Late Summer's Blog

Embrace the Accidents

A Lawyer’s Claim

When a criminal confesses to be guilty, why does the lawyer always say the jury needs to listen to the evidence? The person’s conscience has obviously started to kick in so, they break down and confess. They have committed the crime and yet the lawyer still claims them to be innocent.

This occurs in numerous court cases, but one that has caught the attention of many people recently is Shaquan Duley’s case. Duley is a resident of Orangeburg, South Carolina. According to her peers she is a kind and loving mother. But on Monday, August 16, 2010 she suffocated her two children just before placing them in their car seats and pushing the car into the Edisto River. Shaquan has confessed to being guilty of her crime and is now standing trial for her sentence.  But if she has confessed, and is taking her sentence willingly, why is her lawyer, Carl B. Grant, making claims that she is innocent?

Well, why does any lawyer make false claims? Most do it to make their case stronger so they have a greater chance of winning. If they win the case then that attracts more clients, which ultimately means more money for them. But this theory doesn’t make much sense with a client that has admitted that they committed the crime. Grant says that there is more to the story than what is being released to the public. He states that the public should “hold their horses” and wait to see all the evidence.

But really, what difference does it make what the evidence is? Shaquan confessed to her crime. So, how could Grant win the case? It seems rather pointless to continue with this claim if a culprit has come forth. Although some people, even after the confession has been made, fall back on the age-old saying “You are innocent until proven guilty.” Maybe this is what Grant has in mind for Shaquan’s case. Maybe he has this niggling feeling that if he falls back on that that he can still win the case.

So, that brings us back to the original question. Why do lawyers feel the need to tell the jury to listen to the evidence even after a confession? What good does it really do? I guess in some cases they may win, but statistics are against them. How many jurors are going to listen to a lawyer’s claim after a person convicted of a crime has capitulated? It doesn’t seem to make much sense, but maybe that is just one of those primitive instincts of a lawyer that will never change.


1 Comment»

  Anonymous wrote @

good job!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: