There are two visions of the criminal justice system. On one hand the public wants anyone arrested to be found guilty and go to jail. On the other hand the defendant in a case deserves the best defense under the law and may be not guilty of a crime. The dilemma between right and wrong, guilty or not guilty plays out daily in cases of felonies, misdemeanors and even traffic offenses. There simply are no simple answers and the truth is often left to the imperfect definition of laws.

Then comes the idea of the circumstances of a potential or real crime. Did the witness see what they thought they saw? Did the police observe all the rules and make the right judgment? Is the law flexible in a particular situation?

Why would a prosecutor or defense  attorney fight for a conviction or acquittal, if they knew, or had a doubt, that the defendant was innocent or guilty?

Questions were posed to both Wayne County District Attorney (DA) Christine Callanan and Wayne County Public Defender (PD) Andrew Correia.

Besides knowing each other, how well do prosecutors and defenders work together?

PD: "This is an adversarial system, so there will always be conflict, which is not necessarily a bad thing. We try to find ways to work together to handle cases appropriately when agreements can be reached. We will also sometimes work to iron out procedures within the Court system from time to time," stated  Andrew.

DA: "Despite being adversaries in the courtroom, prosecutors and defense attorneys often maintain professional working relationships. They need to be able to discuss evidence, review cases, negotiate potential dispositions and coordinate procedural matters".

How about in disagreements?

PD: Disagreements about evidence, law and procedure are typical, as are disagreements about what appropriate plea bargain offers might be. Ultimately, disagreements may eventually be decided by a Judge deciding motions, or a Judge or a jury at a trial. Many times agreements can be reached, even if the parties are not necessarily enthusiastic about it. As the old saying goes: “You can tell it was a good deal because everyone is unhappy.

DA: Disagreements are common. This is an adversarial system. If consensus cannot be reached between the parties, the disputes will be resolved in Court through motions, hearings and trials. 

In some cases there are obviously conflicts in prosecution and defense. Does it get heated? How do you handle it after the fact.

PD: There are certainly times when things get heated. Both sides care about doing their job and doing it well. The goal is to never let it become personal. Ideally when the fight is over we are able to shake hands and proceed with the next day’s work. In this smaller, mostly rural jurisdiction, we must find ways to have a functional, professional relationship. 

DA: Yes, conflicts can become heated. The obligation for the District Attorney’s Office and prosecutors is never to allow for those heated exchanges to impact dispositions. At the end of the day, both sides have a job to do and our obligation is always to be just and fair regardless of any heated disagreements with defense counsel. 

Is the law bendable?

PD: Law by definition is subject to some degree of interpretation. Appeals Courts help explain what they believe the law says, and what it means. The original legislative intent when the law was passed is always important. But it is very hard to write a law that has absolutely no gray areas whatsoever. 

DA: The law is not bendable. Prosecutors have discretion in how to charge cases, whether to plea bargain and what sentences to recommend. Judges also interpret laws and precedent. There is frequently room for legal argument based on facts and circumstances of a case when applying the law.

How do you find the reliability of those testifying, both witnesses and defendants?

PD: In my answer to this question I don’t distinguish between witnesses and clients. Under the right circumstances, all people are capable of being confused or inaccurate, and all people are capable of lying. This is true whether you are a person charged with a crime, you are a witness, you wear a badge, you wear a robe or you happen to be a lawyer. I think generally most people try to tell the truth as they remember it, which is sometimes accurate, and sometimes not. I also believe that a surprising number of people are willing to lie under oath, depending on the situation. So often what is truly important are incontrovertible facts.

DA: There are many factors that go into determining reliability of those testifying including consistency, corroboration, demeanor and motive as to why they are testifying. 

When is it better to go with a jury vs. a judge decision trial?

PD: That’s a very complicated, case by case decision.  Ultimately, the decision of whether to have a trial in front of a jury or a judge is one of the few decisions that is 100% in control of the client.  If the attorney/ client relationship is working properly, it is a decision that is best made together, considering all the facts.

DA: The decision to go with a jury or bench trial is the defendant’s decision. The People present the case to whichever is chosen by the defendant.

Do you ever feel outside pressure in deciding a case?

PD: Luckily, I don’t decide cases. We simply have a mandate to represent all our clients to the best of our ability, no matter who they are or what they are charged with. In that sense, we do not feel any outside pressure at all.

DA: There is frequently outside pressure on how to handle cases. However, although I recognize that it is there, it does not influence the manner in which cases are handled. Prosecutors must make decisions based on facts, the law and the pursuit of justice rather than external influences.

If you know/feel a defendant is guilty/innocent, how hard is it to prosecute/defend them? 

PD: The public swims to always side with the protection, but I know better. So, how do you handle the criticism?

I generally don’t think about it in terms of whether I can determine someone’s guilt or innocence.  I think about it terms of evidence. If the admissible evidence appears strong and convincing, we would explore whatever agreements might be available. The client then gets to decide what risk they want to take, as sentences after trial are often subject to the “trial tax”; higher sentences often occur after trial convictions, some of them mandatory minimum sentences required by law that could be avoided by agreements. In the end, clients are entitled to put the State to their proof beyond any reasonable doubt.  Sometimes there is criticism of what we do, but I believe people who understand the system realize that standing up to the nearly limitless power of the state and requiring them to follow the rules in all cases, even in unpopular matters, is a vital service to fairness in our community. I think what bothers some people is that we strive to do it without apology, for all clients, at all times. That is our Constitutional mandate.

DA: We do not prosecute innocent people.

When do you decide an appeal on a verdict is warranted?

PD: The decision of whether to appeal is one of those few decisions that is entirely up to the client.  Again, that decision is best made together with the lawyer.

DA: There are very few circumstances where the prosecution can appeal a not guilty verdict. Once a defendant is acquitted, double jeopardy protections prevent the case from being retried. However, in limited situations, such as when a judge dismisses charges before a verdict is reached or rules in a way that significantly impacts the case, prosecutors may have the right to appeal. But generally, appeals are a tool for defendants, not the prosecution.

DA: In New York, prosecutors typically handle appeals when a defendant challenges a guilty verdict or their sentence. After a conviction, the defense has the right to appeal, arguing that legal errors affected the outcome of the trial. Prosecutors then respond to those appeals, defending the conviction and ensuring that justice is upheld.

Why did you decide to become a public defender/prosecutor?

Was there an "aha!" moment?

PD: I went to law school not really knowing what I was going to do when I got there. But I volunteered to observe and track data in the arraignment Courts in Manhattan during my first year.  When I saw how human beings were being processed by diligent, but harried, defense lawyers in front of disinterested Judges, with bails being set that would send them to Rikers Island on minor matters and people pleading guilty clearly just to avoid being sent to Rikers, I knew which side I was on.  I went on to get involved in death penalty defense in New York while in law school and subsequently chose to become a Public Defender upon graduation.

DA: I became a prosecutor because I believe that justice isn’t just about winning cases. It’s about making sure the right thing is done. The power to make decisions that impact people’s lives, sometimes in profound ways, should rest with those who are committed to fairness, integrity, and the pursuit of truth. Every case is an opportunity to ensure that the system works the way it should, protecting the innocent, holding the guilty accountable, and treating everyone with the fairness and dignity they deserve. Prosecutors have a duty not just to seek convictions, but to seek justice, and that responsibility is one I take seriously every day.

Under what circumstances do  you reduce, or drop charges?

DA: "Dropping Charges" is a colloquialism that is used regarding dispositions of cases. We do not drop charges. However, there are circumstances were charges may be reduced or dismissed. There are multiple reasons why a reduction may be offered including but not limited to victim input, evidentiary issues, defendant’s lack of criminal history, available alternatives for treatment upfront to earn a reduction, etc.