So I know this is a super loaded question but how often would you say you have a client who genuinely didnβt do whatever theyre charged with? Vs did a lesser version or did it but not that way or did it but for a good reason etc
My ability to estimate percentages is pretty garbo trash because I'm subject to lots of cognitive biases and I don't keep personal data on my cases, so I'm not even gonna try.
Important note: In juvenile and domestic court especially, cases are full of people who already know and hate each other calling each other liars. It can honestly be extremely difficult from my POV to discern who's a liar and who isn't, especially since I sincerely believe that people's memories are at best fictional accounts roughly based on real events. In other words, two people can tell totally different versions of events and both be telling the truth and neither be telling it as a video camera would have observed it. (This leads to a lot of really weird philosophical thoughts about the nature of past reality, but I digress.)
I'm labeling these guilty -> innocent, but keep in mind I'm just doing that for labeling here; I'd rather do guilty -> not guilty but it seems like it would be confusing. Those are both loaded words and I strictly just mean them in this as "did the thing" and "did not do this thing."
Very guilty/happened exactly as the police report and the victim say: In my opinion, almost never. There's usually significant omissions or additions, and the state's version of events usually also changes dramatically over the course of the case.
Mostly guilty/participated in the thing/broad strokes correct with minor smudging: Probably the bulk of my cases fall between this and the next category. Keep in mind, just because the thing they did fits the law they're charged under doesn't mean the law isn't tiresome bullshit that someone thought was a good idea once in 1972.
Debatably guilty/participated in or did the thing but not clear whether their participation amounted to a crime: Again, this plus the above is probably most of my clients. This is applicable when there are affirmative defenses like self-defense, or when two people just get into a stupid fight and they each say the other started it. Or he says she stole the ring camera and she says I bought that ring camera it's mine. It also applies when something looks sketch to the police and they think there's a crime but there's actually kind of not, like some kinds of welfare fraud where they decide a payee is Spending Inappropriately and instead of figuring out a reasonable way to deal with that, they charge them with embezzlement.
Possibly guilty but plausible story that they didn't/did it but for a good reason: A solid chunk. Makes me want to rip my face off because often I can't help them much. Judges don't really believe plausible alternate stories where police testify that the person is guilty.
Probably innocent/got uno reversed and charged by their abuser/police probably picked the wrong person to arrest: UGHHHHHH honestly way too many and I feel like this proportion, especially of women in particular being accused by a male abuser, grows every year. This and the one above it are both really hard to defend because the client is really, really depending on you.
Accused of doing something that simply doesn't fit the definition of the crime: Maybe a 10th? Maybe a little more? Gold. Usually get the prosecutors to drop. Easiest type of case to defend.
Extremely innocent/misidentified/unaware of the crime/wasn't there/didn't know her/deeply confused as to why all this is happening: A solidly nonzero amount of cases, but very low. Or maybe just really hard to prove. (Example: Mom saw that her car was missing and called the cops and told them her teenage son took it. Lo and behold, the car was found with four random dudes in it with no connection to the son and also with a whole lot of drugs; however, there was already a warrant out for the son and he was arrested by a different officer in another part of the city around the same time.)
You may notice a pattern; a lot of the innocent people mentioned here were *in* potentially criminal events (like fights) and got judged by association. This is something that can help you stay out of trouble: hanging out with people the police think are harmless can be a real benefit. Unfortunately for Black people, this is essentially impossible, as police will read bad intent into pretty much everything you do as a human existing in a public space unless you are constantly defusing your blackness (should I be capitalizing Blackness?), but you don't need me to tell you that. You know it way better than I do.
uhh feel free to ask more questions I feel like I didn't really answer this adequately.
