I wouldn’t say that the two things are the same.
Telling a jury that the accused is innocent is a statement that he didn’t do the crime. If the accused has confessed to me that he did it, I wouldn’t be comfortable making that statement to the jury.
Telling them that the prosecution hasn’t proved their case and the jury should find the accused not guilty is always open to the defence, regardless of what the accused has said.
Sometimes a defence counsel will get the feeling that the Accused is lying about being guilty. Where the is a history of substance abuse and or physical/mental torture than that occurs with some regularity.
You might be prepared for somecriticism by your opponent if you run for office.
Thanks for the feedback. I guess this is one of those “Internet isn’t reality” situations, since some Internet comments are almost murderous in their criticism of defense lawyers who defend vilified defendants.
This is due to John Gabriel’s Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.
Which explains why lawyer are so poor. 
But seriously, everyone is entitled to a defense. If a guilty person gets off, then it simply shows the prosecution process - the police or the prosecutor - screwed up, or the guy was shit-lucky that there was not enough evidence.
I’d go for the quote box, but…
A lot of them want that. In a real high profile disgusting, brutal, obvious, disgusting (you get the picture) murder, maybe some disgusting rape, case that just calls for the guy (been some pretty notable gals, too) to go down hard, high profile and no-profile lawyers will sign on just to keep the guy off death row. “If I can save this guy, I can save anybody”, is a pretty powerful sales pitch.
This article about Sam Amirante, the man who was John Wayne Gacy’s defense attorney, is very revealing. Note that Amirante became a judge and even ran for the state senate. If defending Gacy doesn’t make you a pariah what will?
I happened to run across this article today https://popehat.com/2016/07/18/cynicism-and-taking-clients-seriously/ which discusses a case in which the defense attorney strongly suspected his client was guilty, but in the course of his defense, discovered strong evidence for his client’s actual innocence.
Sidebar: William Kunstler could afford to work for left wing causes for little or no money because his MAIN clients, the ones who paid him top dollar, were Mafia hoods.
First and foremost, Kunstler worked for the Mob.
We almost always “know”. That’s why we file motions for discovery. At least in routine cases in my jurisdicition, the guy that handles it over at the DA’s office will cheerfully provide entire file, which often includes things like clear, sharply focused and in living color video and/or still pictures of your client doing the exact thing he or she is charged with doing, video and audio recordings of them being read their Miranda rights and promptly giving a detailed confession walking the detective step by step through the crime from beginning to end, helpfully consenting to searches whenever asked, and then signing a notarized transcript of the interview in full view of 7 Baptist preachers AND a full gospel choir, live on CNN.
What, me cynical? Well, maybe a little. I also exagerate a little sometimes.
One thing about The Outfit: they’d never bounce a check on you. Strictly cash. 
I suspect the “backlash” varies according to the perception of what tactics the defense attorneys use to get their clients off.
An honest effort to create reasonable doubt in, say, a rape case would be viewed differently than if the lawyer concentrated on denigrating victims.
Except rape is often a case with conflicting versions of events. What the accused will say is an honest attempt to raise a reasonable doubt, the complainant will say is a personal attack and denigration.
Just check out the thread after Gomeshi got acquitted and you’ll see that play out.
Hillary Clinton’s Handling of 1975 Rape Case Emerges Again
Your call on the level of backlash.
So there is a group of people who don’t deserve a defence. Good to know.
Nobody said they don’t deserve a defense. I wouldn’t take a mob case, nor would I do a major drug case involving the cartels, but there are plenty of lawyers that will.
Let’s just say that in a thread about the backlash that defense attorneys face for defending vilified clients, someone considered it noteworthy.
It’s not that they don’t deserve a defence, it’s that getting involved with such people may well be a bad idea in a business and moral hazard sense.
I was once contacted and had a meeting with a couple of guys who ostensibly just wanted some help with a business matter in my area of speciality. But the more I looked into it the more cautious I became. The clients wanted to pay a lot of money for things in cash, they were very coy about names (short of actually admitting they were using aliases) didn’t want me or anyone to know their address, didn’t want me to meet the Big Guy who was supposedly the money behind everything etc. And they offered me cash (personally, and I was an employee) to do work for them without invoicing for it. I started asking around and the suggestion from colleagues was that these guys were closely associated with organised crime. So I spoke to my employer and we dropped them.
But you can see how if you didn’t, even if you tried to make sure you were always on the right side of the line, it would be easy to find yourself involved with their crap.
This concern about the Mob and terrorists is why Law Societies and Bar Associations around the world are enacting professional rules to combat money laundering.
For example, in Canada, the Federation of Law Societies has enacted a model code with two main components: a no-cash rule (lawyers can’t accept payments of more than $7,500 in cash), and know-your-client rules (your client must produce sufficient proof of identity to enable you to be sure you know who you’re dealing with).
Model Rules to Fight Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing