[quote=“Trekky0623, post:7, topic:38257”]
Rich people get better lawyers.
[/quote]Not always just the “rich”.
Many “star” defense lawyers, while advertising “pro-bono” (which sounds noble, but most often is just a pretense), in reality collect their fees on the back end, with substantial cuts on story rights, book rights, movies, etc. Never mind the “free” advertising they get by manipulating the media (which is all too willing to be manipulated by these high profile defense lawyers anyway.)
Death rows are full of individuals that were convicted prior to the maturation of DNA analyses, which is now used by a lot to make a successful appeal for innocence. The million dollar defense attorneys taking on those cases are notorious for taking their fees on the back end because “I was incarcerated for 24 years unjustly” makes a good story, book, and movie, even if they’re convicted again on appeal. The high profile defense attorney still collects his fee for the story rights.
For example, I have no doubt that F. Lee got a good piece of the pie on the Boston Strangler story rights, the Sam Sheppard 1993 movie, the James Earl Ray story, the My Lai Massacre story, and plenty of others. Alan Dershowitz has authored books on the OJ Simpson case. (And OJ was arguably “poor” by the time his property was attached by the civil court.)
Johnny Cochran successfully represented Abner Louima, a Haitian immigrant who was sodomized with a plunger while in police custody in NYC. I don’t think Louima could be characterized as “rich” by any stretch.
Mark Geragos represented Scott Peterson, and while Peterson may have been from an upscale family in Northern California, I hardly think he could afford the likes of Geragos. (BTW, Geragos lost that case . . . Peterson was found guilty.)
William Kunstler defended the “Chicago Seven”, which led to some lucrative book deals.
I don’t disagree that rich people generally get good defense lawyers, better than public defenders, but so also do “poor people” sometimes.