I'm a trial lawyer as well (practicing in Europe so obviously some differences in procedure etc.). I practice mainly criminal and family law and the majority of my cases are victim advocacy, adults and children. I agree with your takes 100%. There's a certain perspective that I often think about that isn't often publicly expressed, and that's that by the time we get to trial, the outcome of the trial is often secondary to a client's experience of whether the whole procedure was just and fair and helpful (!) to them. Many clients have told me that the experience that professionals/officials took their words seriously, investigated the claims thoroughly and that they were provided the space to speak freely to authorities on what had happened to them is what made a difference, and that it helped them continue with their lives even if it didn't lead to a conviction. I could talk about the importance of due process and the power of the right to be heard for forever... But I'll close with what I've found to be an important disctinction to make clear to all clients, victim or defense, and what I think people coming into contact with the legal system don't conciously think about: the court does not rule on material truth. The court rules on what can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Especially with cases of sexual abuse/assault, due to the act often happening behind closed doors in a private home, some types of crimes simply have a harder time meeting a certain threshold of available evidence. What I tell victims is that "even if the court doesn't convict, that doesn't mean that they think you lied". Often the outcome is primarily dictated on what circumstances the act happened in and what evidence was even possible to recover. Knowing this takes a huge burden off of people's shoulders, because most people's main fear is that they won't be seen as credible. Letting people know that a credible witness/victim alone does not a case make and that they've done all they could personally helps.
This is absolutely true. In fact, I think the best defenses I’ve put on are very sympathetic to the complaining witness/victim, that don’t cast them as an evil scheming liar but as someone doing their best with what they know and experienced.
And I think this is also what the prosecution often misses! Their victim/witness advocates don’t advocate for their victim/witnesses — they just pressure victims/witnesses to be what the prosecution needs them to be. And they’ll actively admit they’re not listening, too: “These parents want their child home, but because of this child’s assaultive behavior, I’m concerned for the parents’ safety and asking for him to be held in jail.”
And for my clients, some of the most thankful clients I’ve ever had are the ones who’ve lost their cases, because I listened and responded to their concerns and fought for them.
I remember one client recently who came in pissed as hell and convinced I would do nothing for him and sleep-deprived from living in his car. A veteran. I spent an hour with him just talking about his life and his worries and I gave him a blanket because of how cold it was. I did end up getting his case dismissed, but even before then his attitude to me shifted to Respect. Even when I insisted I hadn’t done anything yet, he told me I’d listened and heard him out (including listening to his rant about the judge that denied his protective order and granted the opposite one, which concluded with: “I want that judge’s ass! I WANT that judge’s ass. I want that judge’s ASS. I want THAT JUDGE’S ass. I want that judge’s ass!!!!!” Unforgettable.)
Also, related to the amount of proof needed on cases: in juries, I’ve found that there’s a real discomfort they have with convicting someone based solely on someone else’s word. It doesn’t matter if they think the witness is lying; the idea that someone could come in and lie and succeed without any supporting evidence is tough for people to accept.
The more supporting evidence, the likelihood of conviction jumps much higher. And I don’t mean like DNA, but like text messages. Floor plan of where it happened and how well hidden it was. Exact dates and timelines. Simple stuff, but simple stuff that’s just not always available if there’s a delay in reporting (which is totally understandable!). The fact that something makes a case harder to prove in court is not a mark against the victim/witness’s credibility but just a neutral factual thing that happens.
Thank you so much for sharing your perspective, that shit’s so cool.
