What if a defense lawyer finds out his client is guilty?

[Telemark]

@BwanaBob

This is the kind of stuff that makes me crazy re: lawyers.
IMHO a person who “did” the crime is NOT entitled to be found Not Guilty unless
a) they really didn’t do the crime
b) the evidence was tainted
c) insanity
d) mitigating circumstances - which I’ll only allow if the person confesses first; none of this “I didn’t do it but if I did it was because of blah blah blah”.

How about the state not proving their case? You’re assuming that it’s possible to know facts in some absoulte way? A trial is the way we find out.

[Northern_Piper]

@BwanaBob

@groman

That seems somewhat draconian. Just because the barrister cannot in all honesty admit reasonable doubt nor can the barrister perjure himself shouldn’t mean that he cannot do whatever possible to elicit feelings of doubt from the judge or the jury.

This is the kind of stuff that makes me crazy re: lawyers.
IMHO a person who “did” the crime is NOT entitled to be found Not Guilty unless
a) they really didn’t do the crime
b) the evidence was tainted
c) insanity
d) mitigating circumstances - which I’ll only allow if the person confesses first; none of this “I didn’t do it but if I did it was because of blah blah blah”.

To me anything else is a mockery of justice and explains why people sometimes take the law into their own hands.

What a way to begin a Friday; by getting really angry!

You’ll note that the lawyers on this thread had already pointed out that they cannot do “whatever possible to elicit feelings of doubt” - that they are limited to what the principles of evidence and canons of ethics allow.

[Gfactor]

On a related note, the Supreme Court in Nix v. Whiteside: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=475&invol=157 rejected a defendant’s claim of inadequate assistance of counsel based on counsel’s insistence that the defendant not commit perjury during his trial, noting “Whatever the scope of a constitutional right to testify, it is elementary that such a right does not extend to testifying falsely.”

[Northern_Piper]

@Quartz

@alphaboi867

IANAL, but lawyers aren’t allowed to even mention jury nullification in court, nor can they come right out and say “The law is bad; ignore it and find my client not guilty even though he is.” Doing so can trigger a mistrial and a disbarement.

Cite? It’s been tried a least once recently here in the U.K. They failed with foxhunting and succeeded in a case where their clients were accused of destroying GM crops, and had videoed themselves doing it and published the video.

It’s not permitted in Canada. The Supreme Court unanimously condemned it in R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30, at p. 79:

@Chief Justice Dickson

To accept Mr. Manning’s argument that defence counsel should be able to encourage juries to ignore the law would be to disturb the “marvelous balance” of our system of criminal trials before a judge and jury. Such a disturbance would be irresponsible. I agree with the trial judge and with the Court of Appeal that Mr. Manning was quite simply wrong to say to the jury that if they did not like the law they need not enforce it. He should not have done so.

I’ve not heard of a lawyer facing disbarment for suggesting that a jury can ignore the law, but then, I’ve not heard of a case since Morgentaler where a defence counsel made that suggestion.

[aldiboronti]

@Gfactor

On a related note, the Supreme Court in Nix v. Whiteside: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=475&invol=157 rejected a defendant’s claim of inadequate assistance of counsel based on counsel’s insistence that the defendant not commit perjury during his trial, noting “Whatever the scope of a constitutional right to testify, it is elementary that such a right does not extend to testifying falsely.”

When a defendant testifies under oath that he did not commit the crime for which he is being charged, and the jury subsequently finds him guilty, could he be charged with perjury? Or does one have an absolute right to lie, where the plain fact of the crime is concerned. (Otherwise, presumably, a defense would be practically impossible if a guilty person was barred from claiming innocence).

[Gfactor]

@aldiboronti

When a defendant testifies under oath that he did not commit the crime for which he is being charged, and the jury subsequently finds him guilty, could he be charged with perjury? Or does one have an absolute right to lie, where the plain fact of the crime is concerned. (Otherwise, presumably, a defense would be practically impossible if a guilty person was barred from claiming innocence).

Under federal law, you can be prosecuted just for an exculpatory denial. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=96-1579

And see, Does perjury apply to all truth?

State laws may vary.

[Gfactor]

@aldiboronti

(Otherwise, presumably, a defense would be practically impossible if a guilty person was barred from claiming innocence).

The defendant is not required to take the stand. If he does he is subject to cross-examination and required to comply with the jurisdiction’s perjury laws.