PD Interview Q - ever applied to be a prosecutor? Forum

[Anonymous User]

While prepping for an upcoming interview for a public defender's office, I spoke informally with someone who used to work there. He/she asked me whether I ever applied to be a prosecutor, and I said "yes" (I'm applying to both).

- Anyone ever been asked this question during an actual interview?
- Do you think answering "yes" automatically disqualifies an applicant?

[Anonymous User]

This is an extremely common PD interview question. They are trying to screen for people who are genuinely committed to the cause, i.e., keeping people out of jail rather than putting people in jail. There are many offices where also applying to prosecutor's offices would be automatically disqualifying.

[Anonymous User]

Any offices in particular come to mind? State versus Fed?

[ohnooooo1234567]

Any offices in particular come to mind? State versus Fed?

Colorado State PD will disqualify you if you've worked for a prosecutors office.

[Anonymous User]

I don’t think I could ever take a job that demanded ideological conformity. It also seems very self defeating in this case. Do they think that former prosecutors will continue to be prosecutors while working defense? Big law has no problem hiring former AUSAs for white collar defense. The ultimate result of this PD mentality is that anyone potentially interested in defense or reform will avoid the prosecution side, leaving only true cops there. Is this a good goal?

[Anonymous User]

I don’t think I could ever take a job that demanded ideological conformity. It also seems very self defeating in this case. Do they think that former prosecutors will continue to be prosecutors while working defense? Big law has no problem hiring former AUSAs for white collar defense. The ultimate result of this PD mentality is that anyone potentially interested in defense or reform will avoid the prosecution side, leaving only true cops there. Is this a good goal?

I don't think that's the inevitable outcome - defense and reform aren't exactly the same thing, so you can have prosecutors interested in reform who haven't worked criminal defense. You can argue they lack the perspective they need to be effective, but that's a "reasonable minds can differ" thing. Prosecutors also don't usually mind hiring former defense attorneys, so there's your defense/reform influence; you just need to do defense before you go to prosecution. Plus it's very common for ex-prosecutors to work private criminal defense, and I've seen defense attorneys get elected to county attorney/DA positions, so it's not as if there's no crossover at all.

Anyway, whether you think it's self-defeating, it's part of the culture in a lot of offices and that isn't going to change. I don't think someone who's been a prosecutor should automatically be disqualified from being a PD, but then, I'm not a PD and I can't tell those PDs that their vision of indigent defense is wrong.

[Anonymous User]

I don’t think I could ever take a job that demanded ideological conformity. It also seems very self defeating in this case. Do they think that former prosecutors will continue to be prosecutors while working defense? Big law has no problem hiring former AUSAs for white collar defense. The ultimate result of this PD mentality is that anyone potentially interested in defense or reform will avoid the prosecution side, leaving only true cops there. Is this a good goal?

I don't think that's the inevitable outcome - defense and reform aren't exactly the same thing, so you can have prosecutors interested in reform who haven't worked criminal defense. You can argue they lack the perspective they need to be effective, but that's a "reasonable minds can differ" thing. Prosecutors also don't usually mind hiring former defense attorneys, so there's your defense/reform influence; you just need to do defense before you go to prosecution. Plus it's very common for ex-prosecutors to work private criminal defense, and I've seen defense attorneys get elected to county attorney/DA positions, so it's not as if there's no crossover at all.

Anyway, whether you think it's self-defeating, it's part of the culture in a lot of offices and that isn't going to change. I don't think someone who's been a prosecutor should automatically be disqualified from being a PD, but then, I'm not a PD and I can't tell those PDs that their vision of indigent defense is wrong.

There's also a non-ideological explanation: PD offices want people who are going to stick around. The pay is usually mediocre at best, so commitment to the cause is going to encourage attorneys to stay. Whether an applicant has worked in or is applying to prosecutors' offices is a decent proxy for whether they are truly dedicated to indigent defense in the long-term, or whether they might jump to a prosecutor's office or private practice.

[CanadianWolf]

A yes answer = automatic disqualification.