WHAT IS YOUR PHILOSOPHY ON DEFENDING ME?

MY PHILOSOPHY ON DEFENDING YOU

I am a criminal defense attorney.  When hired to represent a client, I have but one agenda…to win!  Whatever I can do within the bounds of the law, I will do in order to obtain an acquittal.  The consequences of winning are not my concern, nor do I want them to be.  I want to win; it is my duty.

An advocate, by the sacred duty which he owes his client, knows, in the discharge of that office, but one person in the world, that client and none other.  To save that client by all expedient means- to protect that client at all hazards and costs to all others, and among other to himself, -is the highest and most unquestioned of his duties; and he must not regard the alarm, the suffering, the torment, the destruction which he may bring upon any other.  Nay, separating event the duties of a patriot from those of an advocate, and casting them, if need be, to the wind, he must go on reckless of the consequences, if his fate it should unhappily be, to involve his country in confusion for his client’s position.

-British Barrister, Henry Brougham, 1820-

The prosecutors who represent the government want to win too.  They have the full force of governmental power to help them: Interested witnesses, determined police officers, experienced investigators, biased advocacy groups, compliant victim advocates, friendly judges, easily-accessible experts, a grand-standing legislature and a powerful media to carry their message.  All this!  And yet when capable trial counsel is able to demonstrate governmental misconduct or that the police have exceeded the bounds of the law, it is dismissed as “getting off on a technicality.”   Most of the time all my clients have is my skill, my battle-hardened experience, my judgment and the hope of a fair trial by jury.

In the prevailing media we are provided a constant diet of images of “heroic” cops going beyond the bounds of the law to obtain a confession, solve the case and punish the wrongdoer.  The underlying assumptions of these programs is that cherished constitutional rights are simply too great an impediment to justice in our “modern” world. Given free reign are the voices who constantly shout in favor of giving away essential liberties in order to obtain temporary safety.  Why shouldn’t we seek security?  We are fed a steady stream of images depicting our neighbors as someone to fear…the enemy, making us ever more susceptible to new fears and calls for tougher punishments, gates around our communities and bigger jails.  The result is more power being shifted from the people to the government.

“How can you defend those people?”  This question is often posed to the criminal defense attorney.  The tone is usually more confrontational when the crime in question is one that society finds particularly despicable, such as domestic violence, drunk driving, sexual assault or crimes against children.  When the question is asked in terms of these crimes it is almost always stated as a judgment.  “Those people” are not only guilty, but so offensive as to be undeserving of a defense; so filthy that the typical punishments befitting a civilized justice system should not apply.

The answer of course is: I defend “those people” because without a willing, energetic advocate, our system of justice would be impotent.  You are free because our system is an adversarial system and the government is held to account.  There must be people who challenge the government, who face the judgment and criticism of their fellow citizens and stand beside the despised, the poor and the accused.  It is a small price to pay for freedom, and the one last protection against true tyranny.  Thomas Jefferson said "I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." This belief underlies the “innocent until proven guilty” philosophy and the judicial preference that “it is less evil that some criminals should escape than that the government should play an ignoble role.”  

We find in the rules laid down by the greatest English judges, who have been the brightest of mankind, [that] we are to look upon it as more beneficial that many guilty persons should escape unpunished than one innocent person should suffer.  The reason is because it is of more importance to [the] community that innocence should be protected than it is that guilt should be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in the world that all of them cannot be punished, and many times they happen in such a manner that it is not of much consequence to the public whether they are punished or not.  But when innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, “It is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.”  And if such sentiment as this should take place in the mind of the subject there would be an end to all security whatsoever.

-John Adams, final argument in defense of British soldiers accused of committing murder at the Boston Massacre-

Were you accused of a crime you would not want an attorney who worried about the judgments of his neighbors, but a person who would fight as hard as possible to keep you out of jail.  I believe in this role and in the patriotic mission it entails. 

If you find yourself accused of a crime, please contact me at 937-879-9542, 1-888-ROWLAND  or via E-mail at CharlesRowland@CharlesRowland.com.