I’ve never had to get a lawyer for anything and I don’t know any lawyers to ask. But pretty simple, really. If a client believably told a lawyer that he “didn’t do it,” would the lawyer try harder to defend the client? Or would they do just as good of a job if the client admitted his guilt to the lawyer?
What about in crimes where the guilt of the client is pretty much indubitable but they still claim their innocence? A cousin of mine is currently in jail waiting to be tried for felony forgery and attempted fraud (stealing an old lady’s checkbook and trying to buy stuff with it)–she couldn’t find anyone in our family to bail her out, hah. But she’s also a pathological liar so I can see her claiming innocence to her lawyer.
Do you think a lawyer might work even less hard for someone who is so obviously guilty but lies about it to their lawyer?
I once heard a high-powered attorney who had defended his share of loathsome clients say that he never asked his clients whether they were guilty. He said it was the prosecution’s job to prove guilt, and his job to defend.
Ethically, he said that if his client confessed, he would urge the client to agree to a plea bargain, but that he would still defend – up to the moment when the client lied. Then he’d quit the case.
Wouldn’t the moment when the client lied be the point where they pleaded ‘not guilty’? It would be a pretty short trial if your lawyer walked out when you said you weren’t guilty and could mess up future trials if the same jury/judge were involved.
I’ve know dozens of lawyers with their names on the front door and/or in the firm name. I think all would basically agree with the above. A few have gone so far as to say they don’t want to know; wouldn’t want to know for sure. Knowing could change how they would approach the case and possibly cause them not to best represent their client.
Defense lawyers usually don’t trust their clients. The evidence against the client matters a lot more than what the client says. However, if the client says he’s guilty, then the lawyer is limited to challenging how the police obtained the evidence. If the client insists that he wants the lawyer to claim he didn’t commit the crime, then the lawyer should tell the client that he can’t help commit perjury.
What does make defense lawyers try harder is the severity of punishment. Someone who’s facing their first conviction will get more effort than someone facing their fifth misdemeanor conviction. Immigrants facing deportation on a misdemeanor will get more effort than a US citizen facing the same charge. Guilt doesn’t matter in these cases.
“Not guilty” is not the same thing as “I’m innocent.” It means that you want the state to try to prove its case against you, and you want your lawyer to try to rebut the state’s case.
not exactly. You can’t put your client on the stand to lie, but you can certainly do more than argue about how the evidence was obtained. You can, and must, argue that the evidence the state has is not sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
To the OP, I don’t think so. You do, however, lose more sleep over the ones you think are innocent. (they get convicted too…)
I would be very upset if I knew a Counsel who did not do their utmost for a Client and their interests whatever their belief in the clients guilt or innocence.
I would be very upset if I knew a Counsel who did not do their utmost for a Client and their interests whatever their belief in the clients guilt or innocence.
I am not a Criminal Practitioner, but I have done several Criminal cases and I can state that what TriPolar states is palpably untrue.
Judging whether or not the guy is actually guilty is something at times you have to do (to avoid pitfalls if nothing else) but if someone goes in with preconceived notions, he has had it.
I contend what I said is true. I actually do get that impression.
I’m not contending that defense lawyers always think their clients are guilty, Several have explained to me that almost every client claims innocence, but reality tends to get in the way. They seem to be taking the position kunilou and others stated, that guilt or innocence is not something they find necessary to consider.
With respect your statement is bullshit. Sure the vast vast vast majority of people who are tried are actually guilty as sin (for the simple reason that an overworked prosecution department is not going to take cases forward unless there is a good chance of a conviction) but if you go in with the theory that the guy is guilty that is a major professional misconduct. And I don’t know any good Counsel who acts that way.
Apparently your law school didn’t teach you to read and comprehend. I did not ever state that all Criminal Defense Lawyers presume their client is guilty.
Perhaps your idea of respect has something to do with the general opinion of your profession.
