Quote:
Originally Posted by Northendzone
I would expect that perhaps defence lawyers look at defending a guy like this as a professional challenge.
|
The six-figure payday is probably motivating, also.
I think one of the reasons many people who aren't in the law business are hostile toward defence lawyers is the Hollywood portrayal of defence lawyers badgering, humiliating, and insulting accusers beyond what they deem to be reasonable - as seen in many shows.
The other reason is when the public sees a case against a career criminal with a plethora of evidence against he/she completely thrown out because of a minor infraction (in the minds of the public) by the Police, it is hard to swallow. Many see the headlines of significant evidence being ruled as ineligible because of a seemingly minor procedural mistake and it leaves a bad taste in their mouths - should a significant case be completely dismissed because of a seemingly insignificant error? Some would argue a minor mistake should not excuse a major crime entirely, but perhaps lessen it to a minor degree. A difficult debate, but many defence lawyers seem to brag about their past conquests of having cases tossed based on the most minor of errors, again leading to the bitterness toward them by the general public - how can one brag about such a thing?