My Buddy found this case..
One of the joys of a criminal defense practice is the client who "knows the law". Never mind that they didn't make it past the 9th grade, weren't that great in school when they did go. I mean how difficult can the law. All you have to do is know how to read. And if you don't understand what is going on, there is always someone in jail who does.
I cannot estimate the number of legal "debates" I have had over the years with clients. I take a different approach than many lawyers; I don't profess to know everything, and leave open the possiblity that somone may come across something truly useful. I've never had a client bring me something I didn't already know, but I have benefited occassionally from the different insight they bring.
I have the same discussion with everyone, which starts with something like "there's is a reason why you have to go to law school for 3 years". You often lawyers refer to being taught to think like a lawyer; while that is not always a good thing, there is a different approach you have to learn. Law school is not so much about learning the law - most of us have long since forgotten everything we learned in law school. If you went to law school 28 years ago (like me), what you learned is probably no longer what the law is now. What you learn is how to approach and analyze issues, and uncover the answer. in short, you learn a process, so you can find the relevant know when you don't already know it.
I also point out that I have taught in a law school - I taught a post-conviction procedure for several years. Law students are some of the "best and brightest" from their colleges. They had to have good grades, and score high on the LSAT to get in. Most breezed through high school with little effort. In short, these are some really smart people. Even so, I never had a student who I would turn a case over to without supervision. Since post-conviction procedure is a technical and complex area, I also never had a student who didn't have some difficulty in understanding the legal concepts - and these were students who already had at least 1 years, and most 2 years of law school under the belt. The point of that is if a really bright person with a college degree and some law school has difficulty understanding certain legal concepts, what hope does someone have with far less education and experience.
I also like to point out that the worst person to analyze a case is the individual involved. There is a reason why lawyers go to other lawyers when they have legal problems. You cannot objectively analyze a case when you are personally involved.
I've also tried to use the analogy to medicine. I'm not a genius, but I'm fairly bright. I had a high GPA and managed to get into and graduate from law school. I have the ability to read a medical treatise, and understand some of it; but I would never try to tell my doctor how to treat me, much less tell someone else what his doctor should be doing. I might ask questions, but I accept the answer, because I know he how everything "fits together".
Of course, all of this seldom dissuades them. They have read something, or someone has told them something, and they know its right. Fortunately most clients will eventually accept your advice; their willingness to do is generally dependent on the degree of trust you've built it. That is why one of the most important things a criminal defense lawyer should do is develop a relationship with their client.
Several years ago I had a situation which still bothers me. My client was facing a possible sentence of life without parole because the government had filed a sentencing enhancement. After a lot of work, I was able to get the government to agree to withdraw the enhancement. The client was facing a lengthy sentence, but it beat spending the rest of his life in prison. The problem was that he refused to believe the judge could sentence him to life. We discussed the issue for hours; we went over and over the statutes, and I provided him with research showing how the courts dealt with the issue. The problem was that he had a buddy, who had a case just like his; his buddy had his sentence reversed, and sent back to court. Of course, he couldn't remember the buddy's name, but he knew it was the same. He also a few case cites - I looked them up, and showed them to him. They were good cases - they just didn't have anything to do with his case. We went round and around; he would tell me he believed me, but he knew the judge couldn't sentence him to life. We ended up going to trial; he got convicted and sentenced to life.
If there was ever a situation where someone was sentenced for being stupid, this was it. I know there wasn't anything more I could have done, but I'm still bothered by that case. He let someone talk him into to making a incredibly bad decision. His buddy didn't have to do the time - he did.I know the decision was ultimately his, but he had some help.
I've been at this for 28 years, and I haven't found a good solution for it yet. There are always those who are going to not trust their lawyers. Our job as lawyers is to develop that relationship, so our clients know we have their best interests in mind, and we are fighting for them. For clients, either trust your lawyer, or find someone you do trust. Don't trust the guy who dropped out high school, but says he "knows the law". After all, if he is so smart, why is he still sitting in jail there with you?
