Lawyer question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Auberon_Quin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Auberon_Quin

Guest
I am not Catholic. I am curious about the Catholic answer to the following question:

I am a lawyer. Tomorrow, I go to court to defend somebody accused of a crime. (What’s the crime? I’m not going to tell you. Could be child molestation. Could be OWI. Could be jaywalking.)

I know he is guilty. I know he is guilty because he told me so.

Nevertheless, I am going to try to get him acquitted. He is not going to testify, and none of his witnesses are going to lie. I am going to cross-examine the State’s witnesses and point out to the jury the holes in their stories, of which there are God’s own plenty. I am going to argue to the jury that the State has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt and my guy should go free.

Am I doing wrong? If so, why?
 
In an objective sense, you are not doing anything wrong; you are just doing your job. Nevertheless, it seems your conscience may be troubling you, perhaps because he admitted to you that he is guilty of the offense. If your conscience is telling you that you are committing a sin you should listen to it.
 
sounds to me as though you are trying to give him good representation… i don’t see anything legally wrong, and i’m not the one to say morally… you might do him, yourself, and society more justice to attempt to sell him on the rewards of confessing, doing his penance and reconciling himself with God and man… and I don’t know how REAL that prospect is… but don’t you owe it to him, yourself and society to try?..

good luck and Peace be with you… 👍
 
Auberon Quin:
I am not Catholic. I am curious about the Catholic answer to the following question:

I am a lawyer. Tomorrow, I go to court to defend somebody accused of a crime. (What’s the crime? I’m not going to tell you. Could be child molestation. Could be OWI. Could be jaywalking.)

I know he is guilty. I know he is guilty because he told me so.

Nevertheless, I am going to try to get him acquitted. He is not going to testify, and none of his witnesses are going to lie. I am going to cross-examine the State’s witnesses and point out to the jury the holes in their stories, of which there are God’s own plenty. I am going to argue to the jury that the State has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt and my guy should go free.

Am I doing wrong? If so, why?
Click to expand...
Each state’s bar has created an artificial system of ethics under which an attorney may operate, free from being accused of an ethical violation. What you propose to do is not in violation of any state’s ethical rules, to the best of my knowledge.

But the state’s ethical rules are not the same as God’s moral order.

I spent 10 years as a litigator doing insurance defense, and, for the most part, I stayed within God’s moral laws in representing my clients. There were times when I strayed beyond those moral guidelines when I was compelled to do so by the situation, either by a cheating claimant’s attorney or an unduly harsh judge, although I stayed within the state’s ethical guidelines.

I bore the sin for straying beyond God’s laws, despite the fact that I did not violate man’s laws. I now work in-house for a private corporation where I do not face those same temptations.

For myself, I could not attempt to set free a man who has admitted his guilt, so I choose not to do criminal defense law. Your mileage may vary.
 
40.png
eoff:
INevertheless, it seems your conscience may be troubling you, perhaps because he admitted to you that he is guilty of the offense.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not.

Barrister, no fair.
 
The Barrister:
For myself, I could not attempt to set free a man who has admitted his guilt, so I choose not to do criminal defense law.
Click to expand...
When I did criminal defense, I looked at it as being an advocate for the accused. It never mattered to me whether he was guilty or innocent. If he hired me, he was entitled to the best defense I could provide. The Code of Ethics in Arkansas and Missouri (where I’m licensed) didn’t say that a man who admitted his guilt wasn’t entitled to representation.

That said, I never had to defend a murderer or a child molester - not because I turned such down, but because I was never approached to conduct such a defense.
 
I’m guessing that you asked this question because deep down inside you are uncomfortable with what you are about to do.

We are obligated “to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” (I have no idea if witnesses are required to take that oath.) Trying to convince someone of a lie using the partial truth is still a lie in my book.

IMHO, justice requires you to ensure a fair outcome for all involved, regardless of whom you represent. If your client has admitted to the crime, you should do everything in your power to ensure he is treated fairly in the punishment phase.

By the way, did you recommend that your client plead guilty? If not, why not?

I assume many people enter the legal profession because they have a burning desire for justice. Somewhere along the line, though, many have compromised their original vocation. Rightly or wrongly, the legal profession has developed a reputation for winning at all costs even if justice will not be served.

For true justice, though, the full truth must be considered.
 
As a lawyer and a Catholic, I will give you my opinion. As you know, you are not charged to judge your client. You are not supposed to act as the fact finder. Your sole mission is to ensure that your client gets a fair trial. As you have mentioned, you are not in any way promoting a lie (in that you will not have him testify and will not otherwise suborn perjury).

Morally, I think you are obligated to encourage others to act correctly and in moral and ethical ways. To that end, then, you should certainly counsel your client to not commit bad acts in the future. As to his past conduct, the option of confession (in court) and a guilty plea should be explored, tempered of course with your legal analysis of the odds of prevailing at trial and what sort of plea bargain might be offered. If your client elects to go to trial, you are still acting morally when you do your job and are a zealous advocate for your client, so long as you do not cross the lines mentioned above. For example, I thing it would be permissible to argue that the evidence does not show this and that, but impermissible to say “he is innocent” or “he did not do this.”

Hope that helps. Pray for guidance and strength as you perform your duties. I will pray for you as well, and may God bless you.
 
I agree with Elizabeth on the point about advising your client to plead guilty. If he/she rejects that option, then you are obligated to give him/her a valid defense. I believe that doesn’t necessarily include a defense path that would mislead or “trick” the jury or disparage the accuser.

I have to admit that I’m curious as to how the accuser’s testimony can be “full of holes” when your client is indeed guilty. I’m not disputing that fact thta it is, just curious as to the details of how that can happen. I also realize that you are not in a position to fill me in.

I hope God shines His light on your path so you can see your way clearly.
 
Elizabeth B.:
By the way, did you recommend that your client plead guilty? If not, why not?
Click to expand...
I presented it as an option. I did not encourage it because the State’s case is pretty weak.
 
Interesting question you bring up. It was interesting enough that I called my brother to talk over the Catholic viewpoint, since he is a Professor of Constitutional Law at a Catholic university.

First, as you are aware, it is unusual to “know for a fact” that your client is guilty.

As a general matter, we accept that a legitimate system of justice depends upon a zealous defense, because we have no protection against abuses by government without it. If one did not believe the basic system was legitimate, then you would have to either cease work in it or work to change the system.

It gets very tricky when you get into the area of morally cooperating with evil. The cop-out answer is this is a tricky and difficult field – theologians literally spend an entire career sorting out those aspects of moral theology.

As a backgrounder on Catholic morality, there is a Catechism of the Catholic Church: THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS.

The short answer is it is not your job to render judgment on another person. You can counsel them to repent and confess, but that is obviously not likely.

He mentioned an article in the Marquette Law review about 7 years ago by Garvey & Cohen covering the issues involved with a Catholic judge handling death penalty cases. There is also a blog that covers these kinds of issues from a Catholic perspective at www.mirrorofjustice.com. One of the leading scholars in this area is Tom Shaffer.

Regardless of how you sort it out, if you defend this person you are obligated to provide a zealous defense. One argument that won’t work is trying the “lesser of two evils” approach: If I sabotage my clients case, then the harm done to the legal system is less than the harm from a … criminal… being freed upon society. This is the classic slippery-slope problem, if you acknowledge that 99% of criminal defendents are guilty and many crimes are serious crimes. Making a case-by-case assessment of how zealous to make your defense is not sustainable in a legal system that provides a presumption of innocence.

You can withdraw from representing someone, but you cannot make a habit of it.
 
40.png
rfk:
if you defend this person you are obligated to provide a zealous defense.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
if you acknowledge that 99% of criminal defendents are guilty and many crimes are serious crimes.
Click to expand...
Quite correct, though I thought it was about 97%. But, no matter. Most of my guilty clients (and there was no dancing around this - they were guilty and admitted it) did NOT expect to be acquitted - they expected me to get them the best deal I could.

I was a success not for getting a man acquitted, but for getting a list of charges merged, and getting the prosecution to agree to letting my man plead guilty to one or two charges and agreeing to a light sentence. That was success! And the clients knew that I wasn’t always going to succeed. But, a bit of jail time came with the job.
 
Auberon Quin:
I am not Catholic. I am curious about the Catholic answer to the following question:

I am a lawyer. Tomorrow, I go to court to defend somebody accused of a crime. (What’s the crime? I’m not going to tell you. Could be child molestation. Could be OWI. Could be jaywalking.)

I know he is guilty. I know he is guilty because he told me so.

Nevertheless, I am going to try to get him acquitted. He is not going to testify, and none of his witnesses are going to lie. I am going to cross-examine the State’s witnesses and point out to the jury the holes in their stories, of which there are God’s own plenty. I am going to argue to the jury that the State has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt and my guy should go free.

Am I doing wrong? If so, why?
Click to expand...
After re-reading your post, I am amending my previous answer.

I believe that your obligation to your client isn’t to see that he is acquitted, but to ensure that he receives a fair trial. A trial should be fair to both the accused and the State (meaning me and everyone else). I believe that would satisfy both the moral and the legal issues.

That’s just my opinion. I am neither a lawyer nor a theologian ( both are obvious, I’m sure!), so I can’t speak authoritatively on either the legal or moral aspects of your question.
 
Auberon Quin:
I am not Catholic. I am curious about the Catholic answer to the following question:

I am a lawyer. Tomorrow, I go to court to defend somebody accused of a crime. (What’s the crime? I’m not going to tell you. Could be child molestation. Could be OWI. Could be jaywalking.)

I know he is guilty. I know he is guilty because he told me so.

Nevertheless, I am going to try to get him acquitted. He is not going to testify, and none of his witnesses are going to lie. I am going to cross-examine the State’s witnesses and point out to the jury the holes in their stories, of which there are God’s own plenty. I am going to argue to the jury that the State has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt and my guy should go free.

Am I doing wrong? If so, why?
Click to expand...
Sorry but it is wrong to defend someone that you know is guilty, Free Barrabas and murder the innocent man, sorry we should never equate people as a job like a production line.
I have a story somewhere if I can find it about someone coming back from beyond to warn someone not to defend the indefensible, if I find it i’ll post it.
 
40.png
eoff:
In an objective sense, you are not doing anything wrong; you are just doing your job.
Click to expand...
I’ll bet there were alot of Nazis who took comfort in those words while stuffing Jews into the furnaces. I’m not saying that this case rises to that level but hiding behind the idea that “I am just doing my job” is cowardice.
I know for me if I had a client who was a serial child killer and I knew for a fact he was guilty, I could never cooperate in setting him free to allow him to continue in his activities.
 
40.png
hawkeye:
Sorry but it is wrong to defend someone that you know is guilty, Free Barrabas and murder the innocent man…
Click to expand...
Tell me WHY it is wrong.

I don’t understand your Barrabas analogy at all.
 
Auberon Quin:
Tell me WHY it is wrong.

I don’t understand your Barrabas analogy at all.
Click to expand...
Jesus was innocent Barrabas was a murderer, in their corruption they freed the guilty man and murdered innocent blood.
 
40.png
hawkeye:
Jesus was innocent Barrabas was a murderer, in their corruption they freed the guilty man and murdered innocent blood.
Click to expand...
I agree that it’s wrong to shed the blood of innocents, if that’s your point. But I don’t see how that gets us to the conclusion that defending a guilty man is wrong.
 
Auberon Quin:
I agree that it’s wrong to shed the blood of innocents, if that’s your point. But I don’t see how that gets us to the conclusion that defending a guilty man is wrong.
Click to expand...
Lets leave it at that then if I find the information on it that I read I will post it.
Adios !
 
:confused: Just curious…
What if in your defense you presented the possibility (to raise reasonable doubt) that there was this other person who also had motive and opportunity, your client gets off and police turn and charge this other guy that you pointed to. Could you allow an innocent man to go to prison if you knew your client who got off was the guilty party?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top