`How can you defend those people?'; Lawyers say counsel bolsters fair trials.

Byline: Gary V. Murray

WORCESTER - The question is as likely to come from a close friend or relative as from someone they've just met at a dinner party.

Lawyers who make a living representing people accused of murder, rape and other horrendous crimes are often asked, "How can you defend those people?" or, the most common variation, "How can you defend someone you know is guilty?"

It's a query that criminal defense lawyers say they hear routinely and one that causes them to bristle, because it goes to the heart of what they do and what they believe the criminal justice system is all about. At the root is the right to counsel and a fair trial by a jury of one's peers, the presumption of innocence, the high standard and onerous burden of proof borne by the prosecution.

Let the record reflect that they offer no apologies for their zealous advocacy, and they sleep like babies at night.

Here's how several members of the local criminal defense bar said they respond when asked the inevitable question.

"Because it's not my job to prove innocence," says James J. Gribouski. "It's the government's job to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So, if everyone is presumed to be innocent, regardless of whether or not the person may have done the crime, it's my job to evaluate the evidence and defend my client to the best of my ability."

Mr. Gribouski has been handling criminal cases as a lawyer for 29 years, the first four as an assistant district attorney in Essex County and the last 25 in private practice in Worcester.

"I think the most important thing that most laypeople don't recognize is that people charged with a crime have absolutely no obligation to prove their innocence," he said.

The veteran lawyer said he rarely asks clients if they did what they're accused of doing.

"I don't think it's necessary," he said, because his function during the trial of a criminal case is to hold the prosecution to its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - by trying to poke holes in the evidence.

"It's the protection of the system as a whole because the same safeguards apply to those who may be guilty as to those who are truly innocent. You're defending the system. You're not necessarily defending the individual. It's protection for everybody," Mr. Gribouski said.

Margaret R. Guzman is an experienced trial lawyer who spent 14 years as a public defender in Worcester before entering private practice four years ago.

"Generally, what I say is that I'm a buffer. My role is to make the playing field equal, and guilt is not an issue because I really believe in the presumption of innocence," said Ms. Guzman.

"It's never the people who might be guilty who I worry about representing. That's an easy case. It's the fear that I'll represent someone who is truly innocent and I won't be successful.

"Since issues of guilt or innocence are either for juries or for God, my role is to make the process fair," Ms. Guzman said. "I liken it a lot to a doctor who recognizes that the person has caused their own illness by some living condition, but doesn't refuse to treat them."

Ms. Guzman noted that a person charged with a crime remains cloaked in the presumption of innocence unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the law requires an acquittal if a reasonable doubt exists in the collective mind of the jury.

"The role of the defense attorney is, at every turn, requiring the level of proof that the Constitution mandates. That's what cynics call `technicalities.' It's cynicism that says that a confession that was illegally obtained and kept from a jury is evidence that the person got off on a technicality," she said.

Ms. Guzman said she has represented clients she suspected were guilty who were later exonerated by forensic testing or a witness's recantation. The experience only served to reinforce her belief that the role of the criminal defense lawyer is crucial in terms of protecting the constitutional rights we all enjoy, she said.

Michael S. Hussey is the lawyer in charge of the Worcester office of the state Committee for Public Counsel Services. His job is defending indigent people accused of crimes and supervising the other lawyers in his office.

"I tell them that everyone who is accused of a crime is entitled to a vigorous defense. It is not up to me to decide whether they are guilty or not guilty, or to accept or decline to represent them based on my personal beliefs," he said.

Like his colleagues, Mr. Hussey emphasized that the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty, the highest standard under the law, rests with the prosecution and never shifts to the defendant to prove his or her innocence.

"Only by putting the government to its test of proving someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, even for accusations of heinous crimes, can we ensure that every citizen is guaranteed those protections against being convicted of a crime for which they are not guilty," he said.

"Only by protecting a guilty person's right to be free from an unconstitutional search and seizure are we able to protect everyone's rights to be free from illegal searches and seizures by the police," Mr. Hussey said.

He said the philosophical underpinning of the criminal justice system is that it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than for one innocent person to be convicted.

"And the only way to ensure that that innocent person is not convicted is to vigorously defend those who may, in fact, be guilty," he said.

"Everything that we do in the criminal justice system is centered around that premise that we only want to convict guilty people," said Louis P. Aloise, a defense lawyer and former prosecutor with more than 35 years of trial experience.

Mr. Aloise successfully prosecuted several high-profile murder cases while working from 1978 to 1987 as an assistant district attorney for Worcester District Attorney Joseph D. Early Jr.'s predecessor, John J. Conte. He has been in private practice since then.

"If the government hasn't sufficiently presented a case to convince a fact-finder beyond a reasonable doubt, or doesn't have the evidence necessary to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, then the government doesn't deserve a conviction and that's what really protects all of us as citizens," he said.

Mr. Aloise said he doesn't have to like the person he is representing and he certainly doesn't have to condone the act they are accused of committing in order to give them the best defense he is capable of providing.

"Because I represent a rapist doesn't mean I support rapists. If I am representing a heinous person, I am going to represent that person to the best of my ability with all the vigor and skill I can muster and draw from my 35 years of experience because that's what I'm retained to do.

"If I didn't do that, I would be compromising the integrity of the system that I am a part of," he said.

Contact Gary V. Murray by e-mail at [e-mail].

ARTHOTOS

CUTLINE: (1) Louis P. Aloise visits with Judge Laurie MacLeod earlier this month in the East Brookfield District Court. (2) Michael S. Hussey is shown working in his Worcester office. (3) Margaret R. Guzman talks with a defendant. (4) James J. Gribouski

PHOTOG: (1) T&G Staff/JIM COLLINS (2) T&G Staff/TOM RETTIG (3) T&G Staff/DAN GOULD