Is it easier being a prosecutor or a defense attorney?
The challenges are different. As a prosecutor you’re working with the police to put the “bad guys” away, but you have to temper that attitude with justice, i.e. not everyone that gets arrested is a criminal and some people deserve a second chance.That’s where the defense attorney gets involved, to humanize the Defendant and put a face on that person. To ensure that person’s Constitutional rights haven’t been violated, and that there is sufficient evidence to convict.Sometimes witnesses and victims disappear, move or drop charges. You have a duty to aggressively defend your client whether they are guilty or not. As an attorney you take an oath to do that.If the evidence against your client is substantial, and you think they may be convicted at trial, you might move into damage control and try to work out the best deal that you can for them.And you give your client a professional recommendation after your assessment of the evidence. Lay out their options.And for me, after considering all the options, ultimately the client decides whether to plead guilty or go to trial.
Do prosecutors have a much more difficult job than defense lawyers given that they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty?
Theoretically, prosecutors have a more difficult job, since they have a higher burden of proof.However, as a practical matter in my experience, the jury is already inclined to think the defendant is guilty simply by virtue of his standing there in the courtroom, despite the judge’s admonitions to the contrary. To obtain a successful “reasonable doubt” defense, there have to be major holes in the state’s case or affirmative evidence produced by the defendant.Furthermore, the prosecutor has the resources of the police department and detective bureau, and if there’s a substantial likelihood the defendant is in fact not guilty, the discretion to abandon the case. So generally the prosecutor has a leg up on the heightened burden of proof before the case even starts.I would say in a typical criminal case that actually makes it to trial, the prosecutor and defense lawyer have about the same difficulty of job. Most lawyers complain of stress from time to time, but I don’t think prosecutors and PDs have all that much different a stress level.Are prosecutors more highly paid given their seemingly more difficult job?Prosecutors and public defenders are often paid more-or-less the same, a salary which is lowish compared to private practice in a big firm. Appointed defense counsel get fees that are supposed to be comparable to the PD’s salaries, but because it’s on a piece rate rather than a salary, it’s a bit of a pittance. Privately retained defense counsel do sometimes get paid better than either one, but only a few defendants have resources to hire private defense lawyers.
What are the pros and cons of sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum sentences??
Sentencing guidelines Pros--Guide for general consistency, but judges have flexibility to deal with each case, some warranting different sentences. Cons--Some judges will let criminals off way too easy. Mandatory Minimum Sentences Pros--Judges have limited, if any, discretion so everyone is treated the same which can be good and can be bad. Cons--Understanding the minimums involved, judges and juries may tend to convict someone of a lesser crime in order to regain flexibility.
Police officer reducing speed on a traffic citation. Is this considered falsifying?
When I watch TV and see cops issue citations, a lot of them will reduce the violator’s speed. When I heard this, I thought this would be considered a police officer falsifying a legal document. I never bothered asking anyone for their opinion about that. However, when I was watching a rerun episode of “Speeders” on truTV, a Florida Highway Patrol officer told the individual that he stopped that he cannot reduce her speed as it would be considered him falsifying a document and that he cannot testify to that in court. Under what conditions are officers allowed to reduce a speed without it being considered falsifying a document? Are they simply not allowed to reduce the person’s speed if the officer decides it is court mandatory? What if he doesn’t make it court mandatory, but the violator decided to fight it anyway. Then it has to go to court right? Supposed the officer had reduced the speed for some and if it goes to court, is the officer simply not allowed to testify?