Raise your hand (7 Viewers)

[KitaYama]

For some reason (call me a bleeding heart), I'm somewhat more open to the 'defending a guilty person' than 'prosecuting an innocent person'.

I fully understand that everyone, even people accused or convicted of terrible crimes, has the right to an attorney and a proper defense. That’s a fundamental part of the justice system, and I respect that.
As someone who watches a lot of court proceedings, though, I sometimes struggle to understand why some attorneys seem to go to extremes.

There’s a difference, in my view, between vigorously defending a client and appearing to set aside basic courtesy or humanity. Strong advocacy is one thing; behavior that comes across as dismissive, hostile, or unnecessarily hurtful is another.

A few examples that stood out to me:

• In 2022, during the sentencing phase of the Parkland school shooting case involving Nikolas Cruz, defense attorney Tamara Curtis was caught on camera making a middle-finger gesture to victims' families.
• In Japan (2025), during a harassment lawsuit, the defense lawyer personally conducted intense questioning of a plaintiff who was clearly traumatized. The plaintiff later described the experience as “like living in hell.”
• In a federal sex-trafficking trial, attorney Joseph McBride was reprimanded by the judge for aggressive and argumentative questioning of a witness.
• A case where defense was questioning the accuser about her sexual history.

There have even been instances where attorneys were held in contempt of court for their conduct , such as Brian Steel in Georgia (2024) and Timothy Berry in New York (2025), among others.

Again, I’m not questioning the right to a defense. I just wonder where the line should be between zealous advocacy and professional compassion.

 

[Isaac]

During the 1991 trial of William Kennedy Smith, Roy Black’s questioning of the accuser about her sexual history

Call me old fashioned, but this is one thing I DO still think is relevant. Because it can go to show the accuser may have been more (or less) likely to have engaged in consensual sex based on their lifestyle. It may or may not be extremely uncomfortable for them, but If I am accusing someone of punching me, my history of engaging willingly in fights every night for the past 100 days might be quite relevant.

But basically I agree with your post. It's sad that gone is the professionalism and courtesies of days past

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I fully understand that everyone, even people accused or convicted of terrible crimes, has the right to an attorney and a proper defense. That’s a fundamental part of the justice system, and I respect that.

In practical terms, that right is one of the most basic components in our bill of rights. In fact, several relevant amendments appear close to each other in the U.S. Constitution. The specific right you mentioned is in our 6th amendment.

4th Amendment - no unreasonable searches or seizures, non-generic warrants required, issued only with probable cause,
5th Amendment - due process of law, cannot be required to testify against self, crimes with a penalty relating to life, liberty, or property MUST go through due process of law, no double jeopardy, taking private property requires compensation
6th Amendment - speedy public trials, jury required, confront witnesses, subpoena to bring witnesses, assistance of counsel for defense
7th Amendment - trial by jury even for civil cases over $20 value
8th Amendment - limit on bail and fines, no cruel and unusual punishment.

There are others but these most closely relate to this topic. I once held a discussion with a friend on this very subject. Let's see if I can summarize what we said.

If the power and majesty of federal, state, or local government would be used to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property (see 5th amendment) then every defendant deserves to have someone who will literally FORCE every "I" to be dotted, every "T" to be crossed, to assure that no one took a shortcut that trampled over the defendant's rights.

Cases have been dismissed for not being prosecuted in a timely manner or in an orderly manner (i.e. the orderly manner of due process). For example, questioning a perpetrator without a lawyer or a waiver of rights. Dismissal can be for big things or tiny things. We have a doctrine called "The Fruit of the Poisoned Tree" (or similar names). It means that if evidence was obtained in a way that didn't follow the rules of probable cause OR didn't preserve the evidence properly for examination, that evidence can be blocked for use in trial.

Your questions about our jurisprudence system are on a topic that is crucial to us. Many of us are happy to answer your questions.