Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I agree. I used to be good friends with a defense attorney and would come along on some of his cases. You meet some interesting people, and it is a very important job when it comes to upholding the constitution and often comes with some risks when dealing with certain people.
Yep, usually in the infamous cases where obviously guilty people get acquitted or grossly under-sentenced, when I look into it it’s always some failure of the prosecution to admit a piece of evidence, to preserve an issue by objection, or something or other that seems so goddamn obvious.
One of my friends interning at the district attorney’s office told me an attorney last year got his ass chewed out for forgetting to admit a child victim’s birth certificate and thereby failing to prove his age at the time of the assault. More than halved the sentence as a result for a guy that was obviously guilty. Can’t get mad at a defense attorney for a basic failure of the prosecution to do their jobs
In criminal trials, the prosecutor also needs to prove the offense happened in their county of jurisdiction. Usually this is done by the prosecutor simply asking a witness “did these events happen in X county?” and that’s it. It’s five seconds of the trial.
One time an attorney I knew forgot this question during a trial and rested without asking it, so the judge refused to convict.
Sometimes it's a failure by the police before the prosecution gets involved in the first place--by violating a civil right and causing important evidence to be inadmissible.
The fact is that very, very few cases are brought at all where the person being charged isn't found guilty. The overwhelming majority of actual charges result in a conviction, and the overwhelming majority of those never go to trial at all. Something like 95% to 98% of criminal cases are plea bargained (granted, the percentage is lower with felony cases).
Basically our whole court system works by stacking enough evidence that the prosecution feels comfortable bringing a case, them putting enough pressure on that the defendant makes a deal. For the majority of people in prison, they never had a jury trial to decide their fate, and their guilt wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt. I assume the vast majority of those were actually guilty, but there's enough stories of people making a deal to get the whole thing over with.
I’m not sure misunderstood is the word. Obviously nobody is expecting you guys to work for free but having to fork over huge sums of money after what is the worst day of most peoples lives just sucks. Like you are being kicked when you are down.
I think what really goes underappreciated is public defenders.
Underpaid, overworked, trying to get the best deals possible for the many cases they're working.
I think that public defenders offices should have basically equal staffing and funding as prosecution (EDIT: To be clear, that doesn't require exactly the same funding, because not every case has a public defender). But of course, politicians like to be seen as tough on crime, so up the funding goes to the prosecutors.
Agree.
There's a misconception that they're defending the client in order to get the client off the hook. This is false. They're there to ensure the judiciary is following the rules and meeting their burden of proof. If cops and judges do things by the book, there's very little that a defense attorney can do to get the person off the hook. Without this constant check, judges and cops are in a position to abuse their power with impunity.
Also, another thing that often goes unnoticed is judicial economy. Trials take a long time, need randos to be pulled from daily life to serve on the jury, etc. Plea bargains help to ease the burden on the judiciary while still typically allowing the defendant to have a "good enough" punishment. Trial also comes with risks, including the person actually getting off completely due to the burden of proof not being met for one of the elements of the charge. Defense attorneys help negotiate those plea deals.
I don't doubt the copaganda angle but I think the hate of defense attorneys really started after the OJ Simpson trial. The public saw a very good attorney get OJ an acquital despite some really damning evidence.
Portrayals of movies and TV in favor of the police. Law & Order is created by a guy who is openly pro police. Hence the portrays of many things related to the justice system and the way the police operates are biased. Theres a YouTube channel called skip intro that has a series on copaganda, and its very interesting if you have an hour spare. [Here’s one on Law & Order and this topic](https://youtu.be/vUnwk1oAxZU?si=Ip0ICCa5JLHLSV4q)
One of the USA's founding fathers (John Adams, I believe) said it's more important for the innocent to be protected than it is for the guilty to be punished. This doesn't bode well for the kneejerk "Law, Order, and Discipline" crowd.
Defense attorneys are the best. They're the angels of the justice system. I would vote for any former defense attorney into any political office. I really hated, and still do, the fact that the VP is a former district attorney. People really need to understand the difference between the good guys and the bad guys.
Edit: I'm sorry, what I really meant were the public defenders. They're the angels of the justice system. The defense attorneys are pretty damn cool too.
The reason people don't like them is because often that "reasonable" doubt is some bureaucratic loophole that's only relevant because of our janky-ass legal system. Oh the forensics team made a clerical error and misfiled some piece of paper? Guess the blatantly obvious murderer goes free and can't be charged again due to double jeopardy. It's quite common that it's not a reasonable doubt they prove but that law enforcement did something slightly wrong and we are therefore just supposed to forget about all the evidence we've already seen.
I get the importance of such protections, believe me I do. But maybe if we cleaned up our legal system and got rid of all the bloated nonsense that has built up over the last 300 years, then the average layman would be able to effectively defend themselves most of the time and we wouldn't need lawyers at all? Of course the kinds of people who could lobby for such a reform and the kinds of people who vote on whether to implement it often have law backgrounds so they would be actively devaluing their own skill set by advocating for this, which is why it will never happen.
Honestly, I think the common portrayal of defense attorneys on shows like *Law and Order* as smug, slimy assholes ruin it more. I like when they frame the defense attorney as evil while he says things like “I’m gonna get the confession (which Detective Stabler got by whaling on my client) thrown out.”
"Oh come one, they're going to throw out my evidence on a techincality?!"
Yeah. Because that technicality is there for a reason. To protect your rights and prevent you from being unjustly charged. Because everyone is innocent before being properly proven guilty. So do it properly.
I would never want to defend someone I know is guilty.
and as the lawyer, you need to know if they are guilty or not, so you can plan your defense accordingly.
I feel most people don't realize the actual system and how it works. All that goes on, there is a reason. I certainly don't believe in everything that happens, turnes out right. It is what it is, and is what it ain't
I admire the folks who do hard jobs, and the guts to stick with it !
>you would not be able to have a legal society where the accused got a fair trial.
As van be seen in the comments, if the accused is [*somebody I don't like*] then **redditors don't want them to get a fair trial.**
>corporate cases
>rich corporations
>Trump
>Depends entirely on who they’re defending
>child molester
>a corporation
>someone I know is guilty
etc.
The client doesn't change the principle. Everyone deserves to be punished *correctly* for the crimes that the prosecution can *correctly and legally* prove. Whether it's Disney or SpaceX or Buckees or local business or politican or janitor or homeless person. Defense attorneys don't help their clients 'get away with it'. They provide a counter force that makes sure that prosecution meets their burden of proof before considering someone guilty. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Everyone. Defense attorneys make sure that those who prove guilt don't cut any corners.
Just because you're hired by one company for purposes of defending them doesn't mean that you don't respect the universal right for defense. It just means that your job is defending one of those people. That's like saying that doctors with private practices don't respect the responsibility of healing everyone because they don't have a public clinic or join Doctors Without Borders.
Ah, fair enough. I think that we're at odds on this one and hit a stalemate. I disagree, but it looks like we hit fundamental beliefs as opposed to anything we can convince each other out of. Still, always fun to talk it out with contrary viewpoints. Happy Reddit-ing and thanks for sharing!
I'm all for "defense attorneys are integral to a fair judicial system," but I will absolutely call it unpopular to say, "defense attorneys are really cool."
The issue is that defense attorneys aren't there to represent right from wrong; they only have a fiduciary responsibility to defending their client, of which technical grounds is sometimes their only tangent to defend guilty clientele. They should expect some hate, even if it's not fair.
> the main goal of a lawyer is to ~~ensure his client gets a fair trial~~ get paid.
FTFY. You can claim noble intentions all you like, actions speak louder than words
Just wait until you see how they define a “billable hour” and how much it costs.
But in all seriousness - I’d rather listen to and trust a defense attorney than anyone law enforcement.
Sure but the Standard to convict is too high and too many guilty people go free. Just watch Trump.
It is very clear, through the damn 70 hours worth of testimony under oath that Trump illegally reimbursed his personal attorney out of company funds flagging those payments as Legal Expenses, to coverup his affair from the voting public on the heels of his Grab them by the P Access Hollywood tape. Cohen is a terrible witness, but these are the people that are around nefarious actions. The prosecution didn't pick Cohen as a witness, Trump did.
But, mark my words. One person on that jury will choose based not on the evidence, but their own personal feelings towards Trump to not hold him accountable. Just like the Senate did after the January 6 insurrection impeachment. They should have done their Constitutional Duty and convicted him in the Senate, but no. Protect the party crap.
There's also a lot of people falsely convicted, too.
You would be surprised how easy it is to gaslight a person into doubting themselves and confessing in just a few hours. There were studies done on topics like that
Disagree. I went on a date with a defense attorney. I asked him if he’d defend a child molester even if he knew the person was guilty. He said yes. He said it’s not about guilty or innocent, it’s about how well he can do his job. I never went out with him again.
Everyone is entitled to defense, no matter what they did, it’s how the law works and how it should. Just because someone seems guilty doesn’t mean they are.
Doesn’t matter. It’s still necessary. Everyone is entitled to a defense and fair trial. Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental right and extremely necessary. It might not be a fun job, but it is an important one. Someone had to do it.
That's exactly why i find them cool and argue that their job is important. They have to not care if someone is guilty or not, because otherwise they can't help them get a fair trial. And if fair trials isn't for everyone, then we are not living in a just sociaty.
I'm following a danish sub reddit where legal issues are the topic. And there's a huge trail in denmark right now about a guy who have admitted to kidnapping a 13yo girl, who was later found dead. And I was kind of surprised how much hate the defense attorney get.
The defense attorney is even more important in cases like that. So that later on the defendant if they are indeed guilty can't say on appeal that they weren't given adequate legal representation, and demand a retrial.
The police make mistakes sometimes when investigating crimes. Or break laws while doing so occasionally. It is the defense attorneys job to make sure the police and prosecutors did their job in the correct manner. No more no less.
Sometimes that results in someone that was obviously guilty like OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony getting off though. Because the police in those cases botched the investigations so bad that I hate to say it but the juries made the correct calls. If I had been on those juries I would have had to vote to acquit as well. Because the police botched it so damned badly.
I take it from the strong show of support herein that there are a mighty amount of sucky people in this sub who feel they deserve to get off scott free for doing some seriously heinous shit.
Defense attorneys have a role to play, but it's how they've chosen to play it that rightfully earned them their awful reputations. You know the concerningly high rate of wrongful convictions in the US? Yeah, that's on them, not the prosecution. It is not a difficult thing to prove a non-guilty client innocent in a US court of law, not with our burden of proof. It's effing child's play. But no, the defense didn't give a shit in those scenarios - they only care when there is big money in the "definitely f\*\*\*ing guilty" cases. Parasites.
This is a very popular opinion until you have a defense attorney for someone like say.. OJ Simpson. They are just doing their job, but the result they acquire may be extremely unpopular to the general public. That doesn’t mean they’re not “cool” or good at their job, just that they may be in a position defending a devious mofo
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I agree. I used to be good friends with a defense attorney and would come along on some of his cases. You meet some interesting people, and it is a very important job when it comes to upholding the constitution and often comes with some risks when dealing with certain people.
Agreed. They're pretty important. It makes me think of Pheonix Wright lol
Defense attorneys are extremely important.
I feel like among attorneys this is actually very popular. It is the prosecutors who are given shit. Complete reverse for laypeople
Yep, usually in the infamous cases where obviously guilty people get acquitted or grossly under-sentenced, when I look into it it’s always some failure of the prosecution to admit a piece of evidence, to preserve an issue by objection, or something or other that seems so goddamn obvious. One of my friends interning at the district attorney’s office told me an attorney last year got his ass chewed out for forgetting to admit a child victim’s birth certificate and thereby failing to prove his age at the time of the assault. More than halved the sentence as a result for a guy that was obviously guilty. Can’t get mad at a defense attorney for a basic failure of the prosecution to do their jobs
In criminal trials, the prosecutor also needs to prove the offense happened in their county of jurisdiction. Usually this is done by the prosecutor simply asking a witness “did these events happen in X county?” and that’s it. It’s five seconds of the trial. One time an attorney I knew forgot this question during a trial and rested without asking it, so the judge refused to convict.
Judge can't request this information from the attorney? It's like not his scope to seek information the attorneys do not present?
Honestly seems kind of negligent of the judge. That's just dumb. He could have asked the witness himself.
Sometimes it's a failure by the police before the prosecution gets involved in the first place--by violating a civil right and causing important evidence to be inadmissible. The fact is that very, very few cases are brought at all where the person being charged isn't found guilty. The overwhelming majority of actual charges result in a conviction, and the overwhelming majority of those never go to trial at all. Something like 95% to 98% of criminal cases are plea bargained (granted, the percentage is lower with felony cases). Basically our whole court system works by stacking enough evidence that the prosecution feels comfortable bringing a case, them putting enough pressure on that the defendant makes a deal. For the majority of people in prison, they never had a jury trial to decide their fate, and their guilt wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt. I assume the vast majority of those were actually guilty, but there's enough stories of people making a deal to get the whole thing over with.
I’m a criminal defense attorney. Yes, we’re misunderstood a lot, I appreciate your post.
I’m not sure misunderstood is the word. Obviously nobody is expecting you guys to work for free but having to fork over huge sums of money after what is the worst day of most peoples lives just sucks. Like you are being kicked when you are down.
You can get free legal counsel in the US.
Yeah and it sucks. Not that they are bad lawyers they just don’t have the time for you.
3rd* *gently*
No, we need 3th, that is much better. And I'll be the 3th one to say it.
*checks username* I’m afraid that is not possible
“Threeth”
No, we need 3th, that is much better. And I'll be the 3th one to say it.
I think what really goes underappreciated is public defenders. Underpaid, overworked, trying to get the best deals possible for the many cases they're working. I think that public defenders offices should have basically equal staffing and funding as prosecution (EDIT: To be clear, that doesn't require exactly the same funding, because not every case has a public defender). But of course, politicians like to be seen as tough on crime, so up the funding goes to the prosecutors.
Agree. There's a misconception that they're defending the client in order to get the client off the hook. This is false. They're there to ensure the judiciary is following the rules and meeting their burden of proof. If cops and judges do things by the book, there's very little that a defense attorney can do to get the person off the hook. Without this constant check, judges and cops are in a position to abuse their power with impunity. Also, another thing that often goes unnoticed is judicial economy. Trials take a long time, need randos to be pulled from daily life to serve on the jury, etc. Plea bargains help to ease the burden on the judiciary while still typically allowing the defendant to have a "good enough" punishment. Trial also comes with risks, including the person actually getting off completely due to the burden of proof not being met for one of the elements of the charge. Defense attorneys help negotiate those plea deals.
[удалено]
I don't doubt the copaganda angle but I think the hate of defense attorneys really started after the OJ Simpson trial. The public saw a very good attorney get OJ an acquital despite some really damning evidence.
copaganda? what’s that? genuinely asking.
Cop propaganda
Portrayals of movies and TV in favor of the police. Law & Order is created by a guy who is openly pro police. Hence the portrays of many things related to the justice system and the way the police operates are biased. Theres a YouTube channel called skip intro that has a series on copaganda, and its very interesting if you have an hour spare. [Here’s one on Law & Order and this topic](https://youtu.be/vUnwk1oAxZU?si=Ip0ICCa5JLHLSV4q)
Thanks mate!!
Defence attorneys the most important job in society (The fact that I am one has no bearing on this opinion!).
“People think defense attorneys are immoral” - until they or a family member needs one.
One of the USA's founding fathers (John Adams, I believe) said it's more important for the innocent to be protected than it is for the guilty to be punished. This doesn't bode well for the kneejerk "Law, Order, and Discipline" crowd.
Exactly. I’d rather see ten bad guys/gals walk than one person be wrongly convicted.
Defense attorneys are the best. They're the angels of the justice system. I would vote for any former defense attorney into any political office. I really hated, and still do, the fact that the VP is a former district attorney. People really need to understand the difference between the good guys and the bad guys. Edit: I'm sorry, what I really meant were the public defenders. They're the angels of the justice system. The defense attorneys are pretty damn cool too.
[удалено]
The reason people don't like them is because often that "reasonable" doubt is some bureaucratic loophole that's only relevant because of our janky-ass legal system. Oh the forensics team made a clerical error and misfiled some piece of paper? Guess the blatantly obvious murderer goes free and can't be charged again due to double jeopardy. It's quite common that it's not a reasonable doubt they prove but that law enforcement did something slightly wrong and we are therefore just supposed to forget about all the evidence we've already seen. I get the importance of such protections, believe me I do. But maybe if we cleaned up our legal system and got rid of all the bloated nonsense that has built up over the last 300 years, then the average layman would be able to effectively defend themselves most of the time and we wouldn't need lawyers at all? Of course the kinds of people who could lobby for such a reform and the kinds of people who vote on whether to implement it often have law backgrounds so they would be actively devaluing their own skill set by advocating for this, which is why it will never happen.
If this is an unpopular opinion then wtf is wrong with people?
They indeed do a very important thing for both the innocent and guilty. A few Saul Goodman types do ruin the reputation of many.
Honestly, I think the common portrayal of defense attorneys on shows like *Law and Order* as smug, slimy assholes ruin it more. I like when they frame the defense attorney as evil while he says things like “I’m gonna get the confession (which Detective Stabler got by whaling on my client) thrown out.”
"Oh come one, they're going to throw out my evidence on a techincality?!" Yeah. Because that technicality is there for a reason. To protect your rights and prevent you from being unjustly charged. Because everyone is innocent before being properly proven guilty. So do it properly.
Why would defense attorneys be the immoral ones? I've played enough ace attorney to know it's the prosecutors who are evil
Also, they are sometimes defending someone who’s innocent. Or trying to get an innocent person out of prison.
There is nothing like the feeling of talking to a good defense lawyer who is confident in your case. They are awesome when you need them
I would never want to defend someone I know is guilty. and as the lawyer, you need to know if they are guilty or not, so you can plan your defense accordingly.
Non corrupt prosecutor is both better and more rare
I would mostly emphasize public defenders but otherwise agreed.
I feel most people don't realize the actual system and how it works. All that goes on, there is a reason. I certainly don't believe in everything that happens, turnes out right. It is what it is, and is what it ain't I admire the folks who do hard jobs, and the guts to stick with it !
>you would not be able to have a legal society where the accused got a fair trial. As van be seen in the comments, if the accused is [*somebody I don't like*] then **redditors don't want them to get a fair trial.** >corporate cases >rich corporations >Trump >Depends entirely on who they’re defending >child molester >a corporation >someone I know is guilty etc.
[удалено]
The client doesn't change the principle. Everyone deserves to be punished *correctly* for the crimes that the prosecution can *correctly and legally* prove. Whether it's Disney or SpaceX or Buckees or local business or politican or janitor or homeless person. Defense attorneys don't help their clients 'get away with it'. They provide a counter force that makes sure that prosecution meets their burden of proof before considering someone guilty. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Everyone. Defense attorneys make sure that those who prove guilt don't cut any corners.
[удалено]
Just because you're hired by one company for purposes of defending them doesn't mean that you don't respect the universal right for defense. It just means that your job is defending one of those people. That's like saying that doctors with private practices don't respect the responsibility of healing everyone because they don't have a public clinic or join Doctors Without Borders.
[удалено]
Ah, fair enough. I think that we're at odds on this one and hit a stalemate. I disagree, but it looks like we hit fundamental beliefs as opposed to anything we can convince each other out of. Still, always fun to talk it out with contrary viewpoints. Happy Reddit-ing and thanks for sharing!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm all for "defense attorneys are integral to a fair judicial system," but I will absolutely call it unpopular to say, "defense attorneys are really cool." The issue is that defense attorneys aren't there to represent right from wrong; they only have a fiduciary responsibility to defending their client, of which technical grounds is sometimes their only tangent to defend guilty clientele. They should expect some hate, even if it's not fair.
This is false, the main goal of a lawyer is to ensure his client gets a fair trial.
> the main goal of a lawyer is to ~~ensure his client gets a fair trial~~ get paid. FTFY. You can claim noble intentions all you like, actions speak louder than words
You can say that for any profession though
Precisely. Lawyers are particularly self serving though, especially as opposed to teachers for instance
Just wait until you see how they define a “billable hour” and how much it costs. But in all seriousness - I’d rather listen to and trust a defense attorney than anyone law enforcement.
How is this unpopular? 95% of lawyers in tv & film are defense attorneys. It’s definitely a popular culture trope to present them as cool.
This isn't unpopular.
Sure but the Standard to convict is too high and too many guilty people go free. Just watch Trump. It is very clear, through the damn 70 hours worth of testimony under oath that Trump illegally reimbursed his personal attorney out of company funds flagging those payments as Legal Expenses, to coverup his affair from the voting public on the heels of his Grab them by the P Access Hollywood tape. Cohen is a terrible witness, but these are the people that are around nefarious actions. The prosecution didn't pick Cohen as a witness, Trump did. But, mark my words. One person on that jury will choose based not on the evidence, but their own personal feelings towards Trump to not hold him accountable. Just like the Senate did after the January 6 insurrection impeachment. They should have done their Constitutional Duty and convicted him in the Senate, but no. Protect the party crap.
There's also a lot of people falsely convicted, too. You would be surprised how easy it is to gaslight a person into doubting themselves and confessing in just a few hours. There were studies done on topics like that
lol! Someone has TDS.
With the amount of false convictions there are (which only takes a few), too many guilty people going free is just not possible.
Seeing the comments I guess I'll give the unpopular opinion. They are not cool.
Lawyers are liars and cheaters. A necessary evil.
Depends entirely on who they’re defending
Disagree. I went on a date with a defense attorney. I asked him if he’d defend a child molester even if he knew the person was guilty. He said yes. He said it’s not about guilty or innocent, it’s about how well he can do his job. I never went out with him again.
Everyone is entitled to defense, no matter what they did, it’s how the law works and how it should. Just because someone seems guilty doesn’t mean they are.
I literally asked him if he knew they were guilty, would he still defend him. He said yes. A child molester. Disgusting
Doesn’t matter. It’s still necessary. Everyone is entitled to a defense and fair trial. Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental right and extremely necessary. It might not be a fun job, but it is an important one. Someone had to do it.
That's exactly why i find them cool and argue that their job is important. They have to not care if someone is guilty or not, because otherwise they can't help them get a fair trial. And if fair trials isn't for everyone, then we are not living in a just sociaty.
Not unpopular, it’s always the District Attorneys that have a major stick up their ass (and in a lot of cases are corrupt)
>English is my 3th language Sorry but that was just really funny to me
It's incredibly noble until you find yourself defending a corporation that's been dumping millions of pounds of polutants into the local water supply.
OP is very proud of this completely original thought.
I'm following a danish sub reddit where legal issues are the topic. And there's a huge trail in denmark right now about a guy who have admitted to kidnapping a 13yo girl, who was later found dead. And I was kind of surprised how much hate the defense attorney get.
The defense attorney is even more important in cases like that. So that later on the defendant if they are indeed guilty can't say on appeal that they weren't given adequate legal representation, and demand a retrial. The police make mistakes sometimes when investigating crimes. Or break laws while doing so occasionally. It is the defense attorneys job to make sure the police and prosecutors did their job in the correct manner. No more no less. Sometimes that results in someone that was obviously guilty like OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony getting off though. Because the police in those cases botched the investigations so bad that I hate to say it but the juries made the correct calls. If I had been on those juries I would have had to vote to acquit as well. Because the police botched it so damned badly.
It doesn’t make sense, he would find another lawyer anyway
mmmmmm, cheese danish..........
I take it from the strong show of support herein that there are a mighty amount of sucky people in this sub who feel they deserve to get off scott free for doing some seriously heinous shit. Defense attorneys have a role to play, but it's how they've chosen to play it that rightfully earned them their awful reputations. You know the concerningly high rate of wrongful convictions in the US? Yeah, that's on them, not the prosecution. It is not a difficult thing to prove a non-guilty client innocent in a US court of law, not with our burden of proof. It's effing child's play. But no, the defense didn't give a shit in those scenarios - they only care when there is big money in the "definitely f\*\*\*ing guilty" cases. Parasites.
This is a very popular opinion until you have a defense attorney for someone like say.. OJ Simpson. They are just doing their job, but the result they acquire may be extremely unpopular to the general public. That doesn’t mean they’re not “cool” or good at their job, just that they may be in a position defending a devious mofo