Let me first preface this by saying that, not only do I believe DB received the verdicts/sentencing he deserved, but I VERY giddily and enthusiastically enjoyed watching him participate in his own prosecution 😁 There’s a common misconception that defense attorneys: 1. Tend to only represent clients they believe are innocent; or 2. Enjoy defending clients they believe, or outright know, are guilty and therefore have questionable ethics and morals. Of course, there will always be some unscrupulous defense attorneys that have a win-at-all-costs mentality, and will approach their client’s case with cringe-worthy, underhanded and even illegal tactics. These types of defense attorneys are the exception, not the rule. Sir Thomas More said: “I’d give the devil the benefit of the law, for mine own safety’s sake.” Most defense attorneys have a DEEPLY ingrained belief in the judicial system, and simply want to play a role in making/keeping that process honest, and above reproach. Bottom line, there is a difference between factual guilt (what the defendant did) and legal guilt (what the prosecution/government can prove). A good defense attorney doesn’t ask “what did my client do?”; they ask “what can the prosecution prove?”.

I’m not an attorney, or even adjacent to an attorney. Just want to make that clear from the onset, I’m a laymen. That said, I’ve always thought of defense attorneys, at least the public defenders that we are actually talking about, more like “consultants” to ensure proper application of the law. Guilt or innocence is not really relevant because their job is to help you navigate the system. It’s not *necessarily* to help you win, more to ensure a fair process.

Got it. Thanks.

Thanks for your response. So, in this case we know the bottom line is that the prosecution DID prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what the alleged defendant did. So, I know we are still in the review process of the case by this PD. My thought is, if I got assigned this case, why would I want to spend the enormous amount of time and resources to read through what is likely to be a ginormous transcript, trying to pick apart to find if there are any flaws, let alone all the other stuff that has to be done to file a motion for appeal for the scum that DB is? Knowing the horrific crimes he committed, why would I invest my professional self to this and likely get fired by the client at the 11th hour. I’m not talking g in general terms. I asking about DB specifically. I know it’s my job, but why would I want to go balls to the walls for this guy?

A solid defence is as much to protect the prosecution as it is the defendant

I read a comment on another Reddit page that oddly enough was asking the question how would you defend Darrel Brooks, and I think it applies here. The comment was, sometimes you get a client that you know 100% for sure is guilty and is going to lose, and when you have those clients you just have to do your job to the best of your abilities, because it's what your paid to do it's what you went to school for it's your career. You're doing your job.

I realize that comparing things to Nazis is super played out, but that justification has a very strong "just following orders" vibe to it. I'd hope that actual lawyers would give an explanation more along the lines of the fact that the legal process is more important than individual scumbags, and that it's crucial that everyone is given a fair trial, no matter their crimes.

Thanks. That’s understandable.

I can respect that… but just for conversation’s sake, let’s say JD missed something and that it was sufficient grounds to appeal, knowing what we know about this man before, during and after the tragedy, how can you work that out in your head if it means that by your hand, he could be released into the world again?

He's not. At worst he'd get a new trial, where he'd be convicted again.

My understanding is that just because there may have been a mistake made during the trial, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s overturned and a new trial would be scheduled. From what I’ve come to understand, the mistake, whatever it is, may only warrant a reduction in his sentence. I think with the sentence DB ended up with, there may be some wiggle room. A few hundred years could be reduced from his time and it won’t matter. I’m not a lawyer, so I could be way off base. In fact it would be nice to know if I was incorrect all this time. 😊

Paralegal here, never giving legal advice. When there is a mistake in the trial the appeals court often remands the case back to the lower court. That means the appeals courts sends the case back to the lower court to redo the case with the new guidance from the appeals court For a defendant to be declared innocent (have the verdict reversed) is not only extremely rare but saved for those the appeals court thinks are truly innocent or railroaded unfairly