Are in the federal courts appointed the worst attorneys?
That is what shows the statistics from the cases won versus cases lost in the Federal Courts.
Here is the summary of key findings for the year ending March 31, 2022 from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
Every year the Administrative office is required to provide a report of statistical information on the caseload of the federal courts for the 12-month period ending March 31.
The statistics from 2022 show some reduction of the filed cases on civil matters and filings on appeal cases, while the criminal cases continue steadily to rise in numbers by 9 percent, total 71111 cases. Even in the Covid year 2020 the statistics show at the end of March 2020 3 percent increase. The tendency is clear: to increase the number of the federal criminal cases. From the report of 2022 data:
Only around two percent of the criminal cases go to trial. The number of people who go to trial dropped by 60% in the last 2 decades that shows the degradation of the justice system and the filling of the jails with the same increase in numbers.
2% is really low level, and in the rest of the cases the defendant has to take guilty plea for some offenses or all of them in hope that can reduce the sentence that actually never happens, because of the sentencing guidelines which change not much by the plea.?The same tendency is happening in the state criminal cases.
If all the cases go to trial then the system will collapse, say the experts, and then probably someone will pay attention how the justice system is broken. In the system working now the defendant is considered guilty till proven innocent, instead the opposite. The whole system treats the defendant as criminal, keeps him in jail for pretrial, rarely?let him go on bail pretrial, usually for the reason of flight risk, organize the grand jury, that has to come with indictment or not without defense and in total secrecy, appoints the judges, jury and attorneys not randomly, as is the law, but according the case and the defendant.
Most defendants, who did go to trial, were found guilty, either by a jury or judge.
How did it happen? Either the prosecution has much stronger attorneys, or there is inequality in the justice system. How normally a person can fight his case if all the cases are lost by presumption.
Then came the matter of the federal attorneys. They are usually appointed by the court, because the court cuts all your sources of income and assets not to be able to fight your case. And then appoints you their choice attorney.
But it didn’t matter if you have a paid lawyer or an appointed one. They are both useless. If they never won a case in their lifetime, how these people can defend a person. Are they specifically chosen because they lose cases? If a person goes to trial he is usually convinced that he is innocent. Otherwise he will take a plea deal. From the above diagram we see that only 17% of the cases have been acquitted in trial.
Trials became less common in the last years, because people don’t see any reason to go to trial when will lose the case. That comes to the lawyers appointed usually by the court in the criminal cases, but also by the whole system that has not been modernized for decades.
What kind of lawyer can provide equality of the judicial process if he is losing all his cases. He is a bushtit lawyer, just recording the case, taking salary while the proceeding go and usually has interest of longer proceedings.
In a broken system the prosecution can rise any case, even totally fraudulent against a defendant because is sure that he will win. And with politically appointed US Attorneys and Federal Judges, not elected ones, the system is not only broken, but corrupt and politicized. Also the government has enormous resources that are not provided to the defendants to win their case.
领英推荐
There is no statistic how many cases have won some lawyers. But the court is more likely to appoint a lawyer that is not winning any cases.
There has to be statistics of the level of competency of the lawyers according to their won cases, and accordingly reflection in their payment and appointments. There has to be a system to be dismissed lawyers that never win cases and are just administrators in the cases. That is fair to the people who have no money and have appointed lawyers. The opposite is total inequality in the judicial process and anti constitutionality.
Roy Cohn is one example of a lawyer who was really fighting the cases with any possible means. He was the example lawyer for Trump, who wrote in his biography “Where is my Cohn now?’ He gained fame?decades earlier as counsel to the McCarthy committee in the 1950s and his tactics were really special. But he was disbarred by the end of his career.
Some attorneys have been threatened and disbarred because the lawyers are a part of a battle where the best usually are the most vulnerable, and is usually not a place for weak nerves. Another successful conservative lawyer William Consovoy, ?defending president Trump in the case not to release his tax records died at 48 this year. He also had success in the cases on election law and affirmative action before the Supreme Court. But warriors in the court are rare. And they become less often because of the polarization of the court system. What are the chances of winning a case of a politician Republican against Democrat appointed judge and jury from Black life matter activists. Sending away two of his attorneys in the criminal case for the sensitive information in Miami, Trump said:
"Trusty and Rowley were up against a very dishonest, corrupt, evil, and 'sick' group of people, the likes of which has not been seen before."
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?