News stories saying it's unclear whether the accused has retained a lawyer

[Gryphon Rider]

So, of course, Canada gets news stories out of the US about outrageous crimes.  Very often the story mentions that it is unclear whether the accused has a lawyer.  Why is it important that this is part of the story?  As a reader, I don't really care whether, at the moment the story is written, the accused has a lawyer or not.  Or do Americans immediately wonder who the lawyer is, like sports fans wonder who is going to be pitching or quarterbacking or goalkeeping in the next game?

[The emperor has no clothes]

Good question. I don't know why, I've never been interested either.

[Wizzard]

I think its assumed they are going to need one.

[Jess from VA]

They're going to buy their own or get one appointed if they qualify.

Guilty or innocent (or not guilty), you'll do better with one than without.

Though I've seen a couple in action where that was debatable.

At least with a complete nitwit, you have a good ineffective assistance of counsel appeal.   

I object to that objection.  I'll bet you do. 

[art]

Rich people get the best lawyers and the rest of us get the leftovers.

[3fan4life]

Rich people get the best lawyers and the rest of us get the leftovers.

I've often wondered if the reason that the high $$$$ lawyers are so successful,  Is that they are greasing the palms of the judge and the prosecutor.

[Moonshot_1]

So, of course, Canada gets news stories out of the US about outrageous crimes.  Very often the story mentions that it is unclear whether the accused has a lawyer.  Why is it important that this is part of the story?  As a reader, I don't really care whether, at the moment the story is written, the accused has a lawyer or not.  Or do Americans immediately wonder who the lawyer is, like sports fans wonder who is going to be pitching or quarterbacking or goalkeeping in the next game?

Not sure what stories you are referring to. I don't recall the point of whether the accused has a lawyer or not is referred to at all in the stories I read or have read.

However, I do know that when we read stories about such things it is the comments of the lawyers that are published because they are the ones representing their client. For the reporting entity, this is where the information is coming from and, therefore, attributed to.

As a general rule I don't see the lawyers being held in the light of pitchers or quarterbacks with the exception of rare, high profile, tabloid type cases. And even then it is more of an anomaly.

That said, legal representation is a Constitutional right here in the US. It is the government bringing criminal charges against a person. The Constitution prohibits the government from proceeding unless the person has legal representation or the person deems them self their own counsel.

So insuring the person's rights are not being violated by the government is a legitimate issue to cover.

I'm just not seeing what you are describing or seeing it at the rate you seem to be.

[The emperor has no clothes]

So, of course, Canada gets news stories out of the US about outrageous crimes.  Very often the story mentions that it is unclear whether the accused has a lawyer.  Why is it important that this is part of the story?  As a reader, I don't really care whether, at the moment the story is written, the accused has a lawyer or not.  Or do Americans immediately wonder who the lawyer is, like sports fans wonder who is going to be pitching or quarterbacking or goalkeeping in the next game?

Not sure what stories you are referring to. I don't recall the point of whether the accused has a lawyer or not is referred to at all in the stories I read or have read.

However, I do know that when we read stories about such things it is the comments of the lawyers that are published because they are the ones representing their client. For the reporting entity, this is where the information is coming from and, therefore, attributed to.

As a general rule I don't see the lawyers being held in the light of pitchers or quarterbacks with the exception of rare, high profile, tabloid type cases. And even then it is more of an anomaly.

That said, legal representation is a Constitutional right here in the US. It is the government bringing criminal charges against a person. The Constitution prohibits the government from proceeding unless the person has legal representation or the person deems them self their own counsel.

So insuring the person's rights are not being violated by the government is a legitimate issue to cover.

I'm just not seeing what you are describing or seeing it at the rate you seem to be.

I'm willing to bet a sizable sum that GR knows our constitutional rights. From your comment I'd also be willing to bet a sizable amount that you are not aware of theirs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_10_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

 

[Moonshot_1]

So, of course, Canada gets news stories out of the US about outrageous crimes.  Very often the story mentions that it is unclear whether the accused has a lawyer.  Why is it important that this is part of the story?  As a reader, I don't really care whether, at the moment the story is written, the accused has a lawyer or not.  Or do Americans immediately wonder who the lawyer is, like sports fans wonder who is going to be pitching or quarterbacking or goalkeeping in the next game?

Not sure what stories you are referring to. I don't recall the point of whether the accused has a lawyer or not is referred to at all in the stories I read or have read.

However, I do know that when we read stories about such things it is the comments of the lawyers that are published because they are the ones representing their client. For the reporting entity, this is where the information is coming from and, therefore, attributed to.

As a general rule I don't see the lawyers being held in the light of pitchers or quarterbacks with the exception of rare, high profile, tabloid type cases. And even then it is more of an anomaly.

That said, legal representation is a Constitutional right here in the US. It is the government bringing criminal charges against a person. The Constitution prohibits the government from proceeding unless the person has legal representation or the person deems them self their own counsel.

So insuring the person's rights are not being violated by the government is a legitimate issue to cover.

I'm just not seeing what you are describing or seeing it at the rate you seem to be.

I'm willing to bet a sizable sum that GR knows our constitutional rights. From your comment I'd also be willing to bet a sizable amount that you are not aware of theirs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_10_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

 

The point was to validate the reason a reporter or publisher would report on legal representation. The Constitution comments laid the background for that. And I still haven't seen the kind of reporting he initially spoke about.

I'm pretty sure most western countries have legal counsel provisions in their Legal Systems.

[J.Mencalice]

"Make crime pay.  Become a lawyer."
-Will Rogers
 

[Jess from VA]

"Make crime pay.  Become a lawyer."
-Will Rogers
 

It doesn't pay much.

This is kind of dated, and probably lower stats than at present times.

Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 1998, roughly 66 percent of all federal felony defendants were represented by public defenders or other publicly funded counsel.  At the county level, in 1996, 82 percent of felony defendants in the 75 most populous counties used public defenders.

Public defenders are among the lowest paid attorneys extant (maybe a bit better than free legal aid) (the chief defender who runs the office may make a decent living, but his staff is mostly rookies starting out).  Private attorneys get lots of court assignments for indigent defendants, and the pay is also low.  For misdemeanors, like DUI, assault, petty theft, yada, I got paid $150 for a plea or $200 for a trial (yeah early 80's, but that pay was sucky even then).  You get more for felonies, but you sure don't get rich.  

So who pays for the criminal defense for 70-85 percent of all felons?  The taxpayers (you and I) do.  

Now if you get a gig representing the mob, or big drug dealers or white collar criminals, you might make some money.   (You also can end up buried in a shallow grave in the desert, like one of the Manson Family defense attorneys, named Hughes)