…allowing the criminal to go free, you sealed the poor truck driver’s doom! He would be alive, if the scum was found guilty (of the crime he did commit), and remanded to prison.
Karma is a bitch! :smack:
If the cop deliberately decides to perform an illegal action, just because he wants to act the SOB, then I’d say the consequences of such illegal action are his fault.
Attorneys don’t typically destroy evidence. There’s rules against that.
That is the prosecutor’s fault, not the defense attornet’s.
That’s when you step over the line from attorney to criminal.
No defense attorney has ever allowed a criminal to go free. But the prosecution has failed to prove it’s case many times.
Whatever. I don’t think you have much experience in this area, or you wouldn’t keep arguing that point.
The defence attorney is in a unique position when it comes to knowing if the accused did the deed or not. In short, the defence attorney has all or more of the prosecution’s evidence that eventually is submitted to the judge, the defence attorney has evidence arising out of the accused that may not eventually be submitted to the judge, and the defence attorney has a relationship with the accused that may include the discussion of admissions and the consideration of the likelihood of whether or not such admissions are legit.
Quite simply, in some circumstances it is quite reasonable for the defence attorney to know that the accused did the deed, and depending on the crime, to know that the accused is in fact scum by any normal understanding of the term.
It is important, however, to separate the ability to often know of a client having done a deed and of being scum, from the ability to determine guilt in a court of law. That is something the defence attorney does not have the power to do, for that is up to the court.
When one considers appellate work, or collateral post-conviction work (such as parole matters or some child protection matters), not only does the defence attorney have all of the above knowledge concerning his or her client being scum, but also the defence attorney has the actual court judgment and reasons that set out the client’s guilt.
In particular, when an appeal is made on a point of law rather than a point of fact, it is not uncommon for the defence attorney to know that his or her client is scum.
Take, for example, the way hard evidence is handled here in Canada. Unlike the USA, inthe Great White North if the police do something bad while collecting the evidence, the evidence is not necessarily excluded. The police may be sanctioned, but seldom by way of suppressing hard evidence in a nasty crime. I have taken a matter to appeal where there was no doubt what so ever as to my client being scum (three convictions of first degree murder, he bragging about all of them and making repeated confessions both to the police, to his three psychiatrists and to me, one murder caught on video, his girlfriend witnessing the same murder, his prints on his gun found in his knapsack in his truck, the bullets matching those that went through the bodies, DNA matches, and on and on and on), but desptie ther being no doubt in my mind or in the decision of the court as to the underlying facts, I proceeded on a point of law – that of whether or not police misconduct in the matter was so egregious that hard evidence hsould have been supressed. That’s part of the job – even if you know darn well that your client is scum, and has been proven to be scum in fact by a court of law, you must mount the best appeal possible.
So now we come to the heart of the matter. A defence attorney will in some instances know better than anyone else other than the client whether the client is scum, but it is the defence attorney’s sworn duty to mount the best defence/appeal possible. The defence attorney may know full well that the scum committed terrible crimes (e.g. the triple murderer above), and may have full expectation that the scum will go on to commit further terrible crimes (e.g. the client I got off of an assault charge a few years ago, who last month murdered the fellow he had previously been accused of assaulting). Yes, Ralph, defence attornies must often face very serious ethical dilemmas.
I submit that not only does a defence attorney regularly come upon such ethical dilemmas, but that a defence attorney (as well as all other members of the bench or bar) should face these ethical dilemmas and accept responsibility for whatever decision he or she makes concerning the ethical dilemmas. That way the hard decisions that will affect not only the accused, but possibly innocent third parties, will be made with great consideration, rather than without care for long-reaching ramifications. Having given such serious consideration of the ethical dilemmas in a matter, a defence attorney must decide to either go balls to the wall in representing his client, or get out of the game and let some other defence attorney take the case.
Note, Ralph, that giving great consideration to ethical dilemmas, and taking responsibility for defending scum who may very well go on to further heinous crimes, does not mean that a defence attorney should be sanctioned for diligently performing his or her job. Think of a defence attorney as you would think of a soldier in a war. Both are performing tasks that are necessary for the well being of the citizenry of their countries. The defence lawyer protects against aggression by the state, while the soldier protects against aggression by other states. Both are tasked by the state, and swear oaths of duty and conduct to which they are rigorously held accountable. Both must act within the rules set out by the state. Both must act ethically rather than turn blind eyes or blindly accept orders. And much to the core of being either a defence attorney or a soldier, both must make decisions and take actions that in all probability will directly or indirectly result in harming innocent people, be it a defence attorney defending scum who eventually may go on to hurt innocent third parties, or a soldier fighting in a battle or dropping bombs by which innocent civilians may be harmed. With both professions, the professional makes tough ethical decisions and takes responsibility for causing harm, but ultimately carries through with the knowledge that the greater good is being served. A job well done is to be commended in either profession, even if part of that job includes the probability of causing harm.
But when they confess to having pulled out of themself a soiled tampon while on the stand on a previous court date, and futher confess to having then flung it at the judge, and you happened to have been there and witnessed the alleged dirty deed being done, then yes, you know. You really know.
You really know you wish you didn’t really know, but you really know. You know?
(Just checking to see if you are still with us, bbs2k. 
)
The way a relative of mine explains it is that “they deserve a fair trial.”
A defendent approaches a lawyer and says “I have been accused of being a child molester/rapist/whatever and I would like to hire you to defend me.”
I would imagine you could start your own practice and then simply decide which cases you want to take.
I recall an episode of The Practice in which the defense attorney was told by his client where the body of the victim was. The attorney actually checked out the place and saw the body there. He kept quiet, went on to defend the guy and may even have won the case (I don’t remember now). There was much agonizing with one of his partners over the fact that he couldn’t reveal what he knew. Would that really be the case?
Didn’t something similiar happen on Law & Order? The lawyer locked the door back up and McCoy had him arrested for concealing evidence.
Locking the door would be concealing evidence. A lawyer should never investigate his own case there is too great a danger of becoming a witness always use an investigator. If a client tells an attorney where evidence is, he MAY not have to disclose the fact but if he goes to look at it and especially if he touches it he is in a world of ethical pain. I don’t know why soooooo many people think defense attorneys are willing to lie and cover up evidence to “get people off” Why would a lawyer risk his entire future livelihood by risking disbarment to cover up evidence of somebodies guilt? In my experience it has been prosecutors and cops who are willing to stretch the truth to get a conviction. In fact around here when cops take the witness stand it is often referred to as Testalie not testify…
So they’re duty bound to reveal any evidence that they have uncovered of their client’s guilt? Say, for instance, they had a PI looking for a witness who could supposedly exonerate their client. The witness tells the PI that, far from exonerating him, he saw the guy do it. But he doesn’t want to testify against his buddy. The PI reports this back to the attorney. Does he have to reveal this to the prosecution, even though he’s making it certain that his client will be convicted?
You are asking a very difficult question. I hesitate to get into it because it will appropriately get nit picked to death by other lawyers. The answer would have to be so detailed and cited that it would spawn a hundred different criticisms. But generally speaking if you do not intend to call the person as a witness you do not have to disclose the nature of their information. However if your investigator includes the information in a report or you write down even your own notes you may be required to give it to the prosecution. There are various protections and objections to disclosure but the short answer is there is no short answer.
Along the lines of Bricker’s example, there was a case here in Canada about 10 years ago where a fellow was picked up by the police and charged with a fairly serious offence. He gave a confession to the crime, and pled guilty at one of his early appearences, without a lawyer.
He had a lawyer for the sentencing phase, since he had a lengthy record, so some argument was needed to determine an appropriate sentence. On reviewing the record, his lawyer discovered that his client had a cast-iron alibi for the offence - he had been serving time in the Stony Mountain federal pen when the offence was committed in another location! The Crown had not picked up on that point - but that is the job of defence counsel, to view the evidence from the accused’s perspective, not that of the Crown.
Turned out the accused had an underlying mental problem, coupled with drug issues, that led him to plead guilty - sort of a “whatever” thing.
His lawyer successfully applied to have the guilty plea set aside, and with the evidence from the penitentiary records, it was clear to the Crown and the court that the confession was meaningless.
The right to counsel isn’t just meant to protect articulate, reasonable people who get along well in life. It’s also to protect the vulnerable, those with serious problems in their lives - the kind of folk that other people just dismiss as “scum”.
My personal two pennorth is that I believe everyone should be defended in court no matter how heinous the crime that they are accused of but it really bugs me that people who are known to be guilty when all the evidence comes out but get off on a technicality.
The accused wasn’t read his Miranda or the police didn’t have a search warrant ,whatever.
By all means punish the officers who exceeded their authority ,with prison if need be but dont let the serial killer or paedo out on the streets to reoffend.
Also I dont agree with the defendant having the right not to incriminate themself,or their spouse the right not to incriminate their other half.
If you 're guilty you 're guilty and if you’re not then you wont incriminate yourself.
We seem to have double standards on this,where there has been a particulary brutal murder for example,where the killer must have got covered in blood the police make an appeal for those closest to him(or her)including their spouses,to tip off the police as to his identity,but when it gets to court the very person who put him there is protected from giving evidence against him.
I dont care how close you are to a person relationshipwise its still your moral duty to stop that person murdering kids or whatever.
Could you cite an actual example of this ever happening? I am sure it has but I don’t think it is as common as people think.
THat is the most basic protection. It prevents cops from beating a confesion out of you.
:eek: Ever hear of waterboarding. Without the 5th Amendment it wouldn’t just be for Iraqis…
Again other than Matlock and Law& Order can you give me an example of this being a common problem.
The law is a technicality, and that is a good thing. When courts start imprisoning people on generalities, it will signal the end of the American legal system as we know it.
So many people use that phrase- “He got off on a technicality.” What exactly do you consider a technicality? Illegal search and seizure? Violation of one’s civil rights? Unlawful entry? Planting of evidence?
Please enlighten the group.
They aren’t “technicalities”- they are laws.