none of my cases yet has been thrown out due to "ineffective assistance of counsel" ;-)

fozzy:

I assume you know of background and subsequently why I say some of the things I do. I have not read a better post on legal assistance here yet. Good luck to you . . .

Fozzy - I feel your pain. 300 cases is too many for one office, let alone one person. Maybe I did misinterpret the tenor of your post. I have always know public defenders to be committed, conscientious and capable. I'm sure you are as well. Where lack of budget is the issue, I've had some success in moving for a court appointed expert to put me on equal footing with the State. As to lack of time, it's true there is no substitute for a winsome assistant who lives to serve our needs and no, in the real world we don't have them. So you keep scrapping, don't back down and do the best you can with the time and the tools you have. Good luck.