There has been a good bit of discussion here lately about lying. So I thought these words of wisdom might remind us of exactly how difficult the truth-finding process is (for both sides).

"[T]o an experienced criminal defense lawyer, the distinction between lying and telling the truth is altogether different from (and much more important than) the distinction between guilt and innocence. If the police, prosecutors, and grand jury are doing their screening jobs well, the . . . defender should have few innocent clients. A criminal defense lawyer occasionally must defend the innocent, a fearfully grave responsibility, but more often defends the guilty. In defending the guilty, criminal defense lawyers perform two noble and just functions: they protect our society from unconstitutional excesses, and they protect criminals from judgments and sentences in excess of what their crimes deserve and ordinarily and properly receive under the law. The biggest problem criminal defense lawyers face is that their clients often lie to them. Criminal defense clients lie a great deal to their lawyers, they lie to their lawyers more than they lie to the police, they lie about things that don't matter, they lie about things that matter tremendously, they lie in ways that hurt their cases, and most importantly, they lie in ways that disable their lawyers from defending them successfully. Frequently, criminal defendants tell their lawyers some ridiculous fairy tale, even though they have truthfully admitted most or all of what is at issue to the police. It is very difficult
for a lawyer to prepare a good defense or negotiate effectively for a plea agreement when the client lies to the lawyer. * * * The problem with the lying client isn't that he's guilty. One hopes, if one does criminal defense, that most clients are guilty, because of the terrible risk of an innocent person being convicted. The problem is that the lying client wastes the lawyer's time and his office's resources with a whole lot of rabbit tracks that consume scarce investigative and legal resources but don't lead anywhere."

Dissenting opinion of Circuit Judge Kleinfeld in MIRANDA v. CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
9th Circuit Court of Appeals, en banc, Feb. 3, 2003

By the way, the case involves the issue of whether or how to use a polygraph exam (of the client)to determine how to allocate the scarce resources of publicly paid defenders. Maybe these ideas or problems have some role in considering the funding under our own SB7.

[This message was edited by Martin Peterson on 02-09-03 at .]