That’s not going to make people any less curious. I think you need to explain yourself (briefly).
This might be going offtrack, but another reason to disbelieve pchaos’s assertion is that no one calls it “Cal at Berkeley.” It’s just “Cal” - no other UC system uses the moniker, they call themselves “UC” like UCLA or UC Davis or UC Merced or whatnot. Rarely you’ll have people say “Cal Berkeley” ala Cal Poly, but I don’t think someone who supposedly went to Cal for 8 years would call it “Cal at Berkeley.”
Without doubt in the Bay Area, I refer to it as CAL but to outsiders, I refer to it as Cal at Berkeley. Also, most of my friends refer to the law school as Boalt Hall. Only recently has the name of the law school been changed to Berkeley’s law school.
Actually, to some degree I’ve been lucky and have become financially independent by practicing law in California. I may go into a new business venture (only tangentially involves law) within the next couple of years.
applying as a greeter?
No. But that’s one of the reasons I like being on this Board, apparently nobody is overly impressed with my credentials.
If that’s what you think is happening here, then accuracy-wise you are definitely on a roll.
Absolutely a prosecutor has a different set of ethical obligations than a defense attorney. A prosecutor is acting unethically if they don’t believe a defendant is factually guilty but continue to prosecute anyway. If they come to believe the defendant is guilty, they must dismiss the charges against the defendant, even if they think they could get a jury to convict.
Here, you seem to have dropped one of these - “not”
No. What does that have to do with it?
Your conclusion doesn’t follow. Just because I cannot do justice in all cases does not mean I should fail to do justice in this case.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - Yes, I recognize the quote. Gandalf was a better wizard than he was a moral philosopher.
Minor nitpick - a defense attorney shouldn’t automatically try to guarantee a fair trial for his client, but rather due process - ensuring the state observe his client’s right as well as follow its own rules for prosecution and punishment. A trial may happen, and in that case the defense attorney should ensure its fairness to the best of his ability, but if he ethically serves his clients best interests by recommending an allocution and plea bargain, or other nontrial approach, so be it.
What is your point? The prosecution is obliged to turnover all relevant evidence to the defense, whether the defense asks for it or not. Also, there’s a good chance the defense doesn’t know what evidence the prosecution has unless the prosecutor discloses it, so how can it request something it may not know exists.
But – I have no idea what this has to do with the thread subject.
You’re missing the point, Shodan. Gandalf was just saying that people (hobbits) should have a sense of humility when it comes to making decisions about life and death. IOW: You are not God, so don’t act like it.
Folks, do let’s understand there’s an important difference between whether it’s ethical for an attorney to defend someone s/he knows or believes is guilty and whether it’s ethical for him or her to decline such a representation. The answer to the former (the OP) is definitely yes, for reasons stated upthread. The answer to the latter, though, is also yes. Which is to say, the defendant is entitled to a defense, but s/he isn’t generally entitled to defense by a particular lawyer. (The main exception being when counsel tries to withdraw on the eve of trial.)
Perhaps more to the point, everyone deserves the right for everyone else to have a fair trial.
If Stabby McStabberton doesn’t get a fair trial, pretty soon no one will. And if there’s no pressure to have fair trials, pretty soon much of the law enforcement industry doesn’t really put a lot of emphasis on catching the right person.
That’s exactly how I first read it.
Good example. Nitpick: Adams’s
This is the point. You don’t know it until the state has proven it in court.
Absolutely. Everyone is entitled to a capable, zealous defense of a charge that could end them in jail or executed. I would find it personally distasteful, but ethically, it would be my duty if no one else were available to defend the guy.
If you were ever charged with a crime, even if you knew you did it, you would probably want a lawyer too. The burden is on the prosecution to prove your guilt, not on you to prove your innocence.
Now I am :mad: 
Yeah, I never got the innocent until proven guilty thing. Shouldn’t it be innocent unless proven guilty. It makes way more sense my way.
I prefer “considered innocent until proven guilty.”