#AccusedOfMurder #LegalRepresentation #PublicDefender #PrivateAttorney #OJLegalTeam
When facing a serious accusation like murder, the type of legal representation you have can make a significant difference in the outcome of your case. In the United States, there are three main options for legal representation: a public defender, a private attorney that a middle-class person could afford, and a high-profile legal team like the one OJ Simpson had during his trial.
So, what are the differences between these options, and how do they impact the outcome of a case? Let’s break it down.
## Public Defender
A public defender is an attorney provided by the government to represent individuals who cannot afford to hire a private attorney. If you are accused of a crime and cannot afford to hire your own lawyer, a public defender will be assigned to your case.
### Pros of Having a Public Defender
– **Cost**: Public defenders are free of charge for individuals who qualify for their services.
– **Experience**: Many public defenders have extensive experience in criminal law and have represented numerous clients in similar cases.
– **Resources**: Public defender offices often have access to resources and experts to assist with building a defense.
### Cons of Having a Public Defender
– **Caseload**: Public defenders often have heavy caseloads, which can impact the amount of time they are able to dedicate to each case.
– **Limited Availability**: Depending on the jurisdiction, there may be limited availability of public defenders, leading to potential delays in legal representation.
– **Perception**: There may be a perception that public defenders are overworked and unable to provide the same level of representation as a private attorney.
## Private Attorney for Middle-Class Individuals
For those who can afford to hire a private attorney but may not have the financial resources for a high-profile legal team, there are numerous options for legal representation in the middle class.
### Pros of Hiring a Private Attorney
– **Dedicated Attention**: A private attorney may have a smaller caseload, allowing them to dedicate more time and attention to your case.
– **Customized Strategy**: A private attorney can tailor their approach to your specific needs and concerns.
– **Client-Attorney Relationship**: You have the opportunity to choose your attorney and establish a professional relationship based on mutual trust and understanding.
### Cons of Hiring a Private Attorney
– **Cost**: Hiring a private attorney can be expensive, and the quality of representation may vary based on the fees paid.
– **Resources**: Depending on the attorney’s practice, they may have limited access to resources and experts compared to a high-profile legal team.
– **Reputation**: The reputation and track record of a private attorney may be less established compared to a high-profile legal team.
## OJ Simpson’s Legal Team
During the infamous OJ Simpson trial, he had a high-profile legal team that included prominent attorneys like Robert Shapiro, Johnnie Cochran, and F. Lee Bailey. This type of legal representation is often associated with individuals who have significant financial resources and are willing to invest heavily in their defense.
### Pros of Having a High-Profile Legal Team
– **Expertise**: High-profile legal teams often include attorneys with extensive experience and expertise in high-stakes criminal cases.
– **Resources**: These legal teams have the financial resources to hire top experts, investigators, and support staff to build a comprehensive defense strategy.
– **Reputation**: The reputation and influence of high-profile attorneys can have a significant impact on the public perception of a case and its outcome.
### Cons of Having a High-Profile Legal Team
– **Cost**: The cost of hiring a high-profile legal team can be exorbitant, often reaching millions of dollars for a single case.
– **Public Scrutiny**: Cases involving high-profile legal teams often attract intense media scrutiny and public attention, which can add additional pressure to the defendant and their legal team.
– **Perception of Fairness**: There may be concerns about the fairness of the legal system when individuals with significant financial resources have access to superior legal representation.
In conclusion, the type of legal representation you have when facing a murder accusation can have far-reaching implications for the outcome of your case. Whether you rely on a public defender, a private attorney, or a high-profile legal team, it’s essential to understand the advantages and limitations of each option and make an informed decision based on your circumstances. Ultimately, the goal of legal representation is to ensure a fair trial and the best possible defense for the accused.
With more access to money you have more access to better lawyers who can afford a team of the best experts and professionals money can buy. Our public defender system is overloaded with cases and under supplied with lawyers. Most of the time they advise you to just plead out and take a lesser punishment even if you know you are innocent.
There are two factors at play: the amount of time the lawyer will have for you and the skill level of the attorney. On the premise that most people like to earn as much money as they can for their job, the best lawyers will be able to charge the most money. So it’s more likely than not that the more money you have to pay a lawyer, the more skilled that lawyer will be.
The other factor is time. You are essentially paying an attorney for their time, which typically costs hundreds of dollars an hour. The amount you’ll be able to pay a middle class lawyer won’t be enough for them to abandon the rest of their practice and dedicate all their working hours towards you. They can spend time searching for needles in a haystack. Without the massive team OJ had, it’s unlikely that even a good lawyer would’ve ever found the tapes of Mark Fermin making racial slurs. It was buried in obscurity and would’ve stayed that way without teams of people looking into everyone’s backgrounds. The tape probably tainted the jury more than any of the actual evidence. You also have these things called “expert witnesses” who can testify on your behalf regarding certain evidence. These experts can give really compelling testimony to either strengthen or undermine evidence in a case. But they usually cost thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars.
A public defender is not necessarily a bad lawyer but they’ll be overworked. You will be one of dozens of clients they have. In some cases where murder convict were later exonerated, it was found that the public defender only spent a couple of hours working in their case before trial.
So how much does it cost can you give a range based on middle income person vs 100-250k income vs high net worth laywer team?
Others have given good responses but I’ll add that it also really depends on how much evidence the state has against you. If the crime was videotaped and they have four credible witnesses who can identify you as the perpetrator and your fingerprints are the only ones in the murder weapon, etc, you have no witnesses to vouch for you being somewhere else eg, the differences probably won’t be all that substantial. Of course there is a lot a good legal team can do even against overwhelming odds and if you have the money to spend they could likely muddy the waters enough or throw up enough challenges to the admissibility of some evidence, get a psychiatrist to diagnose some mental condition that reduces culpability, etc etc, and you could well get a better plea deal offered than with a cheaper atty or public defender. But there’s only so much even the best lawyers can do when faced with enough adverse facts and a trial may just be unwinnable.
Depends greatly on what you are accused of having done and what the evidence is.
If the case is weak or has something like a self defense argument, quality attorneys can be the difference between free life and death.
If it’s a strong case, the best any lawyer is going to be able to do is get a lesser degree of homicide.
It really depends on your state. In my home state of Texas a public defender means that they will probably want you to plea out, that is you signing a piece of paper confessing and have you accept life in prison with parole or you can go to trial and probably get the death penalty. With a no name, reasonably priced, private lawyer depending on the evidence against you, you could see a drop from capital punishment/murder in the first to murder in the second. If you have a grade-A top of the line lawyer or some kid that is an ace that is unknown then you might get manslaughter, get off on a technicality, or get probation/house arrest. The question is if you have $0, $50,000, or $250,000.
Public defender = death sentence
Middle class attorney = life in prison
OJs legal team = the results speak for themselves
Kidding, not kidding?
Slightly OT, but if you read the book “Outrage” by Vincent Bugliosi (he was Manson’s prosecutor) you might conclude that OJ’s dream team wasn’t all that. What helped a lot was the incompetence of the prosecution team.
A public defender will neither care about your case or spend any time on it. I believe they are compelled by mandate to take your case, I don’t think they volunteer for it. They won’t put any effort into it; any time they put into your case will prevent them from making money on another case.
I will add that the prosecutor also takes this into account when deciding how to pursue your case. If you have a public defender, they are likely to go full charge ahead no matter how strong or weak their evidence is. Once they have learned that you hired a private attorney, they will drop the case if they don’t have compelling enough evidence.
So just the act of hiring a private attorney can save you from even going to trial. Always hire a private attorney if there is any possibility of it at all. In the long run, it will actually save you money.
Mostly just quality & time. Quality in the lawyer world is mostly measured by conviction rate, i.e. how often do they successfully protect their client.
A public defender is mostly there to run you through the facts of the case, make sure forms are submitted on time, and give a brief recommendation. They don’t really actively defend (as much as they would like to), more so just make sure you don’t fuck it up any make it worse for yourself. A lot of the time they’ll have only spent a couple hours on the case before seeing you.
Private lawyers are almost always part of a law firm, so the price just corresponds to how good the firm’s record is, and the amount of time & effort they’ll dedicate to your case. Law firms are made up of more than just lawyers, they also have paralegals and assistants that manage all kinds of things about the case. So for a mid-tier offer, you’ll normally have a lawyer contacting you that has a few other cases on their plate, and in total the 3-4 cases are being managed by them and 1-2 paralegals. Paralegals are like the “nurse” of the legal world.
OJ’s Legal team was composed of a few hot shot lawyers, several assisting lawyers back at the office, and probably 10+ paralegals and assistants all working on this one case.
Since law firms care about their conviction rate, they’ll sometimes charge more or less depending on how they think your case will turn out.
Big plans for the holidays?
The public defender probably has the same ability as the mid-level attorney, but he’s more overworked, and will probably try to get you to accept a plea deal, because it’s less work for him. (To be fair, the mid-level attorney would probably do the same, but might spend a bit more time getting a better deal.)
The OJ team will hire teams of investigators and experts to examine every speck of evidence that could prove you innocent, and may spend much more time preparing your case, because they’re getting paid serious money (and getting serious publicity) to do it. They’ll also help manage the press coverage of the trial, and make sure your side of the story gets out. Not that that kind of thing *should* influence the judge and jury, but we all know it sort of does.
Also, it’s likely that neither the public defender or the private lawyer have handled many murder trials. The OJ team has either handled murder trials before, or they’ll hire other attorneys who have, and use them as consultants. Experience matters.
It’s sad that Justice hits different based on a charged person’s resources….its no wonder people do unsavory things for wealth…..
Imagine 3 golfers. One has never played before. One plays regularly with his buddies. The other is Tiger Woods.
I work in a court, we had a murder trial where the accused used legal aid lawyers. Essentially, legal aid has a fund available, the accused proves financial need and they get issued a waiver, they present that waiver to a lawyer who then decides if they’ll take it and the reduced compensation or not, I think the law society has a requirement or incentive for people to pick up legal aid cases.
Anyway. This guy confessed to police, his DNA and prints were all over the murder scene, there was no doubt he did it but they were arguing mental health. The defense put up a hell of a fight, they cross examined witnesses with tenacity and attention to detail that made rhe witnesses credibility fall apart, the motive was disproven, and the accused was clearly not right.
That said, they couldn’t afford a psychologist to provide expert testimony. So no one could diagnose him with schizophrenia, aside from a prison doctor who could only testify about the few days he had rhe accused as a patient.
Additionally, there was a potential perjury/collusion issue with a testifying officer, the defense was sure they heard an admission, the Crown argued otherwise, they suggested to clear things up to order a transcript. The defense couldn’t afford a transcriptionist, so the crown said they would cover it as they were confident nothing wrong had happened.
If he had OJ money, there would be 6 psychologists in the stand testifying with intensive notes, there would be in-depth reviews if every conversation, every record, of everybody involved. His lawyers were good, they put up a vigorous defense, but without a diagnosis, they couldn’t argue his mental health was to blame, especially when in speaking with the police he clearly explained his intentions behind the murder. OJ money would go a long way to proving that was a delusional statement, enough to maybe spread doubt.
Death Penalty, 50 years to life, 5-7 years or getting off Scott free. In the United States, money really does dictate your outcome in our criminal justice system. Most public defenders are so over worked they almost “bully” the defendent into taking a plea deal.
I am a prosecutor, so I work a lot with defense lawyers, both public and private.
I would agree with other answers here that you’re paying for quality and time, but I would put a MASSIVE emphasis on time and minimize emphasis on quality. I know several public defenders who are amount the most skilled, passionate, and intelligent lawyers that I know. On the other hand, I know private defense attorneys who are complete morons. But the fact remains that private attorneys have infinitely more time to work on their caseloads, which typically leads to better results for their clients. Public defenders (and prosecutors, for that matter) are insanely understaffed and overworked. They work hard for their clients, but it is simply physically impossible for them to spend long hours on each individual case.
I will end by telling you that you should take ALL of this advice with a grain of salt. In criminal law, the facts of the case are usually more important than the lawyer. Even the most skilled lawyer in the world can’t help you if you’re caught on camera committing a crime, for example.
Have you seen “My Cousin Vinny”? It’s great example in ELI5 of how much time and effort it takes to take on a murder case. They almost got convicted, but Vinny and Mona Lisa were so super invested on getting them proved innocent and spent *all their time,* literally night and day to figure out how to prove it.
Normally that would cost a ton of money to hire a person to do, let alone a good attorney and their staff.
But having said that. There are amazing young attorneys getting their hands in the dirt as public defenders who couldn’t afford Yale that need to prove themselves by winning hard cases. So it’s not black and white that money will buy you out of trouble. It just gives you better odds.
Public defender will do the bare minimum and OJ’s team will get you off scot-free when everybody knows you’re guilty because they’ll attack every technicality and minor law in the book. A middle-class attorney will likely read the case, hammer out a strategy and stick with it but the outcome will still depend greatly on whether or not you’re truly guilty and if the evidence can prove one way or another.
If anyone’s looking at this and thinking that the bogus charge levied against them by an angry cop is likely to go away because (a) they’re innocent and (b) they have a public defender…
…if ANYONE is thinking that…
Think again. The machine will mow you down. If you are in that position (I was) and you can find any way to get a competent attorney to do the work to defend you, do that. Re-mortgage the house if that’s what it takes (I did).
The difference is: I was about to go down for ten years for a bogus assault on cops; I would have lost absolutely everything–house, career, reputation, and that’s just the start…
That was 2007, and I am comfortably retired now; my attorney found a record of the cops literally framing me on their text system, and proved my innocence.
And yes, you must PROVE your innocence. “Innocent until proven guilty” is NOT for poor people and/or persons without attorneys. That’s just talk, and means nothing.
Get…an…attorney…!!!
I’ve got ~30 years criminal law experience. Truth is your chances hinge on the evidence FAR more than they do on who defense counsel is. IMO, jurors are very good at getting it right.
Anyway, I’ve seen big name lawyers who suck, and young, highly motivated public defenders who can shine.
If it were my ass on the line, I’d want the guy with the best relationship and experience with the trial prosecutor and trial judge.
Skill level, knowledge of the law level, willingness to put in those extra hours and not just punch a clock.
Willingness to put in that extra effort..
Kind of like what’s the difference between a c student and an a student
There’s also just whether they’re a clever person to begin with. Most people aren’t, lawyers included. So having someone actually clever dedicating all of their professional thinking hours to your case goes a long way.
Another point I haven’t seen mentioned is the big factor which is money.
Public defenders are only for indigent defendants. So poor people under and income limit and minors as a parents income doesn’t count.
As for their quality the jurisdiction is important like the people mentioned as a well ran public defender office is going to have some of the most experienced trial lawyers around.
This is also why a a lot of private defense attorneys started out as public defenders. I’ve been told it’s the best way to get started in the field as no other type of law is like it. So really it’s just experience and whether you are indigent or not which decides for you.
Of course poorly ran pd offices are not going to be a good time, but it really depends on your location.
Its just skill difference. The equivalent is like you asking Gordon Ramsay to cook a steak or a random pub chef to cook one
If you did it the difference is incarceration vs freedom, sadly.
If you didn’t do it, and the state had a weak case, but decided to indite you anyway, you have a good chance at a plea with a pd. You might have a coin flip with an “affordable” defense lawyer in front of a jury.
There is an excellent story from this American Life that touches on this.
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/595/deep-end-of-the-pool/act-one-1
One thing that I don’t see mentioned is that not only does your lawyer have a finite amount of time, the prosecution has an extremely finite amount of time, and can’t afford to spend a disproportionate amount of time on any one person.
If you are rich enough, and the case isn’t front page news famous, your lawyer doesn’t even have to be good, the prosecution simply has to realize that they could get many other convictions for the time and effort it will take to get your conviction. At this point, they will generally simply drop the charges.
The difference when you have nearly unlimited $$ to pay attorneys is significant.
The OJ team was able to hire the best private investigators and then up the Mark Fuhrman taps. Essentially ending the trial.
The Kyle Rittenhouse legal team ran a “parallel jury” during the trial. They literally paid 12 people, selected based on demographic similarity to the actual jury, to sit and watch the trial as it went on. At the end of each day they’d ask the “parallel jury” what they liked and didn’t like about the day’s arguments. What the defense and prosecution said or did that made them more or less credible. The next day the defense team would tweak their strategy accordingly. You’re not getting that from a public defender.
A public defender can perhaps relate to you how screwed you are.
An attorney can likely get you the best deal or option on the table.
OJ’s legal team could get somebody who is clearly guilty as all hell and have them ushered out of the front door with apologies from the victims.