Why Criminal Trials are So Expensive

[Ken]

Over the years, I've read some comments here about the length of trials, delays, and costs associated with the criminal justice system. Much of the criticism I hear on a daily basis is about the costs of publicly financed criminal defense, such as in the pending trial of "Flash Bang," the Boston Marathon bomber.

(For the record, I am not, and have never been, a public defender or court-appointed lawyer.)

A major reason criminal proceedings are so expensive is that prosecutors feel the need to overwhelm defense counsel with insane amounts of potential evidence in the hopes that defense lawyers will have no idea of what the prosecution's case will be until time of trial, and that counsel will overlook seemingly innocuous evidence.

For example, I tried a case 3 years ago in which I was informed that over 200,000 pages of potential evidence, including business records, credit card records, and over 3,000 pages of telephone records, as well as approximately 2,500 photographs and 500 hours of videotapes, had been listed as potential trial evidence. The court denied my motion to be provided with copies of these records and tapes, because it would be "overly burdensome on the prosecution team." Instead, the court permitted me to inspect - but not copy - this evidence in two-hour intervals, from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm, at a police station located 80 miles from my office. Obviously, that was absolutely impossible, and the court clearly knew that. The court disregarded the fact that my trial defense team consisted of me and my private investigator, while the government had assigned 3 full-time prosecutors, 3 paralegals, and 5 full time investigators to the case. The state has virtually unlimited resources compared to a criminal defendant. The state is well aware of its ability to bury any defense team in garbage, and courts generally do nothing to stop this abuse of the system. By the way - the prosecution didn't introduce A SINGLE BIT OF THE EVIDENCE LISTED EXCEPT FOR ABOUT A DOZEN PHOTOGRAPHS.

I just read an article that left me shaking my head once again. Prosecutors in the Colorado theater shootings case have listed about 3,500 potential witnesses they could call during the trial of defendant James Holmes. What does this mean?

It means that Holmes' publically financed legal team will be obligated to attempt to interview, investigate, determine the accuracy or inaccuracy of statements, and do background checks - at taxpayers' expense - for every single one of these potential witnesses, even though the state will probably call no more than 100, and probably far fewer, to testify at trial. In all likelihood, the state has already identified 95% of the witnesses that they will and will not call.

It means that millions of unnecessary dollars will be spent to interview these superfluous witnesses.

It means that the trial will probably be delayed months or years longer than necessary.

It means that the defense team will take the blame for delays and continuances caused largely by the distasteful tactics employed by the prosecution.

Holmes can easily be convicted by a prosecution consisting of no more than 20 witnesses, but that would make too much sense and would deny the prosecution several months of the media limelight it thrives in.

This thread isn't an attempt to garner sympathy for defense lawyers or our clients. It's to let you know why the criminal trial system takes so long and why it costs far, far more than it should.

Anyway, here's the article that brought about this thread:

Holmes Prosecution Lists 3,500 Potential Witnesses

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion...tial_witnesses

[Winter]

Wow, what a bunch of horse crap. Who is concerned about actual justice anymore?

Just the victims I guess.

[crashdive123]

With the court allowing the defense to pursue a not guilty by reason of insanity defense how does that work? Does the defense have to prove he was insane, or the the prosecution prove he was sane?

BTW - personally I disagree with the not guilty by reason of insanity defense. I would rather see a guilty but insane sort of thing.

[Winter]

- personally I disagree with the not guilty by reason of insanity defense. I would rather see a guilty but insane sort of thing.

I never understood it either. If you are killing people, I already assume you are insane, and the punishment should not change.

"Well, he didn't know it was wrong." OK, if he didn't know killing people is wrong than maybe the sentence should be longer, not shorter.

[Ken]

Not sure about Colorado, but in Mass, once notice of a defense of NGRI is raised, the burden is on the prosecution to prove sanity or, as we call it, "criminal responsibility." Of course, the defense gets the opportunity to challenge the prosecution by presenting evidence to the contrary.

I've only raised the NGRI defense twice in almost 30 years. Once was in a murder trial - the criminal responsibility question alone lasted about 5 weeks. The verdict was guilty. The fact that the defendant joked about the manner of death in a videotaped confession didn't help. The second case - seriously - was for a client who had a fiancée willing to pay for her defense. She was charged with 5 counts of prostitution, all on different dates. The verdict - NOT GUILTY ALL COUNTS by reason of insanity. The fiancée was found dead under suspicious circumstances in a hotel room about a month later. My client was not a suspect; however, she didn't bother to attend his funeral.
.

[canid]

You guys are expecting the legal concept of insane to coincide with the one me or you might have. By my definition, for example, every serial killer or violent rapist is insane. From a legal stand point, sanity as a requisite for culpability depends on one's abilty to diferentiate right from wrong, and reason the likely or certain consequences of their actions. If one does not meet those particular criteria, it becomes rather difficult to differentiate their harmful actions from those not meant to be so, or their deliberate actions from accidental ones.

Naturaly I don't believe the guy who kills several people with a spoon, but seems not to understand how that's different from eating breakfast cereal should be walking around unsupervised though.

[Ken]

It's a bit more complicated than that, canid, but you're on the right track. What many people don't understand is a finding of NGRI does not mean someone is set free. Remember John Warnock Hinckley Jr.?

[canid]

Of course, and after hist verdict it was concluded that he represented an ongoing danger to himself, Foster and potentially others. Unless I'm mistaken, he's still institutionalized and allowed out only for supervised visits to his parents.

[BENESSE]

Let us all just keep this in mind: The burden of proof is on the prosecution's side not defense.
If I'm the prosecutor, I've got a river of $hit to wade through and you better believe I'm gonna do all I can to prove my case.