This is a post about the fictional Defense Attorney created by Erle Stanly Gardner. I am leaving the door open for additional future posts but I don't have any scheduled at this time. Manson's influence on culture and society is enormous. That's where I intend to focus. Let's start with the basics.
Gardner was a successful lawyer practicing in southern California. At some point he got a bad case of the writing bug. He experimented with a number of characters but zeroed in fairly quickly on Perry Mason. His first Mason novel was called "The Case of the Velvet Claw". It appeared in March of 1933. Gardner produced at least one and sometimes as many as four Mason novels a year right up to his death in 1970. Mason appeared in a number of additional forms including short stories and movies. But he was most successfully translated to the small screen. The "Perry Mason" TV show ran on CBS from 1957 to 1966. The series was resurrected in a series of made for TV movies that ran on NBC from 1985 to 1995. There have been other less successful TV outings that I am not going to list.
In the crime genre there is only one figure that has cast a larger shadow than Mason and that is Sherlock Holmes. The Mason stories built on the Holmes formula. They were in essence "puzzle" stories. Who did it and how? In the Holmes stories we start out having no idea who did it. The culprit is eventually revealed by Homes' crack detective work. Gardner put his own twist on the Holmes formula developed by Arthur Conan Doyle.
In the Doyle stories Holmes is a "Consulting Detective". He is most commonly brought in by someone associated with the crime. In other cases he is brought in by the authorities. Finally, Holmes sometimes injects himself into the situation for his own reasons. In the Gardner books Mason is always a practicing attorney. He almost always is representing a client. He will sometimes inject himself into a situation a la Holmes. But by the end he is representing someone as their attorney.
Again, Mason like Holmes, investigates. But where Homes depended primarily on his own investigative skill, Mason most often works through others. He starts with whatever the police and the Prosecuting Attorney's office is able to turn up. But he usually supplements this with the efforts of the Drake Detective Agency in general, and the agency's head, Paul Drake in particular. And he also sometimes casts his net even wider by using outside experts. Finally, he is not averse to doing a "Holmes" by personally investigating a crime scene or other important location. In contrast to Holmes, Mason is definitely not a lone wolf.
Holmes would typically restrict his activities to the investigative phase. When he decided that he had everything figured out he would turn the whole thing over to the authorities and take no further interest or action. Mason remained involved through court proceedings. He also effectively used examination and cross examination of witnesses who were in a courtroom situation under oath and with spectators and the press present to unearth critical evidence. Holmes is never seen in court and most of his activities are observed by Watson and perhaps the police, if they are observed at all.
Enough of the Holmes/Mason comparison. Let's look at more of the Mason formula. Here are some more components: (1) One way or another Mason always ends up with a client. (2) Mason's client is always charged with murder. (3) There is always a reasonable case to be made that Mason's client is guilty. (4) The case always goes to court. This sometimes involves a full trial. But in most cases the court proceeding is a preliminary hearing where a determination is to be made as to whether the defendant (Mason's client) is to be "bound over" to a full trial. The "preliminary" resembles a full trial in that witnesses are called, put under oath, examined, cross examined, and evidence is put into the record. But the outcome of the procedure is not a determination of guilt or innocence but a decision as to whether the defendant should be "bound over" or not. But, and this happens frequently in Mason cases, another possible outcome is for the charges to be dismissed and the defendant released. (5) Using various court room tactics Mason is able to (a) prove the defendant definitely did not commit the crime, and (b) some other specific person did.
There are some ancillary components to the Mason formula. They are: (6) Either the client or a close associate of the client has lots of money. This funds the efforts of Perry, the Drake agency, and whatever else is necessary to present a vigorous defense. Perry hangs out with the 1%-ers. (7) Perry makes heavy use of what used to be called "circumstantial" and is now called "physical" evidence. (8) The "lab work" or "expert analysis" of this physical evidence is always done competently. And the conclusion of the experts is always ultimately borne out. This pertains to fingerprints, gunshot residue, blood typing, bullet matching, etc. It also pertains to hair and fiber analysis. But hair and fiber analysis has since been shown to be problematic. Genetic testing of DNA extracted from hair roots is reliable. Examining the hair itself and extracting "identifying characteristics" has been shown to be bogus. There are also problems with fiber analysis (i.e. matching carpets). And the science of the day was not really up to trace analysis (i.e. stains on a piece of carpet). In spite of this, it turns out that the lab work is never done wrong in a Perry Mason story. (9) Perry is very good as a human lie detector. He invariably figures out who is lying and who is telling the truth. The only time Perry's lie detector sense fails him is when his client is telling the truth but the truth is unbelievable. Perry often incorrectly decides his client is lying to him when the client is telling the truth. Of course, eventually Perry figures out he was wrong and saves the day in the end. (10) Perry is a classic "father knows best" figure. What Perry decides is ultimately shown to be best and clients invariably get into trouble by not following Perry's instructions. Sometimes what Perry councils is ridiculous. But in the end (because that's how Gardner writes it) it will turn out that Perry's client would have been better off doing what Perry advised him to do. Finally, (11) It turns out that Perry's client is always innocent. Most people who are accused of a crime are guilty. And presumably we don't hear about the cases that Perry (a) turns down or (b) loses because his client is guilty or (c) worst yet wins in spite of the fact that his client is guilty.
So that's the formula. The Perry Mason books (and eventually TV shows, etc.) initially did a lot of good. When Gardner started writing police work was frankly not very professional. In large part it consisted of getting confessions, with a "rubber hose", if necessary. Gardner continued the trend pioneered by Doyle of basing police work on thorough investigation and the application of "scientific" techniques. And police work is now much more professional and we all benefit. There is still sloppy investigative work, work that is either done poorly or incompletely. And some "scientific" techniques like "forensic dentistry" have been found to be quackery. But scientific investigation, especially DNA based scientific investigation, has made great strides in convicting the guilty and clearing the innocent. This is all to the good.
But Mason is also a poster child for the "take no prisoners" approach to defending clients. The basic justification in Mason's case is that he is defending an innocent client. So "whatever is necessary" is justified. We the reader or viewer are eventually exposed to all the evidence in a Mason tale. Taken together that evidence indicates that Mason's client is innocent and some other specific person is guilty. But this is not the situation in the real world. A number of high profile attorneys specialize in this approach. Mason can justify his shenanigans because "they are necessary to expose the truth". But Gardner has contrived the situation so that "the truth" exonerates Perry's client. Mason always councils everyone to either say nothing or tell the truth. And Mason with his infallible (except as noted above) lie detector can invariably suss out the truth, which will invariably demonstrate the innocence of his client. It may be that all the truth must come out but that is a mere technicality that is overcome by Mason's clever work.
The problem is that the world that Mason inhabits is not the real world. In Mason's world all the pieces fit together and ultimately prove that his client is innocent. In the real world all the pieces do not fit together. There are gaps and inconsistencies. And all the facts will often convict the client an attorney is representing. So letting or even using various tricks to assist in getting all the facts out is not in the interest of the client and, therefore, not in the interest of the attorney. So how should an attorney represent a guilty client? Letting all the facts come out is a bad idea. Here's more to chew on.
Alan Dershowitz is a high powered attorney who teaches law at Harvard and does criminal defense work on the side. And, like Annalise Keating of the TV show "How to Get Away with Murder", he employs students from his classes to assist him in this defense work. He was part of the "dream team" of lawyers that represented O. J. Simpson in his murder trial. In his book "Reasonable Doubts" he says "My responsibility as a criminal defense lawyer is not to judge whether my client is innocent or guilty. Generally, I don't know. My job is to advocate zealously, within the rules. That's what I did in the Simpson case and I am proud of my work." Let me take this statement apart a bit.
Is it credible when he says "Generally, I don't know" with respect to the guilt or innocence of his client? No! Not to me. Mr. Dershowitz is a very smart man. He is there at ground level. He knows the evidence, all of the evidence that is introduced into the court proceedings, but also whatever evidence his team unearthed and chose not to present, and some or all of the evidence that the other side unearthed but did not present. So he has a ring side seat and a lot of skill to apply to the problem. And the result is "I don't know". I don't think so. Now there are several possible interpretations of "I don't know" that might restore Mr. Dershowitz's credibility. If you read his book it becomes obvious that by "innocent" Dershowitz really means "not convicted". If the prosecution is unable to get a conviction, regardless of the reason, then the client is "innocent". This is a ridiculous perspective for an ordinary person but an entirely sensible one for a criminal defense lawyer. He could also be engaging in a voluntary suspension of disbelief for the duration of the proceedings. Again this is a reasonable approach for a criminal defense attorney to deploy. So I could buy this, except for one thing.
Dershowitz goes to great lengths to trash the reputation of a cop by the name of Philip Vannatter. He thinks Vannatter is a professional liar. And what is his big lie? That when he originally approached the Simpson residence he did not at that time think Simpson was a suspect, or so he testifies. It seems to me that Alan Deshowitz thinks he can not know whether his client is guilty or innocent even though he is thoroughly familiar with the case. Mr. Vannatter, however, is not capable of similar mental gymnastics with respect to Mr. Simpson's guilt or innocence when he was initially approaching the residence, at least in the same Mr. Dershowitz's considered opinion.. At that time evidence one way or the other was sparse. There was certainly evidence that pointed toward Simpson. But at that point it was entirely possible that additional evidence would develop that would point away from Mr. Simpson and toward another party. So why after completing a very thorough preparation for a trial can Mr. Dershowitz "don't know" whether his client is guilty or not but at an early stage of a developing investigation is Mr. Vannatter is incapable of a similar "don't know"? At that point Mr. Desshowitz's credibility is shot as far as I am concerned.
There is a real quandary here. If a defense attorney concludes his client is guilty how should he comport himself? He has an obligation to his client and to justice. Justice demands that the prosecution actually present a case that actually demonstrates that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal cases. (The bar is the lower "by a preponderance of the evidence" in civil cases.) It is the responsibility of the defense attorney to make sure that the prosecution dots all the "i"s and crosses all the "t"s. And the defendant should get off if the prosecution fails. But, as Mr. Deshowitz compellingly argues, this leaves the defendant in a bad place. "Everybody knows he did it and got away with it." That's bad. Mason always ends up showing that the defendant is cleanly and clearly innocent. That's a much better place to leave the defendant. And people are very good at picking up when a defense attorney is putting on a "my client is innocent" case versus a "the prosecution didn't prove my client is guilty" case. The former, if possible, is much preferable to the latter.
We can see this playing out in the Simpson case. You can make an argument, and Dershowitz does, that Simpson should not have been convicted based on the case the prosecution actually presented. But I think from the present distance a consensus has formed that Simpson got off as opposed to being entirely innocent. I have contended elsewhere (http://sigma5.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-oj-trial.html) that the Simpson verdict was wrong but not awful. But my position is in the minority. And Simpson has suffered greatly by the consensus view that he did it. Dershowitz advocates always putting on a "Perry Mason" style defense as this is the best way to avoid a Simpson-like result. But part and parcel with this thinking is resort to Mason style tactics. So you have "take no prisoners" defenses. But the justification for "take no prisoners" is usually missing. And the only people who can afford a "take no prisoners" defense are the wealthy or the powerful.
The Simpson trial exposed some serious flaws in, for instance, the Los Angelis Police Department. And these flaws extended to both patrol officers and the crime lab. Improving both as a result of the Simpson trial, if it happened, would definitely be a good thing. But the result is also long drawn out trials where everything is fought over. But in the case of most trials both the prosecution and the defense are under resourced. The rules that courts operate under have to take this into account. But an "all out" defense can and does take advantage of these rules. So all of a sudden all court cases become longer, more complicated, and more expensive. This is a bad thing. And, since poor people can't afford to mount this kind of defense, they literally are subjected to a different justice system than the well off and powerful. Perry Mason, by laying out how to conduct a "take no prisoners" defense and by providing a justification for it based largely on fiction, has contributed to the injustice of it all. Cops and prosecutors misbehave. But this misbehavior is rarely brought to light by these high profile trials. In fact, people look at something like the Simpson trial and conclude that the system is rigged in favor of the other guy. And that too is a bad thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment