Criminal Defence Law: The Art of Defence and Lawyers Who Made History

Content update and legislative research: 11 October 2026

Criminal defence law is about protecting a person's rights in the face of an accusation of crime, questioning the evidence and contributing to the realisation of a fair trial. This task requires, besides knowledge of the laws, careful listening, asking difficult questions, remaining independent under pressure and testing every claim against its counterpart in the file. Although the subject of the defence is a file, its outcome touches a person's liberty, family, profession and future.

A person facing a criminal investigation often asks the same questions: What am I being charged with? What should I say now? Which document is important? Will my lawyer really give me time? The first task of the criminal lawyer is to turn this uncertainty into a clear legal framework. Trust does not arise only from reassuring words; it arises from explaining why each step is taken and from knowing the limits of what has been promised.

Famous lawyers in the history of defence also show different aspects of this profession. John Adams recalls the measure of law against public pressure, Clarence Darrow the weight of punishment on a human being, and Faruk Erem an approach that does not reduce the person to the accusation. Other names offer important examples through scientific evidence, freedom of expression, equality and the fight against wrongful convictions.

This article deals with 32 jurists from Türkiye and around the world within these contributions. The list is not a ranking of success nor a complete inventory of the entire history of law. Some names are known mainly for criminal defence, others for victims' rights and human rights cases. The differences between these roles are preserved, and historical experience is examined for what it can say to today's criminal proceedings.

Who is a criminal lawyer and what does he or she do?

The difference between defence counsel and victim's representative

In everyday language, a criminal lawyer means a lawyer who works in the field of criminal law. The Code of Criminal Procedure, however, uses more specific terms according to the position of the person represented: a lawyer who conducts the defence of a suspect or accused is the defence counsel (müdafi); a lawyer representing the complainant, a person harmed by the crime, or a person liable for the damage is the representative (vekil). The investigation and the prosecution are also not the same stage; the prosecution phase begins upon the acceptance of the indictment. [1]

This distinction is not merely a matter of word choice. The defence counsel examines the proof of the accusation and the lawfulness of the measures applied to the client. The representative of the victim follows the right of the person represented to receive information, to request the collection of evidence, to join the case where necessary and to pursue the relevant applications. Where the interests of the parties conflict in the same event, the representation relationship must be assessed separately. Both tasks lie within the order of a fair trial; neither removes the human dignity of the other. [1, 3]

The difference between a criminal lawyer and a heavy penal court lawyer

The expression "heavy penal court lawyer" should not be understood as the name of a separate licence to practise. What matters is that the lawyer has sufficient knowledge, time and working arrangements for the work they undertake. The fact that a file is heard in a heavy penal court does not, on its own, determine the nature of the defence or the outcome.

Why is criminal law a difficult profession?

Legal knowledge, command of the file and the art of defence

To describe defence as an art does not mean that it is unruled or based only on oratory. The lawyer evaluates together narratives of events, documents, technical reports and rules of law. A witness who is mistaken about the time and a witness who wrongly identifies who carried out the act are not of the same weight. The strength of the defence lies in being able to show which contradiction affects the foundation of the accusation.

Effective expression is also the result of this preparation. Repeating every detail in the same tone in a long petition may hide the decisive point. On the other hand, merely writing impressive sentences does not remedy a lack of evidence. A well-prepared defence shows the reader the following connection plainly: What is the accusation, on what evidence does it rest, what is the limit of that evidence, and why does that limit change the legal outcome?

Article 1 of the Attorneyship Law combines the nature of the profession as a public service and a liberal profession; independent defence is one of the constituent elements of the judiciary. For this reason, defence should be assessed not as an opportunity for speech that the court may tolerate, but as a structural guarantee of the proceedings. [3]

Professional independence in the face of public pressure

A criminal lawyer may have to decide under incomplete information and time pressure, at a stage in which liberty may be restricted. The possibility that an image may disappear, an imminent statement or a request for detention all require the correct determination of priorities. The difficulty of the profession lies less in raising all possibilities at the same time than in distinguishing which legal step cannot be delayed at that stage.

Public reaction may also affect the working conditions of the defence. The lawyer's independence requires not allowing the opinion formed outside about the file to direct the legal assessment. Hearing the client, testing the accusation and safeguarding the rights of the victim are not mutually exclusive tasks. In a state governed by the rule of law, the function of the defence is protected even in files where the reaction is intense. [2, 3]

Emotional burden and professional responsibility

Criminal files may involve shocking experiences such as detention, separation from family, violence or living under a serious accusation. In listening to these, the lawyer does not only process legal information; they also encounter intense human accounts. Accepting the existence of this burden is not giving up professional competence. It is the beginning of organising a sustainable working regime.

The duty of care cannot be left to individual self-sacrifice alone. Recording time limits, regular checking of notifications, division of tasks and review of important steps are concrete practices aimed at reducing the risk of error. The duty of care, honesty and conduct worthy of the trust placed in the profession under Article 34 of the Attorneyship Law is the legal basis of this framework. [3]

When exchanging views with colleagues, the duty of professional secrecy must be preserved; disclosures that needlessly reveal the client's identity and sensitive information must be avoided. If the time required by a matter or specialist support cannot be provided, this must be openly assessed. Taking on every file is not the same as being able to provide qualified representation in every file.

The weight of the defence role is not a justification for expecting the lawyer never to tire or to suppress every emotion. Professional solidarity, reasonable working limits and seeking support when necessary may be regarded as part of long-term quality of service. The client's interest is also protected by the lawyer's ability to assess their own limits correctly.

The right to defence and legal assistance in criminal proceedings

The presumption of innocence and the limits of proof

Article 36 of the Constitution regulates the right to seek justice and to a fair trial, and Article 38 regulates the fundamental safeguards of criminal law, including the presumption of innocence. An accusation against a person is not proof of their guilt. News reports, comments on social media or a strong public belief cannot replace the assessment the court will make on the basis of lawfully obtained evidence. [2]

The defence examines whether the accusation has been established by evidence. It cannot be expected that the accused will invent a story that will save them; the fact that the accusation cannot be proved is in itself of importance. Nevertheless, the timely presentation by the defence of records supporting a concrete counter-event may contribute to clarifying the file. The presumption of innocence does not make unnecessary the preservation of favourable evidence that is available.

Article 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure includes the duty of the public prosecutor to collect and preserve evidence not only against the suspect but also in their favour. The lawyer's pointing to a favourable camera recording or a witness should be considered together with this duty. The tasks of the prosecutor and the defence counsel are not the same; but the fact that the material event is not assessed one-sidedly concerns the actions of both. [1]

Legal assistance during interview and interrogation and the right to remain silent

Criminal defence does not begin at the first hearing. Operations such as arrest, interview, interrogation, search and seizure may affect the subsequent course of the file. Article 147 of the CMK regulates the right to be informed of the accusation, to benefit from the assistance of a defence counsel and not to make a statement about the offence charged. The obligation of the person in relation to questions about their identity must not be confused with the right to remain silent in relation to the accusation of crime. [1]

Silence is not in itself an indication of guilt. However, mechanical formulae such as "speak in every case" or "remain silent in every case" do not replace a concrete legal assessment. The scope of the accusation, the existing evidence, the person's condition and the probable effect of a statement should be assessed in consultation with the defence counsel. It is important to explain the limit of one's knowledge rather than making guesses about an unknown matter.

Article 148(4) of the CMK provides a specific safeguard: a statement taken by the police without a defence counsel present cannot be used as a basis for judgment unless it is confirmed before a judge or court. This provision should not be extended to the effect that every statement taken without a lawyer is automatically disregarded in every context. The authority that carried out the procedure and the subsequent confirmation are important; statements obtained by prohibited methods are assessed separately. [1]

When is mandatory defence applied?

Article 150 of the CMK distinguishes the cases in which a defence counsel is appointed without a request, upon the request of a person who states that they are unable to choose a defence counsel. For children without a defence counsel, persons who are so disabled that they cannot defend themselves, and the deaf and mute, there is a guarantee that no request is required. In addition, the rule of mandatory defence also applies to offences for which the lower limit of imprisonment exceeds five years. Special procedural provisions should be examined separately. [1]

From this it does not follow that "a lawyer is appointed automatically in every criminal file". Similarly, the claim that all costs of the appointment will not be recovered from the person in every circumstance is not the same thing. The conditions of appointment, the payment regime and the consequences relating to costs are assessed separately.

A request for detention is a situation that requires separate consideration of the assistance of a defence counsel. Article 101(3) of the CMK regulates that, when a request for detention is made, the person may benefit from the assistance of a defence counsel chosen by them or appointed by the bar. Therefore, looking only at the lower limit of the penalty for the offence may overlook the safeguard arising from the procedure. [1]

The defence counsel's right to examine the file and to meet the client

The examination of the file by the defence counsel and their meeting with the client are the essential tools of preparation. Articles 153 and 154 of the CMK regulate the scope of these rights and the relevant special restrictions. When a restriction is invoked, the basis of the decision, its scope and the documents to which it may apply should be examined. The lawyer's task is not finished by merely conveying the information that "the file is closed"; it is necessary to establish how a concrete restriction affects the preparation of the defence and to assess the appropriate legal remedy. [1]

Under Article 153(3) of the CMK, the records containing the statement of a person who has been arrested or a suspect, expert reports, and records of other judicial acts at which that person is entitled to be present are excluded from the restriction in the second paragraph of the same article. As regards the guarantee of confidential meeting under Article 154 of the CMK, the general rule and the special provision for offences specified in the law must be distinguished: a meeting of a suspect in custody with the defence counsel may be restricted for twenty-four hours upon the request of the prosecutor and the decision of the judge; no statement may be taken during that period. The restriction is not a general power applicable to all files. [1]

The Salduz judgment and access to a lawyer at the early stage

The Grand Chamber judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Salduz v. Türkiye shows why access to a lawyer is important in the early stages. The applicant was a minor at the time of the events and had given their statement in custody without the assistance of a lawyer. The Court stated that, as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided from the first police interview, that restrictions must be justified by strong reasons, and that they must not unfairly prejudice the defence. In the concrete case, the legal assistance provided later did not remedy the initial problem, and a violation was found. [4]

The message of the judgment for practice is not to postpone legal assistance until the end of the file. However, the ECtHR assessment is not a mechanical formula in which every procedural deficiency produces the same result; the concrete circumstances and the effect on the fairness of the proceedings matter. The provisions of the CMK on the use of a particular piece of evidence and the review under the Convention are also separate legal assessments.

How is trust built between lawyer and client?

Listening to the client without prejudice and assessing their statements

To understand a person's fear is not to accept everything they say as true without investigation. Listening without prejudice by the lawyer allows the client to describe the difficult details. At a later stage, the account must be compared with documents, dates and earlier statements. Empathy and critical examination complement each other.

For example, the client may say that they were elsewhere at the time of the event. The lawyer should not be content merely to transfer this information into a petition; they should investigate whether there are transport, workplace, payment or image records that could support the claim. If the records do not match the account, the contradiction should not be concealed; whether it can be explained should be assessed. A relationship of trust includes the lawyer being able to ask a question the client did not want to hear.

The lawyer's duty of professional secrecy

The duty of professional secrecy under Article 36 of the Attorneyship Law provides a secure space for conversation when a person seeks legal help. It is prohibited for the lawyer to disclose matters learned in the course of their duty. The fact that the lawyer may refuse to testify even where the client consents to testimony shows the importance of this protection. [3]

In practice, confidentiality also affects the way documents are shared. Message groups including unnecessary persons, publicly accessible file links or the sharing of sensitive documents on social media may make it difficult to control the defence. The documents needed to evaluate the file should be transmitted through a restricted channel agreed upon by the parties. When informing relatives, the client's will and legal limits must also be respected.

The client's interest and the legal limits of the defence

Independence is not protected only against public authorities. The lawyer must also not comply with an unlawful instruction from the client. Producing evidence, influencing a witness or submitting a document contrary to the truth are not legitimate tools of the defence. Loyalty to the client is the duty to build the defence as strongly as possible within the law; it is not a commitment to carry out every request.

Regular information and realistic legal assessment

Measure is also needed in communication. The stage the file has reached, the document expected and the application made should be shared in an intelligible way. Rather than promising the same outcome every day, keeping to an agreed communication schedule creates more lasting trust. It is as important that the answer given is accurate and understandable as it is that the client can reach their lawyer.

It is valuable for a person to feel that they are not alone. However, a promise of definite outcome as to acquittal, release or reduction of sentence cannot replace trust. Ambitious promises made before the file has been examined also make the subsequent legal assessment more difficult. Healthy communication sets out together the strong points, the evidence against, the uncertainties and the steps that may be taken.

A criminal lawyer does not take the place of a psychological support professional. They can communicate calmly, openly and respectfully with a person experiencing intense anxiety, and where necessary they can suggest seeking appropriate professional support. Separating the fields of responsibility of legal representation and mental health support helps to identify correctly what the client needs.

How is an effective criminal defence prepared?

The chronology of the event and the evidence review plan

In preparing a defence, a timeline of the event must first be drawn up. Who, where, and which information did they see directly? Which account is based on information learned later? Are the dates and contents of the documents consistent with one another? Can the position of a telephone and the identity of the person using it be determined with the same certainty? These questions divide a large file into manageable subjects of examination.

This table does not fix in advance the definitive value of any evidence. It organises the examination. For example, the mere existence of a screenshot does not mean that the content is fake; but it raises questions about the original record, the context and verifiability. The defence's objection must also be concrete: which deficiency prevents the verification of which claim?

Defence work according to the stages of the proceedings

The subject of the defence's work changes with the stage the file has reached. During the investigation, a piece of evidence that can still be collected comes to the fore, whereas at the hearing how the same evidence will be assessed is discussed. After judgment, the way in which the court answered the decisive objections and the extent to which the decision is open to legal review are examined. The preparation of the indictment and its acceptance are also separate acts; the public case is opened by the acceptance of the indictment under Article 175 of the CMK. [1]

The table does not mean that the same application will be made in every file. For example, return of the indictment depends on specific legal grounds and on the court's review; not every deficiency automatically produces a return. The defence must choose the legal tool available at the stage it has reached, address its request to the competent authority and substantiate its basis. [1]

Unlawfully obtained evidence and the difference from evidence of disputed reliability

Evidence is assessed not only for its content but also for the manner in which it was obtained and preserved. Articles 206 and 217 of the CMK are important as regards the rejection of unlawfully obtained evidence and the evidence on which a judgment may be based. The defence can dispute both the reliability and the usability of evidence. Even where a record is accurate, the lawfulness of its acquisition must be examined; and even where it has been lawfully obtained, the correctness of its interpretation must be examined. [1]

Obtaining evidence lawfully and the probative force of the evidence are separate matters. In the first, the question is under what authority and procedure the evidence was obtained; in the second, the reliability of its content and its connection with the accusation are examined. A record obtained lawfully may show only part of the event. On the other hand, the lawfulness of the acquisition of a record whose content appears clear may still be disputed.

Hypothetical example: Let us suppose that a camera recording has been placed in the file lawfully, but the device clock differs from the time of the event. In this case the source and size of the time difference must be investigated. The difference does not automatically turn the image into unlawful evidence; but it may affect the reliability of any inference drawn about the time of the event and the position of the persons. The lawyer's objection must clearly show whether it is directed to an unlawfulness in the acquisition procedure or to the interpretation of the record.

Digital records and the assessment of expert reports

In examining digital records, the name of a document or the image shown on the screen is not sufficient in itself. It must be clarified where the record was taken from, which date range it covers, whether any part is missing and on which copy the examination was made. Reading only selected lines of a message may change the meaning of a conversation; related correspondence and time information must also be assessed.

An objection to an expert report does not become effective merely by saying that the conclusion is not accepted. The deficiency of the data used, the non-disclosure of the method, the failure to examine alternative explanations, or the contradiction of the report with another finding in the file must each be shown separately. The question of the legal conclusion drawn from the technical finding, and on what reasoning, is important: a connection to a device does not in every file show with the same certainty who was using that device at a given time.

Where expert support is needed, the lawyer's task is to define the questions the technical examination must answer according to the legal dispute. Just as assertions of certainty that go beyond the scope of the report weaken the defence, so too does rejecting a scientific method without reasons. The purpose of the objection is to put forward a concrete need for examination that the court can review.

Directly putting questions to a witness or expert

The dramatic cross-examinations in foreign criminal trials are of interest from the standpoint of defence technique. However, the same jury system does not apply in Turkish criminal courts. Article 201 of the CMK regulates the putting of questions directly by the defence counsel and representative in accordance with the discipline of the hearing; this institution must be addressed within its own procedural context. [1]

The value of a question lies not in its harshness but in the information it brings out. The witness's distance of observation, the duration of the event, the lighting conditions or differences from an earlier statement may be asked about. A tone that aims to humiliate the witness and is unrelated to the event may reduce the effect of a decisive question. In particular, when children and vulnerable persons are heard, the relevant protection procedures must be observed separately.

It is also important for the lawyer to think in advance about the possible answers to every question. A question asked without preparation may strengthen a detail that is harmful in the file. On the other hand, confining oneself only to questions which elicit the expected answer also prevents the testing of the truth. The aim is not to defeat the witness, but to show clearly the probative value of the statement.

The role of the lawyer in applications for detention, judicial control and release

Detention is not a judgment of guilt. Article 100 of the CMK requires concrete evidence showing a strong suspicion of guilt and the existence of a ground for detention; it does not permit disproportionate detention. Article 101 requires concrete reasons as to the suspicion of guilt, the ground for detention, proportionality and why judicial control would be insufficient. The lawyer must examine these elements separately. [1]

In a request for release, it is not enough to state only that the person has a fixed address or a family. The evidence on which the suspicion of guilt rests, whether the danger of flight or of interference with evidence is explained by concrete facts, the state of collection of the evidence and developments affecting the continuation of detention should be assessed. It must be shown what question each record of residence, employment or health answers. The submission of such documents alone does not guarantee release.

Judicial control consists of obligations that may be applied instead of detention in the conditions set out in the law. Not being able to leave the country, regular attendance at designated places, and not leaving the home are restrictions of different weight. The defence counsel should explain whether the concrete risk can be addressed by a lighter measure and how the proposed obligation relates to the person's circumstances. The provisions on judicial control in cases where the law prohibits detention must also be considered. [1]

Article 104 of the CMK allows a request for release at every stage of the investigation and prosecution. An objection to a detention decision and a request for release based on subsequent developments must be prepared by assessing their legal basis and procedure. The authority to which the application is directed and the time limit are determined according to the relevant decision and stage. A request for acquittal is directed at the substance of the accusation, whereas a request for release is directed at the conditions of the measure restricting liberty. These two lines of work may be carried out together within the file. [1]

Acquittal, release and individualisation of the sentence

The aim of the defence is determined according to the position of the file. If it has not been proved that the person committed the act, a debate about acquittal comes to the fore. The legal nature of the act, intent or negligence, grounds for lawfulness, forms of participation and questions relating to the determination of the penalty require different examinations. If these headings are confused with one another, the defence's request may become unclear.

Acquittal, release and a lighter sentence are not the same outcome. Release concerns the status of detention while the trial continues; it does not in itself show that the accusation has been removed. In a historic trial in which the death penalty was applied, the prevention of that penalty does not mean acquittal either. When evaluating the work of famous lawyers, this distinction must be preserved in particular.

Reasoned judgment and preparation for legal remedies

After the court's judgment, which legal remedy is open is determined by reference to the type of decision, the legal conditions and the start of the time limit. Notification and knowledge documents must therefore be kept. It is misleading to state a single time limit for objection, appeal or cassation for all criminal files. Applications to the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights are also not a general request for re-trial replacing the ordinary legal remedies; they have their own admissibility conditions.

Preparation for a legal remedy must not consist merely of rewriting every sentence of the original petition. It must show how the court gave a meaning to a particular piece of evidence, whether it assessed a decisive objection, and which legal rule it applied in reaching the judgment. Linking the judgment's reasoning to the earlier request by indicating where the petition or hearing minutes containing that request are located makes the review more concrete. The scope of the application and the standard of review must match the nature of the chosen legal remedy.

What should be considered when choosing a criminal lawyer?

Experience with the file and working method

The basic need of a person who searches for "the best criminal lawyer" or "famous criminal lawyer" is often trust. However, visibility in search results is not in itself a measure of suitability for the file. The lawyer's approach to similar legal problems, method of examining evidence, workload, communication arrangements and ability to explain the scope of the fee provide a more concrete basis for assessment.

Communication, scope of service and clarity of fees

At the first meeting it is useful to clarify the following matters:

• What stage has the investigation or case reached, and which documents are to be examined first?
• Which procedures does the legal service cover, and are legal remedies assessed separately?
• Who will follow the file and how will information be given?
• How will fees and expenses be separated, and in which circumstances will additional work be required?
• How will the existence of any conflict of interest be assessed?

It is not right to state a single fee for every criminal file. The scope of the work, the stage of the proceedings, the procedures to be carried out and the current fee regulations are assessed together. A written and intelligible definition of scope serves not only to prevent financial disputes but also to explain what the parties expect of each other. [3]

Which documents to take to the first meeting

Where available, the summons, statement and interrogation minutes, the indictment, court decisions, notifications and related documents should be prepared. A short chronology of the event, the persons with direct knowledge and records at risk of loss should be indicated separately. Rather than completing as certain a detail that the person does not remember, it is more useful to show the uncertainty clearly.

Evidence must be protected: messages should not be deleted, documents should not be altered and attempts should not be made to create a joint account with witnesses. Even where a document appears to be against the client, withholding it from the lawyer may lead to incomplete preparation. The information and documents the lawyer will evaluate should not consist only of selected records supporting the person's own account.

Hypothetical example: Let us suppose that the event took place in a workplace and that camera recordings may be deleted within a short time. For the defence, what matters is not merely saying "there was a camera". The location of the camera, the time of the event, the person or institution holding the recordings and what the image could explain must be identified. The lawyer may consider a request, by the appropriate procedure, for the preservation of the records and their inclusion in the file. This work does not assume that the recording necessarily contains an image favourable to the client.

For institutional information about the scope of criminal proceedings services, the Güneş & Güneş Law Firm criminal law services page may be consulted. What should be done in a concrete file, however, requires separate assessment of the relevant documents and conditions.

Lawyers who have contributed to criminal defence in Türkiye

Faruk Erem and a human-centred defence

Faruk Erem is an important figure for criminal law doctrine and for the human-centred interpretation of defence. That he was the founding president of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations also shows the connection between academic thought and the institutional structure of the profession. The saying attributed to him in the 2024 commemorative text of the TBB, "Scrape off the criminal and a human emerges beneath", is a short expression of this approach. The reference here is based on the TBB's commemorative speech. [5]

What can be carried from Erem to today is not to abandon the legal assessment of the act. When a person's past, circumstances and needs are examined, the harm suffered by the victim must also not be made invisible. Understanding a human being and determining legal responsibility are separate but mutually communicating fields of work. The humaneness of the defence appears in its ability to preserve this distinction.

Halit Çelenk and the protection of the right to defence

Halit Çelenk is remembered especially for his defence of Deniz Gezmiş and his companions and for the struggle for human rights. The records of the TBB's commemorations and legal awards show that his professional legacy is kept alive around the right to defence and the search for justice. [6]

Çelenk's example reveals the inadequacy of assessing advocacy only through files that produce a favourable result. The value of defence lies also in putting an objection on record, reminding of the legal limits and ensuring that the person's voice is heard. The negative outcome of a trial does not show that the function of defence is unnecessary; sometimes it shows more clearly why that function cannot be abandoned.

Turgut Kazan and the institutionalisation of defence assistance

The work carried out by Turgut Kazan during his presidency of the Istanbul Bar Association shows that criminal defence requires institutional organisation as well as individual ability. In the history of the Istanbul Bar, the establishment of the CMUK service in 1992 and subsequent training work are placed within this framework. [7]

The current equivalent of this experience is that access to a defence counsel is not sufficient merely because it is written in law. The appointment system, training, availability and working conditions affect the exercise of the right. A good defence culture is created through the sustained effort of professional organisations, alongside the efforts of individual lawyers.

Criminal law doctrine and practice

The studies of Fikret İlkiz in the field of press and freedom of expression, and the contribution of Köksal Bayraktar to the doctrine of criminal law, remind us that offences cannot be read in isolation from fundamental rights. The symposium record of the Istanbul Bar Association on the trial of journalists is one of the concrete examples of these two jurists' work on these issues. [8]

The academic and professional work of Ersan Şen in criminal law and criminal procedure also shows the relationship between doctrine and the daily examination of files. The elements of an offence and the procedure by which that accusation may be investigated are separate questions; a strong defence answers both. [9]

The purpose of naming these figures is not to make public recognition the only measure of legal competence. The conclusion for the reader is the importance of the lawyer being able to explain their assessment through a concrete norm, piece of evidence and reasoning. The certainty of a television debate is not the same thing as the caution that a particular file requires.

Lawyers and cases that shaped criminal defence around the world

When assessing the work of famous criminal lawyers, the legal system of the period, the position of the person represented and the outcome of the case must be read together. The examples below do not form a ranking of success; they show how the right to defence has been exercised in different countries and what problems have been encountered.

Cicero and defence in ancient Rome

Cicero's defence of Sextus Roscius against the charge of parricide in 80 BC is one of the early examples of the relationship between law and political power. The study by Bilgin and Türkoğlu explains the importance of the case within the circumstances of the Sullan period and its outcome in acquittal. Roman procedure is not identical to modern criminal procedure; nevertheless, it is a meaningful example of the professional courage required to question an accusation. [10]

Criminal defence in the United States and the fight against wrongful convictions

John Adams and the Boston trials

John Adams took part in the defence of the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre trials of 1770. According to the historical record of the US National Park Service, Captain Preston was acquitted in a separate trial; of the eight soldiers, six were acquitted while two were convicted of the lesser offence of manslaughter. The description that all the accused were acquitted is not accurate. [11]

Adams's example shows that the reaction caused by an accusation in society and the right to defence must be assessed separately. The lawyer acts not because they represent a person the public likes, but because the law must be applied in the face of an accusation. The moments in which professional independence is tested are the moments when the defence is unpopular.

Clarence Darrow and Judy Clarke: defence against the death penalty

Clarence Darrow's work in the 1924 Leopold–Loeb case is one of the well-known examples of defence against the death penalty. The archive of the University of Minnesota shows that the defendants were not acquitted; they received life imprisonment for murder and long prison sentences for kidnapping. The historical importance of the case lies not in obtaining a verdict of innocence, but in the death penalty not being imposed. [12]

Judy Clarke is one of the lawyers who work in cases in the United States where the death penalty is a possibility and who have taken on roles in federal defence institutions. The professional record of the Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel documents her representation in files of high public interest and her work in the field of defence training. [13]

The common issue that can be seen through these two names is that a debate about punishment may require preparation separate from proof of the offence. The investigation of personal circumstances, appropriate expert support and the examination of the legal limits of the penalty also require effort. The defence of the death penalty in foreign systems should not be transferred as if it were a penalty applied in Türkiye; it must be treated in its historical and comparative context.

Samuel Leibowitz and Abe Fortas: effective legal assistance

Samuel Leibowitz is known for the defence he undertook from 1933 onwards in the Scottsboro cases. In these trials, in which racist prejudice was evident, he questioned the testimony of witnesses and the evidential basis of the accusation. There is an important chronological distinction: the decision in Powell v. Alabama, concerning the right to legal assistance, dates from 1932; the work Leibowitz later undertook should not be presented as the authorship or direct result of that earlier decision. [14]

Abe Fortas represented Clarence Earl Gideon before the US Supreme Court in Gideon v. Wainwright. The Court's decision of 18 March 1963 treated the right of a defendant who could not afford a lawyer to receive legal assistance in a trial for a serious offence as a constitutional guarantee, and abandoned the earlier approach in Betts. [15]

The idea that can be drawn from Gideon is that physically attending the proceedings is not the same as conducting an effective defence. However, the scope of the American decision cannot be used as a rule determining the conditions for appointment under the CMK in Türkiye. The comparison helps to understand the function of the right; the applicable provision must be sought in the relevant legal system.

Johnnie Cochran and Alan Dershowitz: cases followed by the public

Johnnie Cochran became widely known for the defence in the O. J. Simpson criminal trial. The historical record of his own law firm also highlights the work he carried out to have the conviction of Geronimo Pratt set aside. These two files show that media visibility and long-term follow-up of a file can coexist in the same professional life. [16]

Alan Dershowitz is known, alongside his studies of criminal law and constitutional law at Harvard, for his practical defences. His academic biography presents the relationship between criminal procedure and fundamental rights as an important part of his work. [17]

That these names are well known does not mean that all their methods or views should be adopted. A defence should be assessed not by its effect in front of cameras but by its reasoning, which finds a response in the file. Public communication may assist legal work; however, it cannot replace witness examination, technical research or the preparation of legal remedies.

Bryan Stevenson, Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld: wrongful convictions

The work Bryan Stevenson carried out for Walter McMillian shows the importance of post-conviction review. The Equal Justice Initiative's file record explains that, in a process linked to misleading witness accounts and favourable information withheld from the defence, McMillian was released in 1993. This example reminds us that the existence of a first judgment does not always end the debate about the accuracy of the evidence. [18]

The Innocence Project, founded in 1992 by Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, contributed to exposing wrongful convictions through DNA examinations and other legal work. The institution's approach makes visible the role of scientific knowledge in the trial. [19]

The conclusion to be drawn is not that every file can be resolved by DNA testing. In some files no suitable biological sample exists; in others the central question is the reliability of interpretation or of the process of preservation. The defence's question is what the technical method can actually show and what it cannot. Respect for a scientific report does not mean giving up questioning the limits of the report.

Criminal defence in Europe and human rights

Jacques Vergès and the limits of the rupture defence

Jacques Vergès is known for the distinction between conducting the defence within the framework accepted by the court and opening the legitimacy of the trial to debate. The study by Ender Serdar Önaldı considers this approach through the concepts of "compliance" and "rupture" defence. [20]

This idea shows that, especially in political trials, the defence cannot always be confined to the details of the act. However, sharply criticising the court or turning the hearing into a political platform is not a useful method in every file. The aim of the client, concrete risks, the legal tools available and the effect of the application must be considered together. The lawyer's personal visibility must not take precedence over the interests of the person represented.

Robert Badinter and the abolition of the death penalty

Robert Badinter's role in the Bontems and Patrick Henry cases and in the process of abolishing the death penalty in France shows the reach that defence practice can have on criminal policy. The record of the French Ministry of Justice states that Bontems was executed in 1972, and that Patrick Henry was sentenced in 1977 to life imprisonment instead of the death penalty. Badinter was Minister of Justice during the abolition of the death penalty in 1981. [21]

This history reminds us that the defence profession is not made up only of stories of victory. Loss, criticism and rethinking are also part of the legal culture. It is not possible to turn the outcome of one case into a guarantee for another file; however, serious questions about legal policy can be drawn from that experience.

Gisèle Halimi and Henri Leclerc: defence and victims' rights

Gisèle Halimi's work in the 1972 Bobigny trial made visible the connection between legal defence and the struggle for women's rights at a time when abortion was a criminal offence. In the 1978 Aix-en-Provence trial she represented women who had been subjected to sexual assault. In that second role she was not the defence counsel of the accused, but the lawyer of the victims. The national memorial text of the Élysée treats these two different fields of work together. [22]

Henri Leclerc was known, alongside his criminal defence, for his work in the fields of human rights and public freedoms. The commemorative record of the Ligue des droits de l'Homme assesses his work as a lawyer together with the struggle for human rights. [23]

These examples show that in criminal justice one cannot speak of the human dignity of only one side. The defendant's right to defence and the victim's right to be heard with respect, to receive legal assistance and to have the claim examined effectively are not mutually exclusive aims. A fair procedure preserves the meaning of the rights of both sides.

Edward Marshall Hall, Michael Mansfield and Gareth Peirce: trial preparation and file examination

Edward Marshall Hall is among those remembered in British defence history for his courtroom oratory. The biographical study by the Inner Temple Library describes his career in criminal cases and the defence culture of the period. As historical examples of oratory are read today, it must not be forgotten that emotional impact cannot replace reasoning based on evidence. [24]

Michael Mansfield's professional record includes work on setting aside wrongful convictions such as those of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four. Gareth Peirce is known for her long-term work in criminal defence and in the field of rights violations; her professional record and the work approach of Birnberg Peirce together emphasise access to legal assistance and the protection of individual rights. [25, 26]

This tradition reminds us that defence is broader than the visible moment of the hearing. Reading archives, comparing conflicting records and pursuing a detail that becomes important years later are often work the public does not see. The history of the defence is the history not only of those who speak well, but also of those who investigate carefully.

The struggle for the right to defence in Africa and Asia

The Rivonia defence team: Bram Fischer, George Bizos, Arthur Chaskalson and Joel Joffe

The Rivonia trial in South Africa is important for understanding the role of defence under political repression. Bram Fischer took part in the defence of Nelson Mandela and the other accused. George Bizos, Arthur Chaskalson and Joel Joffe were also well-known members of this defence team. The records of the Nelson Mandela Foundation document the history of this work and, for most of the accused, the outcome of life imprisonment. [27, 28]

Reducing this example to the heroism of a single lawyer would make the teamwork invisible. File preparation, communication with the client, trial strategy and legal research complement one another. In addition, the contribution to preventing the death penalty and an acquittal must again be kept distinct from each other.

Bizos's long relationship with Mandela also shows that trust is not built only on court days. Its present equivalent is not an expectation of unlimited personal sacrifice. For a representation relationship to be sustainable, accessibility, as well as clarity about the limits of the task and the sharing of responsibility, are required.

Asma Jahangir, Hina Jilani and Shirin Ebadi: access to legal assistance

The work of Asma Jahangir and Hina Jilani in Pakistan raises the question of access to legal assistance for persons facing poverty, social pressure and violations of fundamental rights. The interview and profile record of Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights conveys this struggle through concrete experiences. [29]

Shirin Ebadi's work extends to fields such as human rights in Iran, the rights of women and children, and the legal representation of political detainees. The biography of her own foundation explains her legal activity within this broad struggle for rights. [30]

It would be incomplete to confine these jurists to the heading "famous criminal lawyer" alone. Their examples show that a person facing a criminal accusation may in practice find it difficult to use their defence because of poverty, language, social position or public pressure. Equality requires access to the conditions in which a right can be used, as well as having that right on paper.

Ram Jethmalani and representation in cases debated in public

Ram Jethmalani is among the jurists known in India for criminal cases and for his skill in cross-examination. The commemorative record of the Supreme Court of India dated 9 January 2020 treats in detail his professional life, his work in criminal proceedings and his interest in legal education. [31]

The question raised by Jethmalani's career is how the defence of a person who provokes public reaction should be understood. The representation relationship does not mean adopting all the client's conduct or opinions. However, the legitimacy of the defence does not automatically legitimise every method used. Professional courage and legal and ethical limits must be protected together.

Lessons that can be drawn from historical defences for today's criminal proceedings

Working principles that can be taken from different legal systems

The work of lawyers in different countries has not taken place in the same legal system. Jury trial, the rules of evidence, the position of the prosecution and the legal remedies vary. For this reason, it is more useful to identify the working principle behind an impressive technique in a foreign case than to apply it as it is.

These questions do not guarantee any result. They help the file to be prepared in a reviewable manner. The name of no famous lawyer can substitute for evidence that does not exist in the concrete case. The meaningful way of benefiting from professional reputation is not to repeat names, but to maintain research discipline and the responsibility of independent thought.

Setting priorities in file examination

The professional lesson drawn from these examples is that preparation for a defence requires an order of priority. First it is determined which right or evidence may be harmed by delay; then the facts and evidence on which the accusation rests are examined. In this way the defence considers both the step that must be taken on that day and the legal explanation that must be established for the whole proceeding.

The second matter is the relationship of an objection to its outcome. Showing a contradiction in the minutes gains meaning only when it is explained which event's proof it affects. A deficiency in a technical report should be linked to the additional examination requested; the failure to prove the accusation should be linked to the appropriate request for judgment; and a deficiency in the restriction of liberty should be linked to an application against the relevant measure. Different requests may exist in the same file; the basis of each request must be understandable.

Finally, the lawyer's professional assessment must remain open to new information. An explanation that initially appeared strong may be weakened by later records; a detail that was overlooked may become decisive. Explaining this change openly to the client gives a more careful representation than maintaining the earlier view under all circumstances. A defence strategy is reliable to the extent that it can be tested against the facts of the file.

Conclusion: the foundation of effective defence

Criminal advocacy combines the ability to listen to a person's story with the ability to test that story carefully against evidence and rules of law. Trust is the human foundation of defence; preparation and independence turn that trust into legal work. When one of these is lacking, good intention alone is not enough.

The experiences of famous lawyers contain different methods and different results. Obtaining an acquittal, preventing the imposition of a severe penalty, revealing a wrongful conviction or recording a violation in the proceedings are not the same thing. Nevertheless, the common question of this work is clear: how is the State's power to accuse and punish to be exercised while the rights of the person are protected?

For a person facing a criminal file, the concrete starting point is to protect documents, to learn the stage of the process and not to delay legal assistance. For the lawyer, the duty is to explain honestly the strong and weak points, to use lawful tools in good time, and not to reduce the person represented to the accusation in their file.

The value of defence is not limited to standing beside a person whom everyone considers right; it is an attempt to ensure that the law genuinely functions for every person under accusation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a separate licence difference between a criminal lawyer and a heavy penal court lawyer?

No. These expressions describe the field of work in practice. When choosing a lawyer, the knowledge, preparation and representational capacity required by the specific accusation and procedural stage should be assessed. For details, see the section the difference between a criminal lawyer and a heavy penal court lawyer.

Does defending a person who is thought to have committed a crime amount to approving the crime?

No. The defence ensures that the accusation is examined with lawfully obtained evidence and that the person's rights are protected. The lawyer's representative role does not mean adopting the client's conduct. Fabricating evidence or following an unlawful instruction does not fall within the scope of the defence function.

Is it necessary to wait for a case to be filed before applying to a criminal lawyer?

No. Statements and other investigative procedures may affect the course of the file. Legal assistance contributes to understanding rights and the accusation in the early stages. Timing is important especially in respect of evidence that may be lost and ongoing procedures. [1, 4]

Is every statement given without a lawyer invalid?

That generalisation is not accurate. Under CMK Article 148(4), a statement taken by the police without a defence counsel cannot be used as a basis for judgment unless it is confirmed before a judge or court. The authority that took the statement, the conditions of the procedure and whether a prohibited method was used must also be examined separately. [1]

Is a lawyer automatically appointed by the bar in every criminal file?

No. The cases of mandatory defence, in which appointment is made on request and in which no request is required, are different. The conditions of CMK Article 150 and the related special procedural provisions are assessed in the concrete case. An appointment is not an unlimited guarantee that all costs will be free of charge in every circumstance. [1]

Are events described to a lawyer kept confidential?

Article 36 of the Attorneyship Law imposes a duty of professional secrecy in respect of matters the lawyer learns in the course of their duty. How documents are shared and to what extent relatives are informed must also be arranged in accordance with this protection. [3]

Does a famous criminal lawyer guarantee that a case will be won?

No. Recognition does not replace the evidence in the file or the law to be applied. No historical success guarantees the outcome of another file. Experience with the file, method of preparation, independence and open communication are more meaningful criteria for choice.

Does a release order mean that the accused has been acquitted?

No. Release concerns the status of detention; acquittal is one of the types of judgment given on the accusation. In a trial that continues without detention, the accusation may continue to be examined.

Should documents that appear unfavourable also be shared at the first meeting?

Yes. In order for the lawyer to assess the risks of the file, they must see the relevant information and documents in full. It is important to preserve records rather than delete or alter them, and to describe uncertain details as uncertain.

How should the list of famous lawyers in this article be read?

The list consists of 32 jurists showing different aspects of the history of defence. It is not a service recommendation or a ranking of success. It has been prepared with regard to the distinctions between criminal defence, victim representation and human rights work.

Is legal assistance required when detention is requested?

CMK Article 101(3) regulates that, when detention is requested, the person may benefit from the assistance of a defence counsel chosen by them or appointed by the bar. This guarantee is assessed separately from the general conditions of appointment under CMK Article 150. [1]

Does every piece of evidence obtained lawfully prove the accusation?

No. The lawfulness of the acquisition procedure and what the evidence can prove are examined separately. The scope, reliability and connection with the person of the record must be assessed. The fact that evidence is lawful does not mean that every conclusion drawn from its content is correct.

Sources and legal bases

Legislation and court decisions

[1] Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure, in particular Arts. 2, 100–101, 104, 109–110, 147–150, 153–154, 160, 174–175, 201, 206, 217 and 223. Official consolidated text; Ministry of Justice UYAP Legislation.

[2] Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, Arts. 36 and 38. Constitutional Court.

[3] Law No. 1136 on Attorneyship, in particular Arts. 1, 34, 36, 38 and 164. Text of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations.

[4] ECtHR Grand Chamber, Salduz v. Türkiye, application no. 36391/02, 27.11.2008; in particular §§ 50–63. Full judgment on HUDOC.

[15] US Supreme Court, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 18.03.1963; Abe Fortas's record of representation and the majority reasoning. Cornell Legal Information Institute, judgment text.

Defence tradition in Türkiye and academic studies

[5] Union of Turkish Bar Associations (TBB), "Our Founding President Attorney Prof. Dr. Faruk Erem Commemorated with Respect and Longing in the 26th Year of His Death", 15.10.2024. The quotation is based on the transcription in the commemorative speech. Text.

[6] Union of Turkish Bar Associations (TBB), "Halit Çelenk Law Awards: Recipients Found", 05.05.2023. Text.

[7] Istanbul Bar Association, "History"; the Turgut Kazan period, the CMUK service and training work. Institutional history.

[8] Istanbul Bar Association, "Journalist in the Dock Symposium", 2012; contributions of Fikret İlkiz and Köksal Bayraktar. Event record.

[9] Şen Law Office, "Ersan Şen"; professional and academic biography. Biography.

[10] Bilgin, Fehmi Kerem; Türkoğlu, Halide Gökçe, "Cicero's First Defence: Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino", Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 69(2), 2020, pp. 265–324. Article and full text.

[20] Önaldı, Ender Serdar, "Evaluation of Vergès's Theory of Compliance and Rupture Defence through the Defences of Socrates and Lubanga", Kırklareli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(1), June 2023. Full text.

Historical trials and international professional records

[11] US National Park Service, "Boston Massacre Trial". Historical review.

[12] University of Minnesota Law Library, Clarence Darrow Digital Collection, Leopold–Loeb trial. Archive.

[13] Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel, "Judy Clarke". Professional record.

[14] University of Missouri–Kansas City, Famous Trials, "Samuel Leibowitz"; chronology of the Scottsboro cases. Biographical review.

[16] The Cochran Firm, "Johnnie Cochran". Institutional biography.

[17] Harvard Law School, "Alan M. Dershowitz". Academic biography.

[18] Equal Justice Initiative, "Walter McMillian". Case record.

[19] Innocence Project, "About"; founding and field of work of Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld. Institutional record.

[21] Ministère de la Justice, "Robert Badinter, Keeper of the Seals from 1981 to 1986". Ministry record.

[22] Présidence de la République française, "National tribute to Gisèle Halimi", 08.03.2023. Commemorative text.

[23] Ligue des droits de l'Homme, "Henri Leclerc est mort" (Henri Leclerc has died), 31.08.2024. Commemorative text.

[24] Inner Temple Library, "Edward Marshall Hall". Biographical study.

[25] Nexus Chambers, "Michael Mansfield KC". Professional record.

[26] The Law Society, Birnberg Peirce, practitioners in criminal law; Jean Gareth Peirce. Professional record. Also Birnberg Peirce, "Who we are". Institutional approach.

[27] Nelson Mandela Foundation, "Bram Fischer: a hero born 100 years ago", 23.04.2008. Historical record.

[28] Nelson Mandela Foundation, "George Bizos 1927–2020"; the Rivonia defence team and later work. Biography.

[29] Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, "Asma Jahangir and Hina Jilani"; profile and interview. Record.

[30] Shirin Ebadi Foundation, "About Us". Biography.

[31] Supreme Court of India, "Full Court Reference in the memory of Late Shri Ram B. Jethmalani", 09.01.2020. Official commemorative record.

Access to sources and date of research: 11.10.2026.