what is the difference between a prosecuting attorney and a defending attorney?
820401
To try to make it simple: The prosecuter tries to put you in the slammer while the defending attorney tries to get you off the hook. \n\nGood defense attorneys make a lot of money while the prosecutors try to provide justice to victims so they have to believe in what they are doing because they don't make near the money. That is also a difference.
214429
Assuming you mean the name of a prosecutor on a particular case, generally you can find the attorneys' names by calling the criminal clerk's office at the courthouse where the case is being heard.  They will need to know the case name (People v. _________).  If you have a case number you will have an easier time.  They may not give any info without a birthdate of the defendant or some other identifying info.
870743
The following apply to the United States of America,\nFirst, one must remember that the accused is entitled to his/her day in court and to confront the witnesses against him/her. Confront here means question in court, not go toe to toe.\nSecond, there is a principle known as discovery where the accused's attorney gets to see evidence, including statements made against the accused, in order to be able to mount a defense. Now there's the rub, the attorney might be unethical enough to reveal names of witnesses to the accused prior to trial.\nI would suggest speaking with the prosecuting attorney about your concerns.
7822
Attorney's and Lawyers are the same thing.  Just like Cops and Police Officers.
1075565
It depends on the individual defense attorney.  Just like in any sort of profession, some are bad, others mediocre, and yet others put the energy and time to do a good and effective job for their client, the defendant.\n\nGood luck!\n\nYou can always get a second opinion on your case, by at least getting an appointment with a private criminal defense attorney (pay the consultation fee or many offer free consultations) to see if that person thinks they can get you a better deal than what is being offered.  \n\nOf course, be careful there too, because there are unscrupulous private defense attorneys, who can really do not better, than the court-appointed defense attorney, who nonetheless will be more than happy to charge you several thousands of dollars for the same quality of representation that you would have received from the court-appointed defense attorney.
109672
Find proof and contact the county attorney with your proof.  It will be up to them to prosecute depending on how much evidence you have.  If your evidence is insufficient, they will not prosecute.
1078520
Boo made two glaring errors in your answer.\n\nThe first is that the law does not require "beyond a shadow of a doubt" in either criminal or civil cases.  In criminal cases the requirement is "beyond reasonable doubt" and in civil it is "proponderence of proof"\n\nThe second is when you say "whether or not you can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that you aren't guilty of what you are being accused of."  This is absolutely false.  The defendent is never required to prove that they aren't guilty--the prosecution ALWAYS has the onus to prove that you are.
595898
Prosecution always open first, and presents the case for the state.\n\nThe defense then presents its counter-arguments to the case of the prosecution.\n\nThe reason why the prosecution goes first is to ensure that they don't "slip" something in that the defense weren't aware of.
629707
No, a public defender is paid by the government, and provided for people that can't afford a lawyer, so they are not supposed to charge the defendant.
292501
Lawyers,Prosecutors,and Judges are the biggest problems.  Lawyers charge huge amounts of money, and usually are pals with the the prosecutors and Judges. In the criminal justice system money talks. Go to any court system and spend a few days there. You will figure what attorney have pull and what attorney's don't.  I have sat in a court room watched three people charge with the same charge, and no priors(never obtaining a drivers license), and all three got a completely different sentences.  The one who had no attorney got the stiffer sentence and the greater fines.  HOw does a Judge or a Prosecutor justify that? So you are punished for not having the money to pay for an attorney to legally represent you in court? For an infraction? So if you don't spend several thousand on an attorney then you will pay more in court? So in affect crime doesn't pay unless you pay big bucks for an attorney. Which I think is wrong.  That is not justice.
928323
There's an old adage that the first client of the criminal defense attorney is the US Constitution.  \n\nMost criminal defense lawyers don't care whether their clients are guilty or not.  They just want to ensure that the police and the prosecutors have done their jobs properly and ensure the criminal justice system is working.  If they lose at trial, but are satisfied the the police and prosecutors did everything by the book, they generally don't take it too hard. If the defense thinks a conviction is imminent, they will generally try a plea bargain to receive a lesser sentence for their client.  Before anyone makes any judgment's about the criminal defense attorney "trying to get his client off with a slap on the wrist", they should also realize that the prosecutor has to agree to the deal, and the judge has to approve it.  So if anyone is ever upset with a plea bargain, they need to realize that if the judge and prosecutor went along with it, its probably in the state's best interest as well.  \n\nBut to answer your question, see below.\n\nABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal\n(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: \n\n(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; \n\n(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or \n\n(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false. \n\n(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. \n\n(c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6. \n...\n\nSo if a client confesses guilt to his lawyer, the above rule prohibits the lawyer from putting the client on the stand (refered to as "subornation of perjury").  If the lawyer knows the client is guilty, and the client doesn't plead guilty, the case goes to trial.  At trial, the lawyer can't put the client on the stand, because the lawyer knows the client will lie about his or her innocence once they are on the stand. This is why defense lawyers don't care whether their clients are guilty or not, and why they specifically tell their clients not to tell them if they are guilty or not.  They don't want to know, so they can put them on the stand. \n\nBelieve it or not, this rule is almost never violated.  No lawyer would ever risk losing his license because his or her client is a liar.\n\nAnd remember, OJ didn't take the stand.  Draw your own conclusion....
806836
If someone is CHARGED with a crime and is indicted, it would seem that the D.A. has enough evidence to bring that person to trial. \n\nMost States have laws entitling the Defense to "FULL DISCLOSURE" of evidence (if you saw the movie 'My Cousin Vinny', you'll know this). The State MUST allow the Defendant the ability to see what evidence there is against him in order to prepare properly for the court case.\n\nHaving said that, if a D.A. wants to "BLOW HIS CASE" and try it in the media, going "PUBLIC" with the evidence will accomplish that.\n\nThe short answer is YES !!!
719106
The Rules of Professional Conduct, which varies by jurisdiction, generally prohibits a lawyer from advancing an unmeritorious argument in court, except where the lawyer is defending a criminal defendant, who is constitutionally entitled to have the government prove every element of the case against him/her beyond all reasonable doubt.\n\nJust because a case is ultimately a lost cause, does not mean that an attorney cannot make a good faith argument to defend his/her client's interests.\n\nIt is only the plaintiff/petitioner's attorney in a civil action who is ethically not permitted to advance a case where there is no meritorious good faith legal argument.\n\nAnd, as a practical matter, there are very few circumstances where some good faith argument cannot be presented.\n\nUltimately, all cases depend upon their facts, and it is impossible to accurately answer your question without knowing the facts of your particular case. So, if you believe that an attorney has taken an unmeritorious case to court against you, then you should file a complaint with the lawyer disciplinary agency in your jurisdiction, and allow the agency to investigate your claim.
510081
"Lawyer" is a generic term for anybody having studied the law, "advocate" is somebody having clients, a lawyer or counsel in the American sense. \n\nSolicitor, finally, is a British term, meaning a lawyer who doesn't go to court (that's what a barrister is for), but peprares briefs or contracts on behalf of a client, and "instructs" a barrister if necessary.
781798
Talk to the local Bar Association.  Ask for the names of Defense Lawyers that specialize in the type of case you are looking at.  A good defense lawyer in murder cases might not be as strong in armed-robbery cases.\n\nOnce you get the list, start comparing win / loss records.  Also check to see if the lawyer plea bargins a large share of their cases.  Finally, worry about what you can afford to pay the lawyer's fees.
913306
A barrister is a lawyer who defends (or prosecutes) people in court. They usually are a member of a "chambers" (a kind of partnership of other barristers and are employed by their clients to work on particular cases for them.\nProsecuting barristers working on criminal cases are likely to be employed by a state of government agency (in the UK it is the Crown prosecution service)
1166249
The prosecution or side that is bringing the legal action - normally referred to as the Plaintiff - then the Defense closes - then the Prosecution gets to rebut and end.  Just so you know, the reason that the Prosecution or Plaintiff gets to go again is because the burden of proof is always on them so they are allowed to rebut your closing.