As someone with years of military service, one of my hobbies is studying geopolitics. Recently, I came across an article on how nations behave and realized the same principles apply to criminal defense. Just as nations navigate competing interests and constraints, so too do defendants and prosecutors in a courtroom.[1]
Here are those rules adapted for criminal defense:
1. Every party has interests it must pursue to fulfill its needs and, if possible, to acquire as much power as it can;
2. Every party will naturally encounter constraints in pursuit of its interests;
3. When a party competes with another over the same objectives, pitting its interests against those of another, conflict ensues; and
4. In any conflict or against any constraint, a party will do what’s best for itself.
Let’s break these down in the context of criminal cases:
Interests: The Goals of Prosecutors and Defendants
In criminal cases, both the prosecutor and the defendant have distinct interests.
Prosecutor’s Interests
The Prosecutor’s goal is to pursue justice, which usually reveals itself as wanting to win the case. Their aim is to hold the defendant accountable under the law for the alleged crime. They want the defendant to pay the price set by the legislature for committing the alleged crime. The interest of winning the case is so strong that there countless protections given to defendants to protect them from overzealous prosecutors who let winning become their interest instead of justice. To ensure fairness, the legal system grants defendants several protections to prevent prosecutors from prioritizing “winning” over “justice.” These include:
- The presumption of innocence.
- Access to complete and timely discovery.
- A neutral judge and an impartial jury.
Defendant’s Interests
A defendant’s interests typically center on minimizing punishment. However, other motivations can come into play, such as:
- Preventing a family member victim from testifying.
- Accepting a plea deal due to external pressures like work, finances, or family.
An expert defense attorney understands their clients’ interests and advocates for them during the case.
Constraints: The Limits Both Sides Face
Both prosecutors and defendants operate within strict boundaries or constraints.
Legal Rules and Facts
Laws and procedures define what each party can and cannot do. However, the most critical constraint are the facts of the case. Facts are impartial—they neither help nor hinder any party intentionally. Both parties have the same facts, and those facts do not care who they help or hurt. Sometimes the facts will direct a defendant to accept a plea deal. Other times they will push the case to a trial for an impartial jury to interpret them. A skilled defense attorney uses facts strategically to their client’s advantage.
Conflict: When Interests Collide
When the prosecution and defense can’t agree, conflict arises—much like disputes between nations. However, in the courtroom, decisions rest with judges and juries rather than armies and navies.
The Role of Experience
Skilled attorneys on both sides make a significant difference. Inexperienced prosecutors do not always recognize the weakness of their case and force cases that should be resolved into unnecessary conflict. A very experienced defense attorney has learned how to help inexperienced prosecutors see when their case is weak and that conflict – aka litigation – is an unnecessary expense for both parties.
Acting in One’s Best Interest
In the end, each side will act in its best interest—whether through conflict (trial and litigation) or cooperation (plea bargains and compromise). An experienced defense attorney sees the big picture, navigating the complex dynamics of conflict and cooperation to craft the best strategy for their client.
[1]Fedirka, Allison. “Exploring Mexico’S Options: Washington’s Southern Neighbor Isn’t As Pliant As Some Think.” Geopolitical Futures, 16 Dec. 2024, geopoliticalfutures.com/exploring-mexicos-options/. Accessed 20 Dec. 2024.