A Common Misconception

   Most people think that criminal lawyers have to do what the criminal defendant wants them to do in regard to the legal handling of the case against them. But, that's not true at all. Any criminal attorney knows that, aside from hiring or firing their lawyer, defendants get to make only three legal decisions in the case: whether or not to accept a plea bargain agreement (that the lawyers draft with little or no input from the defendant), whether or not to take the witness stand at trial (all other witnesses are chosen regardless of the defendant's wishes), and whether or not to waive the "right" to a "speedy trial": And even these decisions are severely restricted. For example, a defendant cannot enter into a plea agreement that their attorney does not agree to. And, if a defendant does decide to take the witness stand, the attorney is the one who decides what the testimony will be about. Also, once a defendant waives their "right" to a "speedy trial" the lawyers can then file for as many extensions to that delay as tehy like, even against their clients' wishes.

   In fact, the attorneys are empowered to do almost anything they want in the client's name with or without the client's consent. They can file motions, subpoena witnesses and documents, review evidence that the defendant is not allowed to see (or sometimes even know about), and even speak in court on their client's behalf, all without ever checking to see if their client concurs with them or not. Even the decision to hire or fire an attorney is frequently restricted by the judge, especially when public defenders are involved.

   In my case I told my attorneys explicitly on several occassions not to file certain motions (e.g. motions to suppress evidence that I felt was tantamount to suppressing the truth), or subpoenas (e.g. for Shasta's therapy sessions notes, which I felt was an unnecessary invasion of her privacy), and requests to delay the trial (which they did several times against my wishes). I wasn't even allowed to plead guilty at my arraignment hearing the way I wanted to because "the judge wouldn't allow it". So I remained silent instead and my attorneys entered a "not guilty" plea on my behalf.

   From that day onward the judge, the newspaper and the T.V. reporters, even my own attorneys insisted on refering to motions "filed by the defendant", "Mr. Duncan's not guilty plea", and "the defendant's choices" that were all made by my attorneys against my explicit requests. They even contacted and spoke to many of my family members, and friends, that I had asked them not to contact, and later even subpoenaed them against my boisterous protests. At one point I even sent letters to as many people as I could (friends, family, landlords, college professors, etc...) warning them that if they spoke to the "defense team" investigators that they could end up being subpoenaed to testify in a very public trial (I found out later in court that many defendants have felt the need to write such letters before me, and doubtlessly many more will do so in the future). It was clear to me that I had no say in such matters, so I wanted to warn the people I cared about to stay clear, or they too could get pulled into the vortex of deception that passes for a justice system.

   It was because of all this deception, that was being perpetrated in my name, that I finally decided that I had to represent myself. I had told my attorneys that they should sign any agreement necessary with the government prosecutors in order to keep Shasta from having to testify at the trial. When i found out that the government would agree to not put Shasta on the witness stand only if "the defendant" agreed to certain stipulations that my attorneys felt were too damaging for me and would not agree to (in my name of course) I said, enough is enough, and I requested to represent myself because it was the only way to keep Shasta from having to testify. (The first thing I did once I was allowed to make my own decisions in court was sign an agreement with the government prosecutor in which Shasta would not be compelled to testify unless she herself wanted to do so under no compulsion. To this day I'm not sure what I "gave" the government in exchange, because it didn't matter to me (it had something to do with agreeing to certain facts in the case, or something like that, I honestly don't remember).

   So, the next time you're watching one of those phoney baloney popular cop shows that shows some criminal yelling at his attorney and telling him what to do I hope you'll realize that the entire show is just as phoney as the attorney-client relationship they depict. I can't tell you how many first time arresties come to jail insisting on all their "rights" that they think they have because their idea of "rights" comes from what they see on T.V. in shows like "Law and Order", "NCIS", or "Criminal Minds". As you may know, I have already blogged before about how completely detached from reality these shows are. The phoney "attorney-client" relationships that they depict should let you know how fake they are in general, if you can't see how phoney they are otherwise.

[J.D. 1-10-14]


P.S. Every attorney I have ever had knows full well how I feel about the above, but they also know that I hold none of it against them. They are compelled by law to do what they do, and my only criticism against them --- a criticism that I have openly expressed to each one --- is that they kid themselves into thinking they serve their clients, much as cops kid themselves into thinking they serve the victims; they are sworn to serve the System (i.e. the "Law" first, and in the end the System only serves itself. This doesn't mean I think they (my lawyers, or the police) are "bad" people. I absolutely do not think that at all. But, they are deceived, and I make no bones about reminding them of that every chance I get. I care about them as genuinely as they care about me --- and I believe they (most of them) do genuinely care about me; and that's more important to me than what they do int he name of the "Law", or even in my name for that matter.