Moot Court is in full swing these days.
I picked a case that sounded interesting and a class time that was amenable to my morning-person tendencies. The case is a criminal procedure case that involves a 17-year-old murder suspect who wasn't read his Miranda rights in an "informational interview" at the police station. He spilled the beans in the interview, and on the basis of that evidence was convicted of murder.
My professor, also chosen because she came highly recommended, passionately believes the kid was railroaded. She has enthusiastically described arguments that the kid's defenders should use, she has used less than complementary terms when describing the police, and she has frequently referred to the abuse of police discretion.
Unfortunately for me, I am defending the police. This makes class time uncomfortable. I leave class feeling sleazy, as if I'm defending evil incarnate.
Furthermore, after plowing through hundreds of pages of evidence, I'm not sure it's so clear he was railroaded. My personal sympathies would probably tend to lie with the kid, but even accounting for my own views, it's just not a clear case. This realization was somewhat comforting, as I had been seriously questioning the Supreme Court for taking on a simple case of police abuse. However, since the Supremes probably don't care overly much about my satisfaction with their decision, my more problematic issue is that I somehow have to write a brief for a professor who doesn't believe the police have an ethical or legitimate case.
I know that one of the most difficult parts of being a lawyer is defending people you don't like. I'm trying to look upon this class as practice, but it's a struggle.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
That's something we talk about in our paralegal classes, although few of us will ever deal with criminal cases IRL. You've got it tough. One important thing I learned from a writing teacher years ago was that it's important to take the teacher's biases into consideration if you want to get a good grade. It's hard to defend an opposing view to someone who already has the subject figured out!
From my legally naive point of view, it seems this will be highly valuable experience once you get through it. There may be a day when you are defending an actual evil incarnate against an overly zealous prosecuter. As I am sure you know, the intimidation factor is HUGE here; but figure out what it is you believe is correct stand, and fight that fight. Thankfully, this IS practice. Good luck!
Yeah, it is important experience for when you have to represent a client you don't particularly like. It's also important practice for standing up to a judge who has already made up her mind, which happens more than it should. And I think it's common practice to choose cases for moot court exercises that are not clear and that have decent arguments on both sides, to give all the students a fighting chance.
Good luck!
Look at it this way: even the guiltiest of the guilty is entitled to criminal representation and if you as their counsel do the best and most vigorous defense and if the prosecution does its job just as excellently, then there will be no room for appeals later and he will still get what he deserves.
T, if it WASN'T a struggle, I'd be worried.
That said, I'm sure your if your brief reflects the common sense and factoids you share here from time to time in your blog, it'll be a worthy one. You seem to be pretty good at backing up your opinions with facts.
Post a Comment