Why Do Prosecutors Prosecute?

     This is a question that I get asked on a regular basis. Why do prosecutors waste time and money prosecuting a 7 gram marijuana distribution case?  Why do prosecutors only charge the husband with domestic violence in a domestic dispute that involved both spouses?  Why arrest someone who has a single Lortab and charge them with possession of a controlled substance, a drug felony?

     The simple answer is that prosecutors can and they do because that is their job.  Sometimes it is about money.  District Attorneys and City Prosecutors receive funding from the State and/or municipality.  Their funding is based on the number of cases that they prosecute.  Therefore, the more cases they prosecute, the more money they can request from the State or municipality.  Sometimes it's a numbers game.  Some jurisdictions indict each offense in a single count indictment.  More cases equals more money.  This is not true about all prosecutors, but it certainly is true in many jurisdictions.

     Actually, in my opinion, most prosecutors prosecute because they don't think like normal people.  Most prosecutor believe that everyone is guilty if they have been charged.  Police jump to conclusions and often try to make the evidence fit the person they believe committed the crime.  Investigations typically take place after a person has been charged with a crime.  The District Attorney's office has already sworn out the criminal complaint and someone has been arrested before the investigation is complete.  Innocent until proven guilty does not apply in this world. 

     Prosecutors believe that everyone is guilty because most defendants simply plead guilty. They don't hire a good drug crime attorney to fight for them. Or they hire a lawyer who doesn't fight for them.  Or they simply go into court alone and plead guilty without knowing the long term effects of their guilty plea.  They listen to bad advice or no advice and end up accepting whatever offer is laid on the table. 

     When I accept a new case, I look for ways to defend my client rather than plead my client guilty. Is there a reason to file a suppression motion?  How can I exclude a particular witness's testimony or keep out a damaging piece of evidence?  Sometimes prosecutors need to be trained.  By filing motions and forcing prosecutors to prove their cases, criminal defense lawyers remind them that being charged with a crime does not make a person guilty.  I believe that being prepared and being willing to fight for my client's is the most important service that I can provide.  Visit the Law Office of Michael P. Hanle if you have been charged with a drug crime.

In Defense of Justice

For the past two weeks, I have been involved in the Gabe Watson capital murder trial before the Honorable Judge Tommy Nail.  During that trial, the Alabama Attorney General's Office attempted to prove that Gabe Watson intentionally murdered his wife while scuba diving during their honeymoon in Australia.

Much has been reported about this case over the past couple of years.  Gabe Watson has been called a murderer and a cold blooded killer.  The defense lawyers (Brett Bloomston, Joe Basgier, and myself) have been vilified and demeaned for representing Gabe Watson.  However, very little of what was actually written in newspapers and Internet articles or seen on television had anything to do with what actually went on in court the past two weeks.  Very little of what you heard or saw had anything to do with the facts and ultimately with the truth.

Here lies the problem.  Many national and international news agencies picked up on the story.  However, very few of them bothered to send a reporter or journalist into the courtroom to listen to the testimony and view the evidence.  The national media then wants to act appalled that Judge Nail had the unmitigated gall to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal.  How dare he grant a "perfunctory motion" that is filed by defense lawyers all the time.  How dare he take this case away from the jury and impose his own judgment in this case.  How dare he do his job.  

Judge Nail sat through the entire trial and listened to every witness testify.  In the end, the Honorable Judge Tommy Nail granted Gabe Watson's motion for judgment of acquittal.  His decision was based on the facts presented in court and the law.  Weighing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and granting all reasonable inferences from the evidence and testimony in the prosecutions favor, no reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  Judge Nail correctly decided that the AG's Office failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Gabe Watson intentionally murdered his wife.

Michael P. Hanle