Why Criminal Defense is Pointless
For several reasons, I'm no longer practicing criminal defense. Moved on to corporate work. Criminal defense work is too frustrating, everyone hates you, everyone wants you to lose, every judge favors the prosecution, and every court goes out of its way to rule in favor of the state and affirm convictions. Here's a great example of this in action - just look at page 3 of United States v. Martinez from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, issued on May 27, 2008:

The sergeant testified that he was also suspicious of Martinez because his
years of experience with LSP taught him that Houston was a source city for
narcotics, stolen property, weapons, and illegal aliens. Martinez’s route through
New Orleans on I-10 was unusual for travel to the east coast, because Interstate
12 (“I-12”) provided a more direct route, bypassing the city, and cutting two
hours off of the travel time. Schilleci was aware of law enforcement intelligence
indicating that drug couriers were avoiding the I-12 bypass because of heavy
interdiction efforts along that route. Finally, the sergeant was suspicious of the
time of travel, 11:24 p.m., because, based upon his own experience and training,
the majority of seizures of contraband occurred at night.

So if the defendant drives on I-10 he's damned for intentionally avoiding I-12 due to increased law enforcement drug interdiction efforts on that route. If he had been stopped on I-12, he'd be damned for travelling on a common route taken by drug couriers (so common that law enforcement has increased drug interdiction efforts there). Now the converse of that logic: If the defendant is driving at 11:24 p.m., he's damned because that's when most contraband seizures occur. However, if he had been driving at 11:24 a.m., he'd be damned for being aware of the fact that most contraband seizures occur at night, and thus driving during the day to avoid a contraband seizure. The cop can say "based on my training and experience..." and justify the continued interrogation and search no matter what the facts are. It's horribly unfair to the defendant, makes a joke of the 4th Amendment, and makes the defense lawyer feel like a jackass.

There is also this gem of subjectivity:

While questioning Martinez, the sergeant noticed that Martinez appeared
nervous because his hands were shaking and he had a worried look on his face,
beyond the normal appearance of one stopped for a traffic violation.

Let me guess, the cop is able to discern that particular level of anxiety due to his training and experience. What an utter load of crap. Based on my training and experience, cops are more prone to dishonesty and perjury than any other group of people.

To be fair, these facts did not form the basis of the state having obtained the incriminating evidence; at least not directly. But these facts gave the cop reasonable suspicion to continue the detention beyond the scope of the initial traffic stop, which was for driving too close to the vehicle in front of him (a wholly pretextual stop to sniff around for cash and contraband to forfeit to buy kevlar vests for the drug dogs and shiny rims for the cop cars), and ultimately to ask for consent to search Martinez's car. Martinez, like most stupid criminals who know they have several kilos of cocaine in the back of their vehicle, readily gave the cop his consent to search. And I have to give the cop credit, he apparently used a written consent form (apparently in Spanish so the suspect could actually understand it). Most cops just lie and say the defendant gave verbal consent to search. An actual written form is somewhat rare.

But this is just a simple, straightforward example of how facts are twisted any which way to always support the prosecution. Whether he was or was not driving on the major drug route, it would be used against him. Whether he was or was not driving at the time of day most common for drug couriers, it would be used against him. Doing what criminals do is evidence you're a criminal. Doing the opposite of what criminals do means you're a criminal using a common criminal strategy to seem inconspicuous. People have been send to death row and executed based on such "facts."

This is why there's no point to criminal defense. Yeah someone has to do it, but it may as well be inexperienced lawyers right out of law school who are given too much work and are grossly underpaid. The effectiveness of the lawyer makes no difference with respect to the end result, which is an affirmed conviction. And nobody really cares until they are wearing handcuffs.