A Prosecutor’s Change of Heart in a Capital Case at the Supreme Court
I’ve been a prosecutor for almost 14 years of my life and I’ve never heard a defendant argue that the prosecution should be ended – if they have a change of heart, then that is what they must do.
As lawyers we often say we do what we believe is in our client’s best interest but as defendants we must admit when we’re wrong – most defendants will make one or more mistakes in their thinking and their final decision will be based on those mistakes.
It’s not just a mistake. It is a wrong decision, but most of these wrongs are minor. They don’t make a case for the prosecution, they don’t harm the defense and they don’t result in a conviction.
Defendants may make a mistake because they are innocent – or they may make a mistake because they are guilty.
In most cases it is a combination of both. Most clients will make a mistake. When you have a client who is guilty, the prosecutor’s job is to determine if you have a case that meets the threshold for a “reasonable” doubt.
The defendant’s job is to raise a reasonable doubt.
The prosecutor is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the jury receives a factual basis for the case. The prosecutor is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the jury receives a factual basis for the case and that means ensuring that there is evidence to support the evidence presented by the prosecution. In the case of the defense the defendant raises “factual issues” and the burden is on the prosecutor to prove each and every element of the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
All of the elements of the crime are required to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no “need” to prove that defendants are not innocent. The burden is on the prosecution to prove each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendants can’t simply make a statement that they wish they hadn’t done the act. They must explain why they did the acts. And here is where the