I’m not arguing about whether they should get a fair trial. I’m just saying that because you have ethical qualms and may not be able to do your best. Then wouldn’t it be better if another attorney did the job.
You’re missing the point.
You are again making an implicit assumption that somebody deserves a particular verdict and sentence.
THAT’S NOT FOR YOU TO DECIDE!!!
If you don’t get that idea, you shouldn’t be an attorney.
Professional ethics? It’s not ethical as a lawyer to make a determination of guilt or non-guilt for their clients at all.
Certainly. Why didn’t you ask that in the first place?
Are you really a lawyer?
We get this sort of thing every now and then. “Why do we bother giving obviously guilty people a fair trial? Only innocent people deserve a fair trial.”
The problem of course is determining which people are innocent, and therefore deserve a fair trial, and which are guilty and don’t deserve a fair trial. And so, before we gave the defendant a fair trial, we’d have to have some sort of impartial tribunal to determine whether the person is innocent, and therefore we should continue with the fair trial, or whether the person is guilty, and the trial should be dispensed with.
Of course, if the tribunal discovers that the person is innocent, it doesn’t make much sense to continue with the trial afterwards, does it? So if we decide the person is innocent they should just let him go afterwards.
We could call the tribunal that discovers whether the defendant is guilty or innocent “A fair trial”.
Let’s forget that I’ve ever mentioned that.
It’s readily apparent you have no idea what ethical or professional obligations an attorney has.
It is a major violation of professional ethics to (1) presume the guilt of your client at all - even if they plead that way and (2) to presume to know a fair sentence if they are found guilty.
Having ethical qualms because a defendant MIGHT not be found guilty is a big, glowing neon sign you are not fit to be a defense attorney at all.
Having ethical qualms because a defendant MIGHT not get the sentence you believe is warranted is a big, glowing neon sign you are not fit to be a defense attorney at all.
No. Your claimed background is pertinent to this conversation…unless you would like to publicly retract your claim.
I would have grave reservations retaining an attourney who might include Divine Revelation as part of the discovery process.
So we know that the defendent killed someone and that is indisputable.
Was it self-defense? Was it justifiable legally? Was it justifiable morally (e.g. the guy had brutally raped his daughter)? Was it a fuzzy area re: castle/stand your ground?
And that doesn’t even account for penalty differences between 1st and 2nd degree, murder during a felony, etc.
I wouldn’t go that far. Lawyers have feelings too. It’s important to be objective and let the system do its job, but I think one aspect of being a good and ethical lawyer is to recognize when emotions or personal convictions get in the way, and have the courage to step back and let someone else do the job if there’s a chance your feelings will compromise your representation.
I’ve turned down cases (I’m a civil trial lawyer)that had legal merit but for one reason or another I thought the client was better off elsewhere.
*Deserves *death? Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends.
Even more importantly, defending the “obviously” guilty is imperative to keep the government and law enforcement in check - following the rules.
If you, as the attorney, “know” (as in have evidence of beyond a comment) that the accused is ‘factually guilty’ will cause you to present your case ‘differently’ - wether or not you CHOOSE to work with that client is a call only you can decide - and if you do choose to work with - you had better give that client 120% and not "thow him to the wolves’ or YOU are the one with the ethical problem,
I do not care what “the public” thinks in this case - the protections are too critical to everyone even when a “miscarriage of justice” seems to be in play.
or what huck just said.
We, as a society, have made certain determinations about what’s important.
For example, we have placed our right to be free of searches and seizures, except those founded upon probable cause or other well-delineated exceptions, to be of greater importance than any given criminal act.
So let’s imagine the video which unambiguously establishes guilt is one that was obtained by an illegal action on the part of police – a camera inside the accused’s home, for instance, placed without a warrant.
Now we can say with some confidence that the defense attorney KNOWS his client is guilty of the murder. Still, he is absolutely in the right to argue that the video evidence be suppressed. In doing so, he is simply advancing society’s interest in remaining free from unreasonable search and seizure. The fact that he also aids a guilty man in escaping criminal liability is a secondary effect.
Yeah, right. That’s like saying whatever you do, do NOT think about pink elephants.
Besides the other reasons mentioned, going around and confessing to everyone can easily be a sign of mental illness or that he’s lying to protect someone else; not guilt.
Actually it would be legally treason to do so, given that they are invading aliens. 
Exactly. Even the guilty have legally protected rights, and there is no duty to throw themselves on the mercy of the court. A proper defense ensures that he gets the punishment he deserves under the law, and no more.
This. And if you cannot do this, you should not be a criminal defense attorney. I am a public defender, so I do not have the luxury of turning clients away (or pricing them out, as some private attorneys do when they don’t want a case).
Attorneys have an incredible amount of power to affect an outcome when they advise their clients. Even they tone of voice you use when describing options can sway a client one way or the other. Not everyone is cut out for this line of work.
If at any time I realize I am advising a client to plead guilty because, personally, in my heart of hearts, I think they probably did it (not because it benefits them in some other significant way, like, sentencing guidelines, etc…), then it is time to quit.
Given that neither prosecutors nor defense attornies usually “know” guilt or innocence … do the same criteria follow on the other side? Is a prosecutor unethical for vigorously (but fairly) prosecuting a case they suspect is not guilty or feel does not deserve the full weight of the law thrown at them, or unethical if they took it upon themslevs to make that assessment rather than trying their hardest and letting the court decide?
In San Jose, that problem turned up a couple of times. The prosecutor said the defense attorneys did not ask for the exculpating evidence. As a result the evidence wasn’t turned over and the defendant was found guilty.