Oh boy this takes me to a bad place........ I was a very young idealistic defence lawyer (in UK we don't have public defenders, but individual lawyers may specialise in criminal work and the state pays some fees) working for a law firm that dealt with a lot of sex offences because our local police station had a special team. Off I went to meet my client, accused of breaking into nurses' accommodation and raping a nurse. First run through, the defence is "I wasn't there". Fingerprints said otherwise. Second run through "I had visited before". Nurses said no way. Third run through (and just before trial) "Yes I was there, yes I climbed in through a window, but she was a willing sexual partner". At this point I contemplated retiring at 23.
I have always wondered why clients lie so often to their lawyers on TV, and I guess that's just how it is, but still seems baffling to me.
I can understand not wanting to confess something embarrassing that you think isn't related _enough_ to the case to be worth mentioning but blatant lies like this. Huh.
Dec 5, 2023·edited Dec 5, 2023Liked by Yassine Meskhout
What you say about habitual lying may be true for *fact* witnesses, but it is not true at all for *expert* witnesses, whose testimony can be routinely denied to the jury not just for lack of candor, but for (as of the beginning of this month in revised Rule 702) that the opinion expert’s opinion doesn't reflect "a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case," of which lying would be only one of many possible lacunae.
I’m not a public defender, but I do work with low-income civil clients, many of whom have been convicted of crimes or otherwise had prior involvement with the criminal system. Something that’s pretty universal in my experience is that people don’t know what information is important to me as a lawyer. So they’re inclined to overshare, partly because they feel like they have only one shot to tell me everything that might help them, and partly because they see no rhyme or reason between what they think is vitally important and what makes me go, “Hang on, let’s talk about that some more.”
This makes it more noticeable when they suddenly get really, really cagey about something. But it’s a total crapshoot whether the incriminating thing they’re trying to hide is actually going to blow up my strategy, or is totally irrelevant to the very specific statutory parameters of the issue.
Pretty awesome. I would love to also hear stories of cases where guilty people "did it right" and told their lawyers the truth. Last time I got arrested, I told my lawyer the truth when asked but I didn't volunteer facts in order to avoid getting on the wrong side of his responsibility to avoid knowingly give falsehoods to the court.
It reminds me of the stories my dad used to tell. He was a prosecutor. and often told me criminal masterminds are rare. Criminals are not the brightest beans in the bunch.
I was involved in a child welfare proceeding where one of the parties (not my client, Thank God) had been asked to provide a hair sample for drug testing. He subsequently shaved off all of his body hair but insisted this had nothing to do with the drug testing demand and it was just this thing he’d wanted to do for a long time because reasons.
Family law makes criminal law look mundane and normal.
I was waiting for an anecdote at the end of the article where Yassine's eyes glazed over at some elaborate story that then later turned out to be true and enabled the client to be completely exonerated. I guess that's too much to hope for. :)
I sometimes think Americans, having watched too many movies, think that police/prosecutors/judges are stupid and gullible because, in the movies the criminal justice system is often useless or worse than useless. In those same movies, law-breakers are either far too clever to even be suspected, or inevitably find some legal loophole that lets them saunter blilthely away from prosecution. For myself, if I am ever charged with a serious crime, I will assume that police and prosecutors are competent, and that the only clever trick that will get me out of conviction will be hiring the best lawyer I can afford, and then listening to that lawyer's advice.
I guess this is yet another sober reminder that grown-ass adults can be inept compulsive liars. They know they’re in trouble but can’t face the reality of the consequences. Sounds familiar…
This was a fun read! I was a juror on a murder trial this summer and the whole thing was a really sad experience (I wrote about it in an open thread for Jesse's podcast), but what wasn't difficult was coming to the conclusion that the defendant was guilty and that he had done quite a lot of really ineffective lying. I have not felt a second of doubt about that and yet his attorneys (assigned counsel - this is a small town so attorneys in private practice are in a public defender pool rather than employed full-time as public defenders) asked to meet with the jury after the verdict was read. They asked us "was there anything we could've done?" (the answer was definitely no). They certainly knew the defendant was guilty of a horrible crime and that the evidence was shockingly clear that he killed another person on purpose...only a jury full of complete idiots wouldn't have convicted. What do you think they were trying to understand from us and what do public defenders hope to do in a situation like this when conviction is almost a guarantee?
I would read an entire book of Yassine’s client anecdotes.
I salute all public defenders.
Oh boy this takes me to a bad place........ I was a very young idealistic defence lawyer (in UK we don't have public defenders, but individual lawyers may specialise in criminal work and the state pays some fees) working for a law firm that dealt with a lot of sex offences because our local police station had a special team. Off I went to meet my client, accused of breaking into nurses' accommodation and raping a nurse. First run through, the defence is "I wasn't there". Fingerprints said otherwise. Second run through "I had visited before". Nurses said no way. Third run through (and just before trial) "Yes I was there, yes I climbed in through a window, but she was a willing sexual partner". At this point I contemplated retiring at 23.
I have always wondered why clients lie so often to their lawyers on TV, and I guess that's just how it is, but still seems baffling to me.
I can understand not wanting to confess something embarrassing that you think isn't related _enough_ to the case to be worth mentioning but blatant lies like this. Huh.
Another great article, as always.
What you say about habitual lying may be true for *fact* witnesses, but it is not true at all for *expert* witnesses, whose testimony can be routinely denied to the jury not just for lack of candor, but for (as of the beginning of this month in revised Rule 702) that the opinion expert’s opinion doesn't reflect "a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case," of which lying would be only one of many possible lacunae.
I’m not a public defender, but I do work with low-income civil clients, many of whom have been convicted of crimes or otherwise had prior involvement with the criminal system. Something that’s pretty universal in my experience is that people don’t know what information is important to me as a lawyer. So they’re inclined to overshare, partly because they feel like they have only one shot to tell me everything that might help them, and partly because they see no rhyme or reason between what they think is vitally important and what makes me go, “Hang on, let’s talk about that some more.”
This makes it more noticeable when they suddenly get really, really cagey about something. But it’s a total crapshoot whether the incriminating thing they’re trying to hide is actually going to blow up my strategy, or is totally irrelevant to the very specific statutory parameters of the issue.
Pretty awesome. I would love to also hear stories of cases where guilty people "did it right" and told their lawyers the truth. Last time I got arrested, I told my lawyer the truth when asked but I didn't volunteer facts in order to avoid getting on the wrong side of his responsibility to avoid knowingly give falsehoods to the court.
"or too intoxicated (on the witness stand!)"
Clearly, Ivan wanted you to get Cindy drunk before the trial. I thought you were the lawyer here!
-----
I'm glad people like you (able/willing to be public defenders) exist, because it's not a job I could do.
Thanks for this piece!
It reminds me of the stories my dad used to tell. He was a prosecutor. and often told me criminal masterminds are rare. Criminals are not the brightest beans in the bunch.
I was involved in a child welfare proceeding where one of the parties (not my client, Thank God) had been asked to provide a hair sample for drug testing. He subsequently shaved off all of his body hair but insisted this had nothing to do with the drug testing demand and it was just this thing he’d wanted to do for a long time because reasons.
Family law makes criminal law look mundane and normal.
I was waiting for an anecdote at the end of the article where Yassine's eyes glazed over at some elaborate story that then later turned out to be true and enabled the client to be completely exonerated. I guess that's too much to hope for. :)
This is a great read...more, more!
I sometimes think Americans, having watched too many movies, think that police/prosecutors/judges are stupid and gullible because, in the movies the criminal justice system is often useless or worse than useless. In those same movies, law-breakers are either far too clever to even be suspected, or inevitably find some legal loophole that lets them saunter blilthely away from prosecution. For myself, if I am ever charged with a serious crime, I will assume that police and prosecutors are competent, and that the only clever trick that will get me out of conviction will be hiring the best lawyer I can afford, and then listening to that lawyer's advice.
Always so excited for Yassine posts!
“Perseverated” is my favorite new word.
I guess this is yet another sober reminder that grown-ass adults can be inept compulsive liars. They know they’re in trouble but can’t face the reality of the consequences. Sounds familiar…
This was a fun read! I was a juror on a murder trial this summer and the whole thing was a really sad experience (I wrote about it in an open thread for Jesse's podcast), but what wasn't difficult was coming to the conclusion that the defendant was guilty and that he had done quite a lot of really ineffective lying. I have not felt a second of doubt about that and yet his attorneys (assigned counsel - this is a small town so attorneys in private practice are in a public defender pool rather than employed full-time as public defenders) asked to meet with the jury after the verdict was read. They asked us "was there anything we could've done?" (the answer was definitely no). They certainly knew the defendant was guilty of a horrible crime and that the evidence was shockingly clear that he killed another person on purpose...only a jury full of complete idiots wouldn't have convicted. What do you think they were trying to understand from us and what do public defenders hope to do in a situation like this when conviction is almost a guarantee?