Everything is Relevant

By Clayton T. Robertson (Criminal Defense/Civil Rights Attorney)

I'd say the major complaint I hear about public defenders (and I used to be one) is that they don't take enough time to speak with clients about the incident or other possible issues that the client believes are relevant. I've also heard this complaint about private practitioners. Public defenders often lack time due to substantial case overloads; some private attorneys may make business decisions about time allocations based on the type of case or, likewise, they are overwhelmed with their caseloads. In both situations, there is a tendency -- which I think is absolutely incorrect -- for the attorney to believe that some topics are simply not relevant or worth their time. They both might also pre-judge the outcome, believing that nothing they do will matter.

Here's my position on this issue, and it's absolutely firm: When the client takes the time to share details with you about a topic they believe is important to the representation, you need to take the time to listen to them. You also need to take the time to ask the questions that may lead to those details or open up the discussion. My experience is the client is the single best expert on their case, they know the details, they know the backstories, they know the "cast of characters," they know what might make a particular person (or witness) credible or not, and they are aware of a whole host of other issues that might ultimately provide the attorney with a single crumb that creates a bread trail to a key fact or issue in the case, which may make a difference in a negotiation or, if it occurs, at a trial.

For this reason, I believe -- especially at the outset of the representation, which then affects the nature and scope of the investigation and potential defense theories -- that everything is relevant. If the client believes it is relevant, and even if you know that particular information is not going to be admissible at trial due to the rules of evidence, in that conversation the client may also tell you something else that does make a difference on a key point that is relevant and is admissible, or it leads to other relevant and admissible evidence.

Moreover, remember, the moment a person or witness utters a single word to law enforcement, as reflected in police reports, or utters a single word on the stand at a hearing or trial, their credibility is automatically and inherently at issue. Thus, clients may have information about them that allows you to impeach or discredit them, or allows you to convince a prosecutor they shouldn't be believed -- which often produces better outcomes. Or, if they are witnesses in your favor, allows you to bolster their credibility in ways permitted by the rules of evidence.

The bottom line here is that for those practitioners, like me, who believe that no stone should go unturned and every detail matters, it is analogous to looking for a needle in the haystack. That one fact could make all the difference to you and your case. When you have the perspective that everything is relevant (or potentially relevant) as you investigate the case, you will have a better chance of finding that needle.

"Every battle is won before it is fought." -- Sun Tzu