Indeed. I always find guilty, because even if innocent of the crime in question people on trial are almost always guilty of something worthy of punishment.

that;s a horrible way to conduct a jury. If you deem them to be innocent of the crime for which they are on trial, then you vote for not guilty. don't just call them guilty because they may have done something else. They aren't on goddamn trial for something else

And in the courts, guilt or innocence is determined by a jury, not by the actual crime or lack thereof. And since OP's main defense was that his client has good character, showing up drunk certainly won't help that in any way.

May I direct you to Federal Rule of Evidence 404 which governs when character evidence is admissible? (I'm not sure if we're allowed to post links, so you can just google it.) Furthermore, offering proof of defendant's character is an EXTREMELY weak primary defense. Let's put it this way, if you're on trial for murder, which defense would you want: 1) "My client was in another state at the time of the crime. Here's his plane ticket and baggage claim tags. He also has credit card receipts." or 2) "Your honor, my client is not the kind of person who would commit murder. I swear!"

Based on the information provided in this FML I would say the crime was much less severe than murder. Maybe petty theft at most. And if OP had enough solid evidence to provide the defendant's innocence, then his character would only be brought up by the prosecution. And generally speaking, the less severe the crime the more the appearance of the person in question matters. Hypothetically speaking, in a situation where all evidence is irrelevant, who are you going to be more likely to say they committed a crime: someone who is noticeably drunk, poor demeanor, slouched over in their chair, etc, or someone who is upright, professional, and confident?

14/21 is right sorry. Unless the defender is being charged with something drinking-related, his sobriety should have nothing to do with determining whether he committed the crime or not. And if the OP is so damn positive his defender didn't commit the crime, why not present whatever evidence they have that convinced them? Yes, the character thing can help bolster the defendant's defence, but it should not be the linchpin of your case. 21's example was perfect. Obviously, the defender isn't being tried for murder, but it was a ******* analogy, and a good one. Last thing. The defendant is (presumably) HUMAN, just like the rest of us (presumably) - and therefore prone to mistakes. It's likely the defendant drank something to calm his nerves and ended up going overboard. While it certainly looks bad, his sobriety during the trial should have no bearing on his case, again unless the case has something to do with drinking, or directly related to character like, say, a domestic violence case. And if the judge/jury decides the defendant is guilty just because they had some drinks, rather than whether evidence shows he did it, well, that says a lot about our justice system. Not condoning the defendant showing up drunk, by the way. But if our justice system worked the way it was supposed to, people wouldn't get punished for crimes they didn't commit just because they did some other shit that was not related, and entirely legal. Innocent until proven guilty. Not innocent until you ******* show up drunk in court.

It's a character case though, and being loss drunk in court doesn't do much to make you look like an upstanding citizen.

32 - The defendant is human, and so is the jury. Yes, the jury is supposed to be un-biased and only base their decision on the facts presented in the case. But if everyone always did things they are supposed to do this entire conversion would be moot as the crime wouldn't have even happened.

The defendant was intoxicated not the prosecutor... Though I do agree OP's use of pronouns could be better.

He doesn't have to prove himself innocent, the prosecutor has to prove him guilty. The burden of proof is always on the prosecutor.

I didn't mean it that way. I meant it in a way that if it was important to him, he wouldn't have appeared to court being intoxicated.