They would have to sit back, tell their client to plead the 5th, and let the prosecutor do their job of proving a crime was committed by the suspect beyond reasonable doubt.
I watched the OJ Simpson trial when I was a kid. I was sure he was guilty. I think his lawyers thought so as well. Once they realized the LAPD had tampered with the crime scene and the evidence they used that wedge to open the door for reasonable doubt. And they absolutely hammered at it for months. By the end the jury was full of doubt.
Most public defenders don't have the resources for that kind of defense. And most assume their client is guilty. Which is why plea bargains are prevalent.
An alternate explanation for the prevalence of plea bargains is that many defendants are actually guilty of something, that guilt is likely enough provable to not be worth the risk, and we’ve allowed sentencing guidelines and charge-stacking practices to amplify that risk to the point where it’s game theoretic sensible to take a light plea deal. I’m not nearly convinced that public defender assumption of guilt is a significant driving factor.
Unfortunately, there are reasons to accept a plea bargain even if you are perfectly innocent.
First, reality is not important per se, only how the judge and the jury see it. If you know you didn't do something, but there is evidence pointing towards you, and you have a reason to believe that people judging you would be convinced by it... it makes sense to accept a smaller punishment (for something you didn't do) rather than risk years of prison (for something you didn't do).
Second, the process itself is already a punishment. How many times can you be absent from your job because you are at the court, before you lose the job? How much will it cost you to pay for the lawyer, for travel, etc. If you are poor, it can make more sense to accept a smaller punishment for something you didn't do, rather than ruin your life in an attempt to prove your innocence.
His job isn't to claim that his client is innocent. His to make the government prove the client's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
If we don't require that from the government, the entire justice system breaks down.[1] Because once the government stops being rigorous about its methods for convicting guilty people, it can trivially start convicting innocent people.
[1] Which it largely has, given the ratio of criminal convictions that get plead out, as opposed to being litigated. Plea bargains are a blight upon justice.
Are you referring to court appointed public defenders? Oh, they don't work to find a defense for the defendant. They work to ensure the public's interests are defended. We don't want the state to get sloppy. Process and procedure needs to be followed and objections made to protect the public's interest in a fair trial.
If the defendant does not want to plead guilty then the attorney cannot plead guilty on behalf of the defendant.
"This morning the Supreme Court overturned a Louisiana inmate’s death sentence because the inmate’s lawyer – hoping to save his client’s life – had told the jury that the inmate was guilty, even though the inmate had expressly objected to that strategy."
It's the government's job to establish the guilt of the accused. It is not the defendant's advocate's job to help out. The actual guilt or innocence of their client is not a concern—legally speaking. Ensuring that they get a fair trial, and are afforded all the process due to them is.
A defense attorney will poke whatever holes they find in the state's evidence, in their theory, and in their conduct. They will work to suppress evidence that was gathered illegally, locate witnesses that can testify on behalf of their client, and argue before the jury that the state has not proven their case beyond the legal standard.
I'm sure it's much easier for lawyers when they themselves are convinced of their client's innocence. But when someone comes to you and pays you to advocate for them in court, that's what you do. Your personal opinion is irrelevant.
You are not going to convince the jury with a statement like that. You have to offer "alternative facts". Tell the jury it may have been someone else that committed the crime (even though you know that's not true.) Tell them your client wasn't present at the crime scene. And so on. Presenting a robust defense for a client you know is not innocent and sticking to the truth are fundamentally incompatible. In real life defense lawyers aren't known for their truth telling. Everyone knows this and expects this. Which is why this article from ABA is simply grandstanding.
This would be a problem if his job were to prove that his client is innocent. But it is.
Instead, the job is to argue that the prosecutor is not able to prove that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and to advocate for his client's best interest, which possibly even includes the client admitting guilt in exchange for a lesser sentence.
"You defend the principle, not the man", or something to that effect.
The legal system is convoluted enough that it requires a guide and domain-specific expertise. That doesn't mean the public defender's goal is to get them off, simply to serve as that guide and offer them the ability to understand their challenges and options.
Sometimes you're guilty as shit and it's unambiguously on camera, so the defense attorney's job is not to magically get you off -- that ain't gonna happen -- but to ensure you don't get utterly fucked over by a shitty plead deal and/or that mitigating factors are taken into considerations; e.g. "normally offenders with no record who did $crime only got $sentence; why is this twice as high?"
I watched the OJ Simpson trial when I was a kid. I was sure he was guilty. I think his lawyers thought so as well. Once they realized the LAPD had tampered with the crime scene and the evidence they used that wedge to open the door for reasonable doubt. And they absolutely hammered at it for months. By the end the jury was full of doubt.
Most public defenders don't have the resources for that kind of defense. And most assume their client is guilty. Which is why plea bargains are prevalent.