…at least, they shouldn’t be.
I’m always amused when I see the back and forth on “Law & Order” between the prosecutors and the defense attorneys. It mostly consists of the types of interactions that give lawyers a bad name: threats, insults, and general nastiness are (in TV Land) the norm.
In reality, or at least in Austin, Texas, prosecutors and defense lawyers generally get along with each other. And I can assure the reader that you don’t want to hire a defense lawyer who is known for behaving the way they do on TV. If the prosecutor thinks your lawyer is a jerk, how well do you think negotiations will go? (And, yes, fewer than 5% of cases end up having to go to full blown jury trial.)
But yesterday, Appellate Law & Practice posted an interesting anecdote involving a real life example where a prosecutor had written a “fictional” account of an ongoing case. Quoting from the appellate decision removing her from the case:
On the other hand, she characterizes the defendant in the novel as "despicable," "felony ugly," a "pig," a "heartless bastard," and a "dirt bag." Defense counsel is portrayed as "disingenuous and manipulative" and as deserving to have his "ass" kicked. These stereotypical generalizations have no place in a current public prosecutor’s thinking processes even if they are uttered in a fictional account.
I don’t even know what to say about that… do you think maybe she got her law degree from NBC?