I Am An Old And Cynical Lawyer

https://t.co/aFtuLxaEXB pic.twitter.com/SPlLM8PvYd

— AngloSaxonTraditionsHat (@Popehat) April 19, 2021

Because I am not the least bit surprised by this.

Trials are not Perry Mason spectacles where the clever defense lawyer ferrets out who really committed the crime and forces them to confess in open court at the end of 60 minutes, with Mason’s client proven innocent and guiltless.  Trials are very tightly regulated presentations of evidence (a term defined by a complex web of rules and court interpretations of those rules) and further rules for determining what that evidence means.  Before you get to concepts like “presumption of innocence” and standards of proof, you have to get the case to the jury.

Again, despite the presentations in popular culture, juries do not decide guilt or innocence.  They decide what the facts are.  Unattended by anyone except the lawyers is the discussion between the judge and the attorneys as to what charge goes to the jury.  These are the questions the jury must answer.  They are written to conform to the laws the defendant is charged with violating, and with the evidence presented in the trial. They ask questions about whether or not the defendant did this, or that, or the other, as alleged.  This or that or the other are facts, not conclusions of law.  Whether an act is a violation of law is a question of law.  Whether the acts occurred, and were done with the requisite intent (mens rea), are questions of fact.  Juries decide questions of fact.  They will decide what Chauvin’s actions were, and why he did them (if he did).  The judge will decide whether they constitute violations of law.  And that means what law, and whether he is convicted of the most serious crime Chauvin is charged with, or the least serious, or with any crime at all.

As I say, it’s very complicated.

Now, should the defense argue Chauvin committed no crime?  Or should they focus on the standard for conviction?  “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a very high bar to clear.  But the jury won’t be asked to determine whether Chauvin is guilty or innocent.  They will only be asked to determine whether they find the facts align against Chauvin and in favor of conviction “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  Frankly, innocence and guilt don’t enter into it.  If he is not convicted, Chauvin is “not guilty.”  He won’t be innocent, even if he is as guiltless as a Perry Mason client in the dock.  He just won’t be guilty.

The defense lawyers, in other words, are doing their jobs.  Think of it as the job of the “devil’s advocate” in the canonization process.  As I understand, the advocate challenges all the evidence for sainthood.  If successful, the process ends and canonization never happens.  If unsuccessful, the candidate is canonized. Either way, the devil’s advocate has done his job.