Lawyer question

[Southernrich]

hawkeye:

Sorry but it is wrong to defend someone that you know is guilty

You are incorrect. In the United States, all persons accused of a crime are entitled to certain rights - see the 6th Amendment. Even the “guilty.”

And all are to be presumed innocent until a jury, the finder of fact, finds them guilty.

 

[Southernrich]

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?

I assume the other man would have an attorney who would point out the obvious - that motive and opportunity are not grounds for conviction.

 

[St_Veronica]

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?

Now THIS is a good question.

SV

 

[Southernrich]

Poisson:

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.

You didn’t have to take him as a client. But, if you did, you have an obligation to defend him to the best of your ability.

 

[deb1024]

You might consider becoming Catholic, then you could discuss this with your confessor.

God Bless

Deb

 

[Scanner]

I think there are two sets of judges, and therefore 2 sets of ethics. In your case, the judges are a jury (or perhaps a trial judge).

With regards to right and wrong, there is the judge, jury, and executioner of God.

2 standards. The first one is a flawed but decent legal system. The second is perfect.

 

[Elizabeth_B]

Every accused person, whether guilty or innocent, is entitled to a defense. However, what does this mean?

Is the goal of defense to “win” or to fairly come to the truth?

Is the phrase “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” in the oath witnesses take or is a creation of tv?

 

[EENS]

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?

I don’t see how someone could ask such a question. It is deciet at the least to try to hide that your client did this. What is much worse, I saw, were the answers from CATHOLICS saying there was nothing wrong? One person even said “it’s not against the law.” Neither is abortion… I don’t see how a Catholic in good faith can support the deciet and lying by not telling the whole truth. God bless.

 

[Southernrich]

Elizabeth B.:

Every accused person, whether guilty or innocent, is entitled to a defense. However, what does this mean?

According to the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it means, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnessess against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

Is the goal of defense to “win” or to fairly come to the truth?

In our legal system, attorneys are obliged to be zealous advocates for their clients, so “to win” would be the goal.

Is the phrase “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” in the oath witnesses take or is a creation of tv?

It is indeed the oath that all witnesses take before testifying.

 

[Southernrich]

EENS:

I don’t see how someone could ask such a question. It is deciet at the least to try to hide that your client did this. What is much worse, I saw, were the answers from CATHOLICS saying there was nothing wrong? One person even said “it’s not against the law.” Neither is abortion… I don’t see how a Catholic in good faith can support the deciet and lying by not telling the whole truth. God bless.

A witness who is a Catholic and who is testifying under oath is obliged to tell the whole truth as best as he understands it.

The accused is under no obligation to testify (5th Amendment).

The defense attorney represents the accused, not the prosecution.

 

[Auberon_Quin]

Elizabeth B.:

Is the goal of defense to “win” or to fairly come to the truth?

Is the phrase “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” in the oath witnesses take or is a creation of tv?

The phrase “the truth…” is the oath administered to witnesses, at least in my state.

If I “fairly come to the truth” by telling the court that my client is guilty, it’s not much of a defense, is it? If I only defend the innocent, who is going to defend the guilty? The Constitution says that everyone is entitled to a defense; it makes no distinction between guilty and innocent.

The question about whether the police decided to charge somebody else and that person was convicted is a great one. I have never had this come up, and I hope I never do. I guess the way I look at it is this – the secret of my client’s guilt or innocence is not mine to give up. It is his. He told it to me on the understanding (lawyer-client privilege, etc.) that I would not reveal it, and I am bound by that. If he wants to let an innocent man go to prison for something he did, that’s his decision.

Deb1024, I did eight years with the Jesuits. I never once went to them with a moral dilemma and came out feeling less confused.

EENS, what’s your authority for your position? In my view, the burden is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my client broke the law. I do not intend to tell a single lie, and neither does my client. All I intend to do is to point out that the State has failed to meet its burden and my client should go free as a result. How is this deceit?

And, EENS, if it is deceit, what am I morally obligated to do?

Scanner, I will leave God’s justice to God. I am not admitted to practice in that court.

As for the question about why the State’s case is full of holes, let’s just say that crack addicts do not make the best eyewitnesses for a variety of reasons.

 

[Elizabeth_B]

This discussion has given me some insight into our legal system.

Perhaps I would feel differently if I lived in fear of false imprisonment. But if anyone takes an oath to tell the whole truth then they have violated the oath if they intentionally leave out relevant details. Anyone who knowingly permits them to do so is acting unethically.

I understand the legal responsibilities of a defense attorney. I also understand that our legal system makes truth and justice difficult to come by. The Old Testament, particularly the prophets, are filled with messages regarding “judgement at the city gates” and the lack of justice there.

 

[Fast_ed75]

I am a criminal defense attorney and also a very devoted Catholic who recently converted. First, you are rarely (except in self-defense) “defending” someone as in defending their particular actions as justifiable. The job of a criminal defense attorney is to create reasonable doubt in the State’s theory and arguments. If the State is not successful, it is not the fault of the defense attorney, but the fault of the officers, investigators and prosecution for not meeting their burden of proof.

In some situations guilty individuals do get acquitted. While upsetting, I would feel ten times better than if I was the prosecutor for a case that imprisoned an innocent man.

 

[Southernrich]

Auberon Quin:

If I “fairly come to the truth” by telling the court that my client is guilty,

Attorneys do not testify either on behalf of or against their client. The fast route to disbarment, if one did.

the secret of my client’s guilt or innocence is not mine to give up. It is his. He told it to me on the understanding (lawyer-client privilege, etc.) that I would not reveal it, and I am bound by that. If he wants to let an innocent man go to prison for something he did, that’s his decision.

And you’d be disbarred in a flash if you violated privilege.

In my view, the burden is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my client broke the law.

More than your view. It is the law.

All I intend to do is to point out that the State has failed to meet its burden and my client should go free as a result.

Lawyers do win cases for this very reason.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Ever see the movie, The Devil’s Advocate? It’s about an attorney who must decide whether or not to defend someone he knows is guilty. If I remember correctly, in the end he does the right thing.

 

[Poisson]

Southernrich:

I assume the other man would have an attorney who would point out the obvious - that motive and opportunity are not grounds for conviction.

Fine, presume now that they had enough evidence to persuade a jury.

 

[Poisson]

Todd Easton:

Ever see the movie, The Devil’s Advocate? It’s about an attorney who must decide whether or not to defend someone he knows is guilty. If I remember correctly, in the end he does the right thing.

According to our legal friends here he did not do the right thing. That movie scared me.

 

[Southernrich]

Poisson:

Fine, presume now that they had enough evidence to persuade a jury.

Enough evidence to convict the innocent man? It happens, of course.

When you say that the first man “got off,” what did you mean? That there was a trial and he was found not guilty? Or that the prosecution had insufficient evidence to go forward with their case?

 

[Southernrich]

Poisson:

According to our legal friends here he did not do the right thing. That movie scared me.

What’s the right thing? Defend his client or violate his oath?

 

[Poisson]

Southernrich:

Enough evidence to convict the innocent man? It happens, of course.

When you say that the first man “got off,” what did you mean? That there was a trial and he was found not guilty? Or that the prosecution had insufficient evidence to go forward with their case?

The man you are representing in the original thread scenario. He was found to be not guilty even though you know he is. The prosecutors manage to sucessfully prosecute an innocent man (not defended by you) for the same crime. You (the guilty but free mans lawyer) knows the person conviceted is innocent because the man you sucessfully defended told you that it was he who commited the crime. And you pointed prosecutors to the innocent man because you used his motive and opportunity to cast reasonable doubt on your client.
Now I’m even confused