I’m watching The Judge and there’s a scene where the defence lawyer asks a question of his client about his health. He refuses to answer, the lawyer insists, the client fires the lawyer and the judge in the case basically says, “you can hire who you want for your defence, but you’re on the stand and have been asked a question so you must answer it, (and any follow-up questions)”
The prosecution would have had no interest in pursuing this route, it’s just the defence lawyer asking against the will of his own client. I don’t recall what state the the film is set in, if they ever mentioned it, but I would be curious generally if that is the case that the defence lawyer can force his own client to answer questions and can’t be immediately fired whilst his client is on the stand?
IANAL, but I thought you could only refuse to answer questions on the witness stand if it might tend to incriminate you. And I don’t see why a client can’t fire his lawyer in mid-trial.
The defense lawyer is an idiot, but many crime shows depend on that as a plot device.
Lawyers are there to assist the accused in his own defense. If there was an agreement that “you can put me on the stand, but don’t ask about my health”, then I can’t see a good reason why the defense would insist on asking about his health, or why the client shouldn’t fire him if he insists. Even if there wasn’t an agreement, why does the defense lawyer insist on making it look like his client has something to hide?
Haven’t seen the show, and I wouldn’t rely on it (or anything I post) as legal precedent.
That’s a really interesting question and one for which I can’t readily find an answer on the net, although it’s best that the answer comes from one of the lawyer Dopers anyway.
I saw that movie but I don’t remember much detail. I do remember that the lawyer (who is the client’s son) thought that the issue of the health of his client (The Judge, his father), would be a mitigating factor, because the chemotherapy he was on for cancer could have affected his memory of the incident he was being tried for. The defendant, however, did not want his illness made public and was even willing to be convicted of the crime to prevent this from getting out. He thought that if his mental competence were questioned, it would cast doubt on his past decisions as a judge and destroy his legacy. The lawyer was far from an idiot, and was painted in fact as being a brilliant, though arrogant, lawyer (“Tony Stark becomes a Chicago lawyer”). The movie examined the complex relationship between the two as estranged father and son, brilliant attorney and belligerent client, big-city lawyer and retired small-town judge.
IANAL and I have only been in a criminal courtroom once. So I don’t have an authoritative answer to the legal aspect of the OP other than to say that movie and TV court is different than real court.
IANAL, but… from what I understand … once a client (defendant) is on the stand he has to answer all questions. The fifth is for other witnesses. The client’s “fifth” moment is deciding whether or not to take the stand.
As I understood it, this is so a defendant cannot just take the stand and say “I didn’t do it. I was watching TV with my late grandma when he was killed” and then refuse to answer any more questions or provide details that might poke holes in the case. If you agreed to testify, you are open to answering all questions.
IIRC, this also applies to other witnesses. They can’t answer one question about something then plead the fifth on the rest. Once they “open the door” by answering something about a point of testimony, they can’t plead the fifth to avoid further details.
Again, IANAL, but a lawyer takes direction from his client. If his client says “don’t do this” or “my defense is this” then the lawyer does as he’s told. he can advise his client as to better choices, but the client calls the shots. Except, of course, a lawyer cannot knowingly suborn perjury. If the client says “I’m going to get on the stand and tell them I was watch TV with my grandma so it wasn’t me…” the lawyer cannot ask that question knowing the client will lie. If the client insists, he can withdraw from the case. But as pointed out above, forcing the client to answer when he does not want to - probably goes against the client’s wishes, not allowed; unless, if the client’s cover story is a blatant lie and the lawyer knows it.
