Maurile Tremblay said:
I don't think I agree with any of this.
Blowing by his client's story is fairly standard, I think, for criminal defense attorneys. I think I've read Dershowitz saying, for example, that he never wanted his client to tell him whether he was innocent or guilty or what actually happened -- all he wanted to know was what evidence the state had against him. That's what matters. Beyond that -- if the state's evidence admits of Possibility X (that would exonerate the client), but the client has already told the lawyer Not X, the lawyer can't ethically press Possibility X as part of his defense. (Can we get Woz in here? Most of what I know about criminal law I learned from watching TV, so I could be off on this.)
What "possible procedural avenues" did he skip over? All they've done so far is the arraignment and the bail hearing, which I think is all that's possible. I can't think of anything possible that was skipped.
What do you mean by "covered the Miranda rights up front?" Naz was read his rights before he had an attorney, so I'm not sure what Stone was supposed to do about that. (And if by "covered" you mean "make sure that they were read properly," that's the last thing a criminal defense attorney would want.)
What makes you think that Stone is a plaintiff's lawyer? I don't think the show has given any indication that he does anything but criminal law. He obviously does an awful lot of criminal law because he knows everyone at the police station, the detectives, etc.
How in the world should Naz not be in jail right now? You don't think all the physical evidence is probable cause to make an arrest? Box says it's the most open-and-shut case he's seen, which seems about right.
Stone did great at the bail hearing, IMO, but you can't win them all. When is the last time a murder suspect was granted bail? I have no idea where you're getting the idea that Stone isn't an experienced criminal attorney. He seems exceptionally experienced. From what we've seen, he pretty much represents very small-time criminals -- petty thieves and the like -- so a murder case is not his standard fare. But we've gotten no indication that he lacks competence as a criminal defense attorney.
Haven't seen episode two yet, but I'll comment with the following:
1. I'd like to think that my colleagues and I don't "blow by" our clients' stories, but, generally, it's just more practical to wait to go over the facts with a criminal client when I have the police reports, copies of interviews, etc. I find that meeting way more productive if both myself and my client both understand exactly what facts support the charges. That way my client's "story" can be told in a much more narrowed and meaningful light. Generally, people tell stories in a tangential fashion and the facts that a client may think are important really aren't when the case issues are better framed and vice versa. And, since these reports usually are disclosed much after an initial appearance/bail hearing, and since bail is more about facts pertaining to whether the client is a flight risk, having a super lengthy conversation about the facts of the actual case before a bail hearing isn't a good way to spend that time.
2. In my experience at least, real crimes and criminal defense exist in a much grayer area than the black and white proposition of innocent or guilty. Rare is the case where there's a defendant is opened admits that he's "guilty." Similarly, rare is the case of a defendant who is completely "innocent" - in the sense that there's a frame job going on, a false accusation, etc. In most cases, even by the defendant's factual account, usually the defendant has done something pretty dumb that may even be criminal. The "gray area" or discrepancies come in by way of potential justifications or that the defendant's acts, while not good, don't exactly give rise to the facts needed for the state to convict on the more serious charges. In these cases the defendant doesn't "confess" to the lawyer but instead, usually, offers a mitigated version of the fact's or tells them from a prospective whereby the defendant doesn't seem nearly as culpable. For example, the story by a defendant in a domestic violence or DUI case (two very common criminal cases across our jurisdictions) will be something like, "I didn't hit her, I just yelled at her after she broke my phone and, at one point, she accidentally bumped into me when she was trying to leave, but there's no way that left a bruise so she must have self-inflicted" or "I did drink and drive but I only had 3 light beers and there's no way that machine is accurate by saying I'm a .16." So, in the majority of cases, there's never even a point for the conversation to lead to a defense attorney asking about guilt. And, speaking personally, I can't imagine a scenario where I'd ask a client or a potential client whether he or she did it - but, again, that's not for the reasons the public generally perceives.
3. You're right to an extent that a defense attorney cannot offer facts or make an argument he
knows to be false. However, I'd note two things: 1) "knows" denotes a level of certainty about something that is often unattainable so rare does such a situation arise; and 2) as I indicated above, rare is the circumstance where a defendant outright admits to complete guilt.
4. Regarding arguing Miranda or other such motions to suppress, that comes way later in a case since they usually require full evidentiary hearings and many prosecutors will cease to negotiate once a contested motion is filed. I find it borderline ineffective assistance to come out in a case with the proverbial guns blazing, despite that oftentimes being what the defendant and/or his family wants/expects.
5. There aren't too many civil lawyers who know the names of law enforcement. In a big city like NY, I'd only expect the longtime public defenders to know that many officers. Sure, this guy may take mostly small cases - but the reality is that those make up the bulk of an attorney's caseload. Also, aside from maybe death penalty cases, "experience" isn't even necessary for an attorney to take on a murder case. Heck, I had a couple under my belt in my twenties when people were questioning my general life competence on this board.
6. Probable cause is a very very low burden of proof. In episode one, the guy is placed at the scene, tries to flee, and is literally carrying the murder weapon. That's easily PC. Further, while bail for a murder charge isn't terribly uncommon (it's probably jurisdiction specific), in my jurisdiction for a person to be held without bond there has to be a lengthy evidentiary hearing where the state needs to shows that there's "proof evident and presumption great" that the defendant is going to prison. That's a higher standard, although I could see that burden being met by the state given the evidence they had at the end of episode one.
