Joseph Wambaugh Quotes

I know what it means to prosecute people.

Wherever they have been arraigned, a plain charge has been exhibited against them. They have had an impartial trial and have been permitted to make their defense.

Some may remember, if you have good memories, that there used to be a concept in Anglo-American law called a presumption of innocence, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Now that's so deep in history that there's no point even bringing it up, but it did once exist.

Professionalism in law has brought us the O.J. Simpson case in lieu of justice.

Going to trial with a lawyer who considers your whole life-style a Crime in Progress is not a happy prospect.

A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer.

There's nothing wrong with crooks having lawyers. Everyone is entitled to a lawyer.

People have a false understanding of what our legal system is like - how it works/operates - from shows like 'Law and Order,' which suggest that lawyers appear on demand and do a tremendous amount of investigation and background research.

I think trials are inherently dramatic and interesting and are always going to be part of the news.

I am still not at all in favour of offering any defence. Even if the court had accepted that petition submitted by some of my co-accused regarding defence, etc., I would not have defended myself.

I can write dramas that are about inside and outside the courtroom.

I hardly expected the grand jury to sustain me, after they saw everything different from what it had been while I was there. Yet they did, and their report to the court advises all the changes made that I had proposed.

One of the hardest things to believe is that anyone will abandon the effort to escape a charge of murder. It is extremely important to suspend disbelief on that. If you don't, the story is spoiled.

The O.J. Simpson case, they had no understanding of that DNA evidence, and didn't want to.

I think either Robert Blake wither pulled the trigger or hired someone to do it, but it will be a tough case to prove. I think there's a very good chance he may take the stand, and that's what I'm waiting for.

Cagey trial lawyers have figured out there's a pretty good likelihood their case - no matter what its merit - will literally get its day in court because of favorable judges.

Scientists search for truth. Philosophers search for morality. A criminal trial searches for only one result: proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

For every criminal case, the judge must construct a perfect syllogism: the major premise must be the general law; the minor premise, whether or not the action in question is in compliance with the law; and the conclusion, acquittal or punishment.

Nothing important is done in the United States without lawyers.

In reality, those rare few cases with good forensic evidence are the ones that make it to court.

Americans have grown a great deal more realistic about lawyers and the law. I think that's all for the good. A lot of people will say to you these days, 'If you are looking for justice, don't go to a courtroom.' That's just a more realistic perspective on what happens in the legal process.

Ask any experienced defense lawyer: the real risks are for an accused person who is innocent. A guilty defendant has many more options available.

Money will determine whether the accused goes to prison or walks out of the courtroom a free man.

Since the Puffy Combs case in New York, I will not try any more criminal cases.

I knew I was coming home, I thought they would consider acquittal, I was disappointed that they didn't.