When are clients incompetent to make the decision to plead guilty?
Every lawyer has had those clients who seem to be incapable of making good decisions. Almost by definition, the people we represent are not the best decision-makers. It's generally bad decisions that bring them to our office. However, once they are in trouble, most people are able to evaluate their options – with the help of counsel – and make a reasonably informed decision. Some cannot do that, and despite the lawyer's best efforts, do everything they can to sabotage themselves.
I recently saw an article about a case which demonstrated this in textbook fashion. The defendant was charged with bail jumping. He was not a rookie in the criminal justice system, and had several prior convictions. That qualified him as a career offender, which meant his punishment range could be 25 years to life. Despite that, the state offered 18 months in a state jail. He refused, and went to trial. There didn't appear to be much of the defense, which there seldom is in those cases. You either showed up when you were supposed to or not, and there are not many good reasons to not show up. Predictably he was convicted. Even after that, the state still wanted to deal; They offered 15 years, which he also refused. The end result was 32 years in the Texas Department of criminal Justice.
I don't know all the facts, but no matter what they are this demonstrates a problem lawyers face regularly. The decision to plead guilty is one of those that is entirely up to the client – and that is how it should be. The lawyer doesn't have to do the time, so he shouldn't be making the decision. All we can do is provide the best advice possible, and try to guide them in their decision. We often may not agree with, but it is the clients to make. I've had clients who I begged to take their case to trial, but they didn't want the risk. On the other hand, I've had more than a few clients like this who should have taken the state's offer. That process works reasonably well in the vast majority of cases. But there are a few where you have to wonder if there isn't a better way – this being one.
The test for competence is extremely low; if you know what a lawyer does, and know what you are charged with, you are probably competent. Competent doesn't mean you are smart, just that you basically understand what is happening. Perhaps there should be a separate test for competence to enter a plea. If every lawyer on the planet, along with the majority of the population would counsel a plea, isn't there something wrong with someone who goes against that advice?
I realize that the ability to make a rational decision has absolutely nothing to do with competence in the legal sense. I also realize there is probably nothing we can do. But it is still distressing to sit by and watch someone throw away their life, when that is what you know they are doing. Despite the press, most lawyers truly care about their clients, and want what is best for them. That's why I lot of us went into criminal defense work . Unfortunately that's the price of being a criminal defense lawyer. Something they never tell you about in law school.
I suppose you can rationalize this by arguing that we have to allow people the opportunity to make their own decisions - good or bad. We certainly can't force decisions on people in most cases - even when we think that is what's best. After all, we aren't always right - at least I'm not. So in t he end, this probably nothing but a rant. But then why else have a blog?
All too often, they become our clients because they aren't good at making smart/sensible decisions. The fact that we get to advise once they become our clients doesn't really advance their skill set.