If everyone was willing to be reasonable and strive for the truth at all times, you wouldn’t need courts at all.
“Courts” are necessary because human beings are often involved in disputes which cannot be solved by the application of good will and human fellowship.
Not everyone is reasonable and moral. Presupposing that if everyone was, all would be well merely hand-waves the problem away, which is - what sort of system would you devise to deal with people inclined to “…twist, batter, spin, conceal, or completely avoid” the truth - or even act dispicably, like a bunch of gang-rapists?
I think the problem people have with this lawyer is that they see his raising the notion of the victim’s lack of physical suffering as a suggestion that it’s relevant to the total suffering, which I think most people would judge as an unconscionable suggestion in this case. Which it is. As a personable assessment.
But as a legal suggestion it is not only relevant but required by duty, no?
In other news, Dwyane “The Rock” Johnson was acquitted yet again on tax evasion charges, according to observers at the Federal Coliseum. An IRS spokesman had no official comment except to say that the agency would respect the decision of the court, and regrets the untimely passing of Marvin Scotlink, the senior accountant assigned to Mr. Johnson’s case.
Special Guest [del]Referee[/del] Justice Mr. T ruled that The Rock’s use of a steel chair was constitutional under the recently ratified 28th Amendment, which protects the right of citizens “to keep and bear sitting implements”.
Correct, with one exception: they cannot prevent the accused from testifying, even if they know he’s going to lie. That’s a really sticky situation, and if the lawyer is not permitted to withdraw, he has to honor his duty to the tribunal by not arguing the perjured testimony, and even not eliciting it by getting permission for the client to testify in narrative.
If you do not like the paths that the Defense is allowed to walk, you change the law.
I could not do criminal defense. My brother, on the other hand, pays the mortage keeping drunks on the roads (as I like to tell him at holidays). While I could not deal with the wretched scum and villainy, I am glad his type exists in case I ever find myself on the wrong end of a criminal indictment.
Oh please, judicial champions are tougher than that. Also, allowances were certainly made for native differences in physical capabilities. Talhoffer gives us a great example of a man dueling with, of all people, his wife. Put the Rock in a pit and give Mr. Scotlink a sling and then we’ll see what happens.
Mr. Excellent, when I was at the Law Enforcement Academy, many years ago, some parts of the Judicial Code of Ethics were drilled into my head, and I am expected to adhere to those sections that apply to my job. Not sure how much those have in common with the MRPC.
What is written in the MRPC is one thing. I am going by 1) what I see in court every day; and 2) many conversations I have had with lawyers about cases over the years. I can assure you that I have seen many lawyers put perjured testimony on the stand many times. They rationalize this by what I would call situational intentional gullibility. As long as someone tells them a story, no matter how fantastically improbable, they “believe” it and put it on the stand, even if it is clearly bunk. I recall a rape case I dealt with years ago. The evidence was overwhelming: eyewitness, security camera footage, DNA, etc… The guy had some completely impossible alibi that did not stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny, but the defense attorney kept telling it even post-conviction at the sentencing hearing. It was a lie and the attorney knew it, but he kept telling it.
So yes, attorneys have to tell the truth. But frequently that “truth” comes with a wink and a nod that indicate the attorney knows darn well it isn’t the truth.
Perhaps of interest is this passage from Justice White’s recitation of the facts in Coker v. Georgia, the 1977 case where the US Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was per se impermissible as a punishment for rape of an adult victim:
:eek:
From the perspective of thirty years later, this turn of phrase comes across as remarkably insensitive, although presumably Justice White meant something like “not physically harmed separate from the trauma directly associated with the rape.” But it goes to show that, not that long ago, this use of language was considered acceptable not only by an advocate but in a high court’s supposedly neutral recitation of the facts.
What amazes me is how many people get on message boards and make up stories about their past lives and professional experiences to prove a point.
Not you, of course. I’m sure you’re telling the truth. But I’m going by many conversations I’ve had with people over the years about their message board tactics. They’d just post lies, made-up conversations, whatever it took to buttress their arguments.
(I trust the point is clear?)
Crystal clear. When a client tells you a story, it must be true, despite all evidence to the contrary. If someone says something bad about lawyers, that person is a liar.
I agree with Bricker. There is a principle in civilized societies that a criminal defendant is entitled to have an attorney make arguments on his behalf. I basically agree with this principle, since it’s an important check on the activities of the State. The state has a huge amount of power and there is huge potential for abuse.
A side effect of this principle is that frequently, defense attorneys will make lame arguments on behalf of their scummy clients. Which is annoying, but is not a terrible thing, since judges and juries will normally reject lame arguments.
I had hoped to illustrate the impossibility of arguing against anecdotes offered by a person whose mind was made up, and how insulting the implication of being in a group of people painted with a broad brush as liars was.
I did not mean to call you a liar. I have never had any reason to believe you are not an honest person.
The point I was trying to make was not that all lawyers are liars, I was trying to make a point about their ethics, and how their professional ethics do not necessarily line up with broader real-world ethics and/or morality.
The point about the lawyer in my rape case was not that he kept repeating a lie. The point was, when I talked to him about it afterwards, he said that that was the story his client told him and therefore he was not knowingly “lying.” And by the standard of the MRPC, perhaps he was well within those guidelines.
But in real world ethics, one would expect someone to subject a story told to them to some basic, minimum level of scrutiny, and decide whether it was the truth or not. If the lawyer had given one second’s thought to the alibi, or compared it to the available evidence, he would have known that it was false. But he was (according to him) prohibited from applying any scrutiny to the story because of its source, and therefore ended up telling a whopper of a lie over and over again. He may well have been within MRPC guidelines to do that. But if so, I don’t think MRPC lines up very well with broader ethical guidelines, which is why these types of arguments occur over and over.
Well, sure, but there are bad apples in any profession. I know doctors who give the medical testimony we ask them to, who prescribe drugs they know won’t work, and who recommend surgery their patients don’t need.
I know contractors who skimp on building materials.
I know realtors who fail to disclose information that the “REALTOR Code of Conduct” (you’re supposed to capitalize it :rolleyes: ) requires them to.
