[HN Gopher] My Clients, the Liars
___________________________________________________________________
My Clients, the Liars
Author : paulpauper
Score : 197 points
Date : 2024-03-10 03:21 UTC (19 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.lesswrong.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.lesswrong.com)
| defrost wrote:
| Original: YASSINE MESKHOUT DEC 5, 2023 posted to:
|
| https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/my-clients-the-liars
|
| https://archive.md/c4SRO
|
| Other HN discussion of Yassine Meskhout's writing:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33462658
| account-5 wrote:
| That was an excellent read.
| avmich wrote:
| It's kind of a pity the parallel construction used by some
| services can't be revealed just as easily.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| I recommend also reading the post titled "Eleven Magic Words",
| linked through the text "they haven't". OP is interesting and
| kind of funny, but the linked article affected me... pretty
| deeply, in a weird way.
| yobert wrote:
| That Eleven Magic Words article got me totally hooked on his
| writing. I found it very powerful too. There's so much of our
| society that I know nothing about, and he sheds so much light
| on it. I feel like he tells you the truth.
| richdougherty wrote:
| http://ymeskhout.substack.com/p/eleven-magic-words-unlocked
| 93po wrote:
| I found this a little disappointing after so much build up.
| It's good writing but there was no payoff as to why those
| words had the impact they did and the reason was
| effectively just a random choice by a judge
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| That's the entire point of the piece.
| shermantanktop wrote:
| Exactly. The machinery of justice is decorated with all
| kinds of indicators of objectivity and wisdom: precedent,
| settled law, sentencing guidelines, burdens of proof, law
| schools filled with eminent scholars.
|
| And yet someone has a bad day, or a change of heart, or
| ate a tasty taco for lunch, or just fell in love, and
| lives are ruined or saved.
| DANmode wrote:
| > Every morning I wonder whether that day has Eleven
| Magic Words and, if it does, whether I'll be able to
| figure them out. And every day that potential scares the
| shit out of me.
| Huggernaut wrote:
| Aye aye aye I got more and more confused reading this
| wondering how this was going to relate to the Elves.
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| I find this persons attitude disgusting. They should not be a
| public defender.
| roenxi wrote:
| Yes and no. His attitude is a bit unprofessional, but he
| appears to be putting in an honest attempt at securing the best
| outcome for his clients. I'm guessing, but it seems reasonable
| that once criminals start lying there isn't a productive
| direction to take the conversation.
| yobert wrote:
| How should a public defender behave? He's doing what his job is
| supposed to be.
| tetris11 wrote:
| He should understand the position his clients are in, where
| one small admission could lead to an entire sentence pinned
| on them.
|
| While he might not like it because it makes his job
| difficult, he should nonetheless understand it and at least
| pretend to sympathize on some level.
| croes wrote:
| His attitude doesn't matter if he gets the results
| mft_ wrote:
| Why?
| account-5 wrote:
| Their attitude is the result of being a public defender. The
| result of the people they are trying to defend. They are trying
| to do the best they can for their client, despite their client.
| They're allowed to voice their frustration, and even mock the
| ridiculousness of their clients actions.
| lucianbr wrote:
| I wonder why the respective people lie. Maybe their life
| experience tells them nobody is really on their side, and
| telling the truth never helps.
|
| Also, I wonder if the author really does the best they can.
| We only have their word for it, and... well, from what I can
| read on the internet, the criminal justice system in the USA
| isn't that great, so to speak.
| account-5 wrote:
| Have you read the other story linked to in this thread,
| eleven magic words, by the same person? Another excellent,
| truthful sounding, story. It suggests they do their best
| with what they have to work with.
|
| Regarding the US justice system, I am thankful every time I
| hear about it that I am not subject to it.
| latency-guy2 wrote:
| Since you supplied your own rhetoric about these people and
| their lives, I'll offer another.
|
| These people lie because they know they did it but are
| trying to avoid the consequences since they got caught,
| their first instinct is to convince anyone who will talk to
| them, and after the first few times where that doesn't work
| out, they finally get the lesson to only talk to their
| lawyer. But, they carried forward the same behavior.
|
| Now instead of trying to convince the people before,
| they're now trying to convince the lawyer that they weren't
| even there, they were asleep even. But, they live with
| other people who don't share their alibi, they made a call
| using their phone just 15 minutes before the crime took
| place, or cite the classic SODDI when that all fails, like
| Marcel and Kyle.
|
| Sometimes people are irrational, forgetful, and however
| unfathomably unlikely: stupid. Sometimes people cite
| "experience" to lead their path through life, but really
| they mean "familiarity" with the situation, they really
| haven't learned anything.
|
| I'll use the authors own thoughts here to affirm:
|
| > No, the lying doesn't come from a lack of trust but
| rather a manipulation attempt. Their overriding goal is to
| get off the charges no matter what it takes, so they're
| willing to flip through and latch onto whatever narrative
| helps them get there. They basically want me to be a
| ventriloquist and use me to launder their talking points
| because it's more believable coming from me. Of course as I
| pointed out, they don't really think the plan all the way
| through.
| tetris11 wrote:
| But their client _has_ to lie, even if they 're not fully
| guilty of the crime -- it takes just one small offhand
| admission of guilt related to the crime in a seemingly
| private space, for the police and the prosecution to pin the
| entire crime on them.
|
| The system is not built on forgiveness. It will punish you
| fully regardless the severity of your actual crime.
|
| The fact that the author has no sympathy nor understanding of
| this, leads me to believe that they're not doing the job for
| the right reasons.
| latency-guy2 wrote:
| > The fact that the author has no sympathy nor
| understanding of this
|
| This is not a fact, this is you twisting the content of
| this post into a very badly formed representation of the
| author.
|
| > But their client has to lie, even if they're not fully
| guilty of the crime
|
| Client does not need to confess to their lawyer, they do
| however need to provide the lawyer with enough information,
| most importantly with evidence or a pathway to it, that may
| lead to an innocent or non-liable verdict. Client can
| misunderstand this position all they want, does not matter.
| richrichie wrote:
| Clearly, this lawyer has not heard of Saul Goodman.
| marmakoide wrote:
| The whole read made me reframe Better Call Saul as a
| documentary.
| pjerem wrote:
| > Part of my clients' clammed-up demeanors rests on a deluded
| notion that I won't fight as hard for their cases unless I am
| infatuated by their innocence.
|
| I mean, isn't it very human ?
|
| How to help the client avoid this thinking ? Even more so when
| you are defending people who have no knowledge of how the system
| even functions ?
| 0xDEADFED5 wrote:
| isn't the entire premise of this article flawed? the feigned
| indignity at their clients lying...when it's pretty much required
| for them to receive any semblance of effective defense:
| There is a kernel of an exception that is almost not worth
| mentioning. The Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3
| obligates me with the duty of candor. I am not allowed to present
| evidence that I "know" is false, which encompasses witness
| testimony. Some jurisdictions make exceptions to this rule for
| defendants testifying in their criminal trial (correctly, IMO)
| but not all. So assuming that a client truthfully
| confesses to me, assuming we go to trial, assuming they decide to
| testify, and assuming I "know" they're going to lie, then
| yes, this could indeed spawn a very awkward situation
| where I'm forced to withdraw in the middle of proceedings.
| account-5 wrote:
| I'm curious how a lawyer not being allowed to present as truth
| known falsehoods at trial is stopping an effective defense?
| Wouldn't the lawyer knowingly be committing perjury if they
| lied in court?
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| they said it also applies to defendants testifying, so if
| question is
|
| And then you shot her, correct?!
|
| Answer: No I did not shoot her! I never did that.
|
| And your lawyer knows it is a lie that you indeed did shoot
| her, it could be problematic at that point, depending on some
| jurisdiction.
|
| I guess it depends if you think an effective defense should
| allow the guilty to go free?
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Effective defence would allow the guilty to go free.
| (although "guilty" is a jury verdict so that is impossible
| but I presume you mean would be found guilty had more
| evidence prevailed). You can't have an advocate that draws
| arbitrary lines at which they are not on your side
| advocating for you, what would those be?
|
| Say someone says to their lawyer they shot the person but
| really they are covering for their wife even to mthe
| lawyer. The lawyer then hears them say in court they didn't
| shoot (the truth) but the lawyer just knows they are saying
| something different now to what they said before. It could
| be that.
| mannykannot wrote:
| > ...although "guilty" is a jury verdict so that is
| impossible but I presume you mean would be found guilty
| had more evidence prevailed.
|
| I'm not the author of the post referred to here, but I
| suspect that 'guilty' was intended to be read as
| 'actually committed the crime'.
|
| To be clear, I support the principle that it is the
| acquittal of a perpetrator is far less of a miscarriage
| of justice than is the conviction of someone other than
| the perpetrator.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| In this case I was using guilty in its common English
| usage, and not the specific American Jurisprudence usage.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| You must mean clear cut cases too then. Not self defence
| etc.
| notahacker wrote:
| I think the general principle is that defence lawyers
| aren't expected to contradict their clients' _probably_
| false testimony, and are perfectly entitled (encouraged,
| even) to deliver a "my client maintains the shot was fired
| by someone else, and _nobody witnessed the shot_ " defence
| whilst being pretty convinced they fired the shot, but if
| they close with a series of factual claims about "Richie
| Bottoms" whilst knowing full well that name was made up on
| the spot by their client they could be in trouble. Doing
| their job properly means trying to persuade their client to
| stick to technicalities and avoid the "Richie Bottoms"
| defence because it'll fall apart, not patching the holes in
| it.
|
| But the fact we're debating how open defence lawyers are
| supposed to be and there is jurisdictional variation is a
| good indication of why criminals might feel they're best
| served lying to their defence lawyer, and lying as
| elaborately as possible rather than just avoiding
| confessing. The potential consequences of telling the truth
| are much worse than merely having your public defender
| think you're a fool. Plus if you're intending to test
| whether your denials are believable before you use them in
| court, you won't get a better opportunity than a privilege-
| protected conversation with someone who's seen a lot of
| excuses...
| __derek__ wrote:
| That's not perjury. Trial attorneys are not under oath
| because that would conflict with their duty to advocate for
| their clients. Their duty not to lie to the court is a matter
| of professional ethics.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| That's right, I'm pretty sure if you're rich enough you don't
| have to lie to your lawyer, they want to know exactly the truth
| in order to craft an effective defense.
|
| That said they also say here it depends on the jurisdiction so
| in some jurisdictions it won't matter that you know if your
| client is lying.
|
| hmm - potentially can you start a case in jurisdiction 1 where
| rules are a certain way and then get case moved to a different
| jurisdiction where it is different? Seems unlikely and probably
| not something competent lawyer would allow - but still...
| RobinL wrote:
| In addition, I guess a public defender is likely to work harder
| in a case where they believe the client is innocent.
|
| This interpretation of 'eleven magic words' also suggests it
| matters: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33471299
| MadnessASAP wrote:
| His client in that case, by their own admission, was
| flagrantly guilty. What he was seeking and managed to receive
| was leniency.
| eloisant wrote:
| That's only if your defense strategy is to lie in court. But
| once you're caught, and there is evidence, you're best strategy
| is to admit your guilt.
|
| Or if you really think you can lie your way to acquittal, then
| you can successfully convince your lawyer of your lie. If your
| lawyer can see through your bullshit as easily as the examples
| he gives, you're not going to fool the court.
| avalys wrote:
| "Lying to the court" is not necessary for an effective defense,
| and defendants are not obligated to testify in the first place.
|
| Remember that perjury is also a crime and you're not "allowed"
| to commit perjury just because you're testifying in your own
| defense (which is your choice).
|
| If you're actually guilty, your defense is supposed to
| challenge the validity of the evidence the prosecution is using
| to convict you. Not lie to the court and hope your lies are
| more convincing than the prosecution's evidence.
| 93po wrote:
| > If you're actually guilty, your defense is supposed to
| challenge the validity of the evidence the prosecution is
| using to convict you. Not lie to the court and hope your lies
| are more convincing than the prosecution's evidence.
|
| Ideally yes, but prosecution (and the entire process leading
| to arrest) lies and breaks the law and takes advantage in
| every way possible. It's a very dishonest process to try to
| be honest against.
| skybrian wrote:
| That's often said, but this public defender seems to think
| otherwise and he's certainly seen the inside a courtroom
| much more than I have.
|
| But he seems like an odd person [1] and I wonder what might
| be atypical about his experiences? It would be interesting
| to read the experiences of other public defenders. It's
| their job to look for problems.
|
| [1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4rsRuNaE4uJrnYeTQ/defun
| ding-...
| 93po wrote:
| Did you link the correct article? The author really says
| nothing about the legal system and is only reflecting
| that their 100% ACAB attitude maybe requires more nuance.
| This same author has written other pieces that plainly
| call the legal system an unfair joke (Eleven Words
| article specifically).
|
| Regardless of any public defender's opinion, I am
| inclined to not fully respect opinions of people who are
| deeply embedded in the thing they have an opinion about,
| especially if it's in defense of the thing they're deeply
| embedded in. Humans lose perspective very easily, and
| especially when their identity is wrapped up in it.
| skybrian wrote:
| I shared that to show that he has a somewhat odd
| background, not because it's directly relevant.
|
| Yes, it's possible that insiders might have a biased
| view. However, in general, I do respect the opinions of
| people who have had experiences and write about them more
| than the comments of random internet strangers who, as
| far as I know, have no experience.
| rayiner wrote:
| I know a few PDs, and I also worked in a court. The story
| checks out to me. I don't think you'll find a lot of PDs
| who will say cops and prosecutors regularly target
| genuinely innocent people. For the most part the job is
| to make sure all the boxes are checked and that the
| prosecution matches the actual crime.
| avalys wrote:
| If you're innocent, you don't need to lie to your defense
| attorney.
|
| If you're guilty, the system is not designed to protect
| you, and there's no reason why it should permit the guilty
| to commit perjury out of some desire to balance out (?) the
| fact that the prosecution and police sometimes lie as well.
|
| What is a scenario where an innocent person needs to be
| allowed to lie to present an effective defense?
| soerxpso wrote:
| I don't think the person you're replying to is saying
| perjury should be legal. They're saying perjury might be
| a good idea sometimes. Especially if you're guilty,
| sometimes your only chance of staying out of prison does
| involve lying. A guilty person looking at 20 years would
| be reasonable to be unconcerned about whatever addition
| perjury charges might add (if they were even caught
| perjuring).
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Not indignity but inconvenience. It would be like a boss lying
| to a software engineer about the requirements as they are
| scared it will cost too much then the wrong thing is built.
| unyttigfjelltol wrote:
| When the judge or jury look over to the defendants' table, they
| need to find someone they can trust and believe. Sometimes,
| yes, from the outside the result seems binary, but it's a
| _process_ that everyone ideally navigates with _dignity_ that
| might involve multiple _levels_ of culpability and end with a
| _sentence_ that is highly discretionary. The attorney could
| give weak factual defense on one or more levels of culpability
| to preserve credibility and generate more positive outcomes in
| terms of the process, dignity, and sentence. Also, the attorney
| is going to see that judge and prosecutor again ....
| tekla wrote:
| > when it's pretty much required for them to receive any
| semblance of effective defense:
|
| No its not, holy shit.
|
| Lying to your lawyer is a terrible idea. The lawyer is there to
| HELP YOU and present an effective defense. If you lie to the
| lawyer, the lawyer works with a different set of baseline
| arguments for your defense. If the lie is revealed, the defense
| is broken, it doesn't matter anymore. Months of work tossed out
| the window, nobody trusts the defendant anymore, and the lawyer
| needs to figure out damage control rather than actually
| defending you.
|
| Repeat. If anyone finds out you lied, you are FUCKED. Trust
| goes out the window, Judge thinks you're a unrepentant idiot,
| most possibility of leniency in the case you are considered
| guilty is dropped.
|
| It's literally one of the worst things you can do at trial.
| RuggedPineapple wrote:
| To add to that, your lawyer is bound by both professional,
| enforceable ethical guidelines as well as legal doctrine from
| revealing anything you've said to them in the course of their
| representation of you without your express consent. The
| number of exceptions to that is tiny. The only one that
| really matters is crime/fraud which relates not to your crime
| but using a lawyer to commit a crime. The others are either
| after you're dead (probate exception, where your lawyer can
| disclose information for the purposes of helping settle your
| will after your death) or are exclusively about money (your
| lawyer can disclose details of your agreed upon contract and
| payment structure if they are having to fight you to be
| paid).
|
| There is zero reason to lie to your lawyer, all you do is
| make them less prepared in their defense.
| plagiarist wrote:
| Defending a criminal is a completely separate thing to abetting
| a perjury.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| I also believe that (at least in some states), this assertion
| is inaccurate:
|
| > It's true, a client can show me where they buried their dozen
| murder victims and I wouldn't be allowed to tell a soul, even
| if an innocent person is sitting in prison for their crimes.
|
| At least in Alabama (for no specific reason other than it was
| the first hit I found):
|
| > RULE 3.3: CANDOR TOWARDS THE TRIBUNAL
|
| > (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
|
| > (2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when
| disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or
| fraudulent act by the client
|
| Seems to me that knowing that your client is materially guilty
| and an innocent person has been convicted for their crimes is
| "assisting a criminal or fraudulent act" by your client.
| ildjarn wrote:
| "Chicanery" nice reference!
| stavros wrote:
| Reference to what? It's a word.
| azemetre wrote:
| There's a very good scene in Better Call Saul that uses this
| word. Also the title of the episode.
|
| Better Call Saul is about a lawyer.
| RecycledEle wrote:
| The author of the post is scum.
|
| It was his job to have the fingerprints on the gun compared to
| Marcel's fingerprints, not to be sarcastic and then fail to do
| the evidence comparison.
|
| Right there he (the defense attorney) needs to go to prison.
|
| I have seen so many cases where pigs are setting someone up, and
| they lie to their victim's attorney then the two groups of
| criminals (pigs + attorneys) work together to destroy evidence
| that I can no longer trust any "officer of the cult."
| RecycledEle wrote:
| Then he goes on to confess "Ivan expounded at length about how
| Cindy's testimony was invalid because, as a social worker, she
| would be violating HIPAA.[5] The glaze over my eyes must have
| gotten too obvious for me to hide"
|
| The author of the article just confessed to failing to give his
| client competent legal advice. He had an ethical obligation to
| explain the limitations of HIPPA and why he thought the
| testimony would be admitted to his client.
|
| I am going to have to file a disbursement complaint against
| this scumbag attorney.
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| Please be sure to post a link or a pdf so we can follow along
| the complaint's progress! Yay!
| PhasmaFelis wrote:
| What exactly is a "disbursement complaint"? Your comment is
| the #6 result in a Google search, so it's not exactly common,
| and the other results aren't terribly informative.
| tylerchurch wrote:
| Likely a typo for "disbarment".
| fallingknife wrote:
| Why would that be his job? If his client had actually touched
| the gun that would be the opposite of his job because it would
| produce strong evidence against his client.
| SebFender wrote:
| As House said "People lie".
| Pwntheon wrote:
| I believe a more accurate quote is "Everyone lies".
| narag wrote:
| I have some good friends that are lawyers and used to work as
| public defenders, not sure if they still do.
|
| Their experience was not exactly like the author's. Their clients
| lied to them, yes. But they were very competent, knew every
| loophole and detail of the legal machinery, having experienced
| all of it before and shared their knowledge with like-minded
| individuals while in jail. They were afraid their lawyers weren't
| up to the task.
| kikimora wrote:
| In my country public attorneys 100% work with police to convict
| you, not to protect you.
| compumetrika wrote:
| By happenstance I just ran across this by the same author
| somewhere: https://ymeskhout.substack.com/p/death-of-a-client
| tekla wrote:
| Lying to your lawyer is one of the worst things you can possibly
| do. If anyone finds out it fucks up EVERYTHING
| D-Coder wrote:
| Wise old saying:
|
| "Three people you should never lie to: your doctor, your
| accountant, and your attorney."
| rayiner wrote:
| If you catch a public defender in a candid moment, you'll get a
| lot of stories like this. What makes the criminal justice system
| so difficult is that the overwhelming majority of the people that
| it targets are guilty of what they're accused of, and scumbags on
| top of that. When you face that day in and day out, it's
| difficult to make yourself keep your eyes open for the innocent
| ones.
|
| I remember an ACLU email in my inbox about the Juwan Wickware
| case: https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/only-
| america-1.... It was trying to drum up outrage about a young man
| who attacked a pizza delivery driver as part of a coordinated
| robbery. One of the members of Wickware's party ended up killing
| the driver in front of his wife and kids (who were in the car).
| When I dug up details about the case, I thought "you'd think
| they'd have picked a more sympathetic case to make their point."
| But the fact is that those are few and far between.
| LeftHandPath wrote:
| I remember reading about how the TSA was very unsuccessful in
| catching errors, because they faced a large number of true
| negatives day in and day out. The alarms barely ever went off,
| and when they did, it was usually a false positive. The natural
| human tendency in that situation is to optimize / reduce energy
| expenditure by letting your guard down and paying less
| attention.
|
| In security, "covert tests" that replicate rare events (like
| attempting to sneak a gun through a checkpoint) more
| frequently, seem to increase the chances of success in
| detecting real threats [0]. If only we could do the same for
| our legal system.
|
| [0]:
| https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2013/november/nov4...
| rayiner wrote:
| Except imagine the situation if you faced true positives
| every day. Working in a court made me do a 180 on my views of
| the criminal system. We would see the pre-sentence reports,
| and most of these guys had been engaged in criminal activity
| since late adolescence. I remember one case where a guy
| committed crimes in a tri-state area. He ultimately wouldn't
| even be prosecuted for most of them after the feds got him.
| unstatusthequo wrote:
| As a lawyer, but not criminal one, none of this surprises me.
| Some amount of your job is protecting clients from their own
| misconceptions and things they have convinced themselves of.
| Those who say this guy is a scum or should be in jail do not have
| much of a concept of the justice system and what it means to
| zealous represent a client. Without the truth, you can't see you
| blind spots--in fact, your client is making them. To both their
| and your detriment. I personally love how the writer handled the
| fingerprints. It allows an immediate inflection point of "let me
| do the thinking and handle strategy, and stop lying, or find
| another lawyer." But, some clients won't, and those are the ones
| that end up with an imperfect defense by virtue of them thinking
| they are being clever or whatever.
| poulsbohemian wrote:
| When I was in software, my employers lied about their priorities,
| about what compensation they were willing to extend, about my
| promotion prospects, etc. When I moved in to consulting, my
| clients lied to me about their budget, about their requirements,
| about their goals, about their decision making process. When I
| moved into real estate, I found the old phrase "buyers are liars"
| exists for a reason - people don't want to tell you their real
| budget, they sign an agreement that you are their real estate
| agent and then you see them at an open house with another
| agent...
|
| I can't help but reflect on all the media on romantic
| relationships, where so often the root problem is an inability to
| tell the other person what you really want and need.
|
| It's all fascinating stuff because like this author states up
| front - whoever it might be often would be in a more competitive
| or better negotiating position if they would just be honest.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-10 23:02 UTC)