When a criminal defense lawyer begins work on a bank fraud case, his/her first inclination is to determine if the case can be won at trial. Sometimes winning means an outright not guilty verdict on all counts. In other cases it means convincing a jury that the defendant is only guilty of a lesser offense.
However, not all bank fraud cases can
be won by challenging the prosecution’s case at trial.
When a criminal defense lawyer encounters a client with a bank fraud case that cannot be won at trial, he/she must build an alternative defense based on mitigation. Unlike a strategy designed to defeat the prosecution’s case at trial, a defense premised on mitigation is designed to minimize a client’s exposure to prison.
In other words, a criminal defense lawyer focusing on mitigation directs his/her strategy on the punishment for bank fraud, as opposed to the guilt or innocence of bank fraud. Put simply, mitigation focuses on obtaining a lesser punishment, whereas going to trial focuses on challenging guilt.
Because the consequences for failure in a bank fraud case are so severe, a criminal lawyer must be capable of properly analyzing the evidence in your case, and capable of an producing an unbiased and realistic assessment of your chances of winning at trial.
The decision to go to trial or take a plea is a huge, life changing decision.
It must be made very carefully and must be premised on the realistic facts of your case.
Bank fraud, like all other criminal offenses, is usually punished far worse when a person is convicted at trial, as opposed to pleading guilty or no-contest before trial. When a criminal defendant forces the Government to go through the expense of trial, both in time, effort, and money, judges are inclined to punish the defendant much harder after he/she loses, then if he/she had saved the Government the trouble and took a plea.
However, this reality should not discourage a person from going to trial when it is warranted. Sometimes the best defense is an aggressive defense. In my opinion, the best criminal defense lawyers are not afraid to challenge the prosecution and take their client’s case to trial, when such a challenge is warranted.
In other words, a criminal defense lawyer must weigh all the pros and cons of going to trial
and help his/her client make an informed and intelligent decision.
At the end of the day, the only thing that should manner to a criminal defense lawyer, especially in a bank fraud case, is the final outcome to the client. Obtaining the best result possible given all of the circumstances is the only goal a criminal attorney should focus him/herself on.