Lawyer question

[Southernrich]

Elizabeth B.:

If the relevant information matches the defendent’s confession.

Ah, if a defendent confesses, that’s a different matter entirely.

1. He shouldn’t have said anything until his attorney arrived.
2. If he had been read his rights and it appears that the confession was not coerced, then the next step is to see what sort of a plea the State will accept and to see if the client will accept it.

 

[Southernrich]

Elizabeth B.:

It may be legal, but it is unethical if you know the testimony is accurate.

Elizabeth, testimony is not testimony until it is given. What a witness might say isn’t admissible testimony until it’s given under oath in court.

 

[Southernrich]

JCPhoenix:

The question they must answer is this:

Did they PROVE that Mr. X is guilty?

Well put. It doesn’t matter if there’s pile of evidence reaching to the sky. Can the Prosecutor prove his case “beyond a reasonable doubt”?

 

[Southernrich]

ralphinal:

Dumb question, but can a Lawyer simply not ask?

The first thing I ask is “what did they charge you with?” and never, “what did you do?”

 

[Mandi]

Auberon Quin:

I’m going to hell. Ha ha?

I will take no oath in this matter because a lawyer does not testify. My client will take no oath because he is not going to testify, either. He is going to exercise his 5th Amendment right to sit there and say nothing.

The oath I took when I was admitted to the bar prohibits me from lying to the court (I’m not lying) or suborning perjury (my client is not testifying). It also forbids me from betraying my client’s confidences. That oath I take seriously.

EENS, what’s the source for your nine ways? And precisely what sin am I assisting my client in committing?

Liz B., you have precisely divined my intent. I do not mean to malign the witnesses’ characters, but I am going to bring out the facts that they are crack users, who were using at the time, and that such use might in some way impair their ability to make an eyewitness identification of my client was he was, uh, jaywalking.

My oath is to defend my client. That’s what I plan to do.

What ever makes you feel good!

There is however nothing in my conscience that would allow me to justify any of it. Although I am not a lawyer I have spent considerable time in the courtroom - 2 months ago my son was in trouble - we were advised to get a lawyer - I said no - I said you did it, now you can take your lumps. We walked out of the courtroom with a $300.00 fine. He was at risk of losing his licence and the worst case possiblity was jail.

I told him “Don’t do the crime if you can’t pay the time”. Like I said I could never be a lawyer because the only advice I would give anyone is “you are going to have to pay for this one way or another, better to do it in this world than in the next” I think my clients would be few and far between!

Curiously enough I never get picked for Jury duty either!

 

[Southernrich]

Mandi:

Although I am not a lawyer I have spent considerable time in the courtroom - 2 months ago my son was in trouble - we were advised to get a lawyer - I said no - I said you did it, now you can take your lumps. We walked out of the courtroom with a $300.00 fine. He was at risk of losing his licence and the worst case possiblity was jail.

You did right when the “lump” is a moderate fine, and when jail time is only a possibility.

But, if your son were facing serious jail time, it would have paid to have an attorney. Probation or a short jail sentence with the help of an attorney beats a decade in jail at the mercy of the Prosecutor.

 

[Mandi]

Southernrich:

You did right when the “lump” is a moderate fine, and when jail time is only a possibility.

But, if your son were facing serious jail time, it would have paid to have an attorney. Probation or a short jail sentence with the help of an attorney beats a decade in jail at the mercy of the Prosecutor.

I think you missed my point - If we don’t pay for it on earth, we must pay in the next life. Now what if my son had been a murder! One of the 4 sins that scream vengence from Heaven. I should sleep at night realizing he has just bought his ticket to hell. He, as anyone else must be made accountable and if they are not accountable here they will be acountable after. The thought of him rotting in a jail here does nothing to compare to the thought of him burning in hell. And not only that - as a parent and I stand before God, what will I have to answer. Yes God, he did wrong but I made sure he got away with it… I don’t think so!

 

[Binky_Brown]

I answer not as a Catholic, but as an American and a Christian.

---

The State, not you, bears the burden of proof in this matter. Unless they are able to bear that burden in court, your client should walk. You are not suborning perjury, you are not doing anything which is outside the canons of ethics. Warm, fuzzy pronouncements about “the moral law”, the “higher law”, or God’s law, are not your concern, Counsel. You took an oath when you were sworn in as a member of the Bar to zealously represent your client within the perimeters of legal ethics, and that alone should be your concern.

---

Good American men and women have fought and died so that everyone–and I mean, EVERYONE-- in this country can have those procedural due process rights which your client will enjoy at trial. If your client is found not guilty, then such is the will of a sovereign God: perhaps His will is that “divine justice” will take place withn a different venue than the courtroom. As an advocate, you are not afforded the luxury of determining guilt. Even if your client “said he’s guilty”, that is not his concern, either: he is a lawman, unschooled in the laws of evidence. That evidence presented within the courtroom alone will determine his guilt.

---

**Pay no attention whatsoever to third parties who advise you to “tell him to plead guilty”: they have no more standing in all of this than a bartender would have in advising a surgeon on how to perform an appendectomy. How your client pleads, and how you advise him to plead, are between him and you. Ultimately, it is HIS decision. And if you think that you can either win based upon insufficient evidence, or that the outcome after trial will result in either a better circumstance for your client than a negotiated or blind plea-- then you should put it on. After all, you’re the professional here, and it will be your reputation as an advocate that’s on the line.

---

**Never apologize for what you do in court, Counsel, for without you, the U. S. Constitution would be nothing more than mere parchment in the National Archives. Because of defense attorneys like yourself, those ideals which we hold dear as Americans become more than platitutes: they become reality, not only for the ones we cherisish in our society, but more importantly, for those we often (with some justification) despise. ******

---

---

---

 

[Southernrich]

Mandi:

I think you missed my point - If we don’t pay for it on earth, we must pay in the next life. Now what if my son had been a murder! One of the 4 sins that scream vengence from Heaven. I should sleep at night realizing he has just bought his ticket to hell.

Are you a Catholic? If so, then you know that your son could be forgiven of his sin through Reconciliation even if it were murder.

He, as anyone else must be made accountable and if they are not accountable here they will be acountable after.

Yes, even after his sin was forgiven, before he could enter Heaven, he would suffer the temporal punishment due for sin in Purgatory. As we all shall.

The thought of him rotting in a jail here does nothing to compare to the thought of him burning in hell

Unless he had hardened his heart so much that he would refuse to be Reconciled from now until his death, he wouldn’t be in hell.

 

[Southernrich]

Binky, you’ve made my day!

 

[Ken]

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?

Does your client know you are asking these questions?

 

[The_Barrister]

Auberon Quin:

No, it’s not.

Barrister, no fair.

No fair? Why? What did I say that was unfair?

I agree that you can defend your client, zealously and with all your skill and might, to make sure he has a fair trial. No violation there at all. An acquittal is not the same thing as “innocent” - it simply means the state can’t prove it. If that’s the way man created the law, then that’s what you have to deal with, and you can do it without violating God’s laws.

But can you stand in front of a jury and tell them that your client is innocent of the crime and still be morally correct, when he himself has told you he did the crime? No way. I’m not saying that you would do such a thing, I’m merely pointing out that you can arguably stay within the state’s laws and still violate God’s laws.

Dozens of lawyers have admitted to me that they have argued for their client’s innocence knowing full well that the client had committed the crime. I’ve overheard attorneys instruct clients and witnesses to lie on dozens of occasions (in workers’ comp, the court waiting areas are small and it’s nearly impossible not to overhear such conversations). I’ve had attorneys deny trying to speak with my clients and my clients employees when I have video of the meetings.

 

[Southernrich]

The Barrister:

An acquittal is not the same thing as “innocent” - it simply means the state can’t prove it.

Actually, the jury finds you “guilty” or “not guilty.” Here at least, the term “innocent” isn’t used.

Dozens of lawyers have admitted to me that they have argued for their client’s innocence knowing full well that the client had committed the crime

It’s not really an “admission.” All criminal lawyers know that over 95% of defendants are indeed guilty of what they’re charged with. You can’t avoid defending the guilty!

I’ve overheard attorneys instruct clients and witnesses to lie on dozens of occasions

The same on the prosecution side. Cops will readily perjure themselves if they think that the defendant “deserves” to go to jail.

Sometimes the administration of criminal justice is like the classic description of a hot dog - you don’t want to know what goes into it.

 

[Binky_Brown]

I’ve overheard attorneys instruct clients and witnesses to lie on dozens of occasions (in workers’ comp, the court waiting areas are small and it’s nearly impossible not to overhear such conversations). I’ve had attorneys deny trying to speak with my clients and my clients employees when I have video of the meetings.

---

---

---

**In my state, as a member of the bar, you currently have an obligation to report such conduct to the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission. :tsktsk: **

 

[The_Barrister]

Binky Brown:

In my state, as a member of the bar, you currently have an obligation to report such conduct to the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission. :tsktsk:

1. Don’t “tsk tsk” me. Who said I did not report the violations? Any dealings I may have had with the local bar remain private and not open for discussion here.
2. In most cases, I was the only (ear) witness. I can’t run to the bar association every time I suspect a violation.
3. Most conversations with counsel are privileged, unless they’ve placed themselves in a position where the expectation of privacy is impossible.

In two cases I put witnesses on to testify as to the conversations these witnesses overheard, and was blocked from doing so both times, with the court citing attorney-client privilege. See? Even the courts don’t want to deal with the issue.

And stop using large fonts. “Shouting” doesn’t make you right.

 

[Mandi]

Southernrich:

Are you a Catholic? If so, then you know that your son could be forgiven of his sin through Reconciliation even if it were murder.

Yes I am a Catholic and I fully understand that although God will forgive mine sins and anyone else who goes to confession - what you seem to miss or not understand is that forgiveness is not enough, you have to make recompensation for that sin. This is the very essence of what Protestants don’t understand about confession. Foolish is the person who sins with the thought that it doesn’t matter for they can just confess it afterwards. We are not called for purgatory, we are called for heaven. Those who sin with the intention of wiping it off with confession might find confession not so available when death is near!

Unless he had hardened his heart so much that he would refuse to be Reconciled from now until his death, he wouldn’t be in hell.

I do not take Hell so lightly that I would want to risk that, you will find many who have a hardened hear

 

[Southernrich]

Mandi:

Yes I am a Catholic and I fully understand that although God will forgive mine sins and anyone else who goes to confession - what you seem to miss or not understand is that forgiveness is not enough, you have to make recompensation for that sin.

Well, no. I haven’t missed that. Even after Confession, your son will have to pay the temporal punishment due to sin, in Purgatory. I said that.

And recompense depends on what he did. Yes, if he stole money, he’d have to pay it back. If he was caught with a few marijuana joints, though, there’s no physical recompense, though it would be good for him to give the value of the pot to his church.
He might do well to discuss with his confessor what a just physical recompense might be for his sin.

 

[Auberon_Quin]

oldschoolcath23:

Wow, and I was thinking about going to law school once I graduate but now I think you guys have almost talked me out of it!!
I honestly don’t know if I could defend someone who committed a crime, knowing that justice may not be served…Well, back to the drawing board…

I wasn’t trying to talk anyone out of anything. There are hundreds of things you can do with a law degree that do not involve defending criminals. There are probably very few things you can do with a law degree that don’t make you queasy at some point. Of course, you can probably say the same thing about every profession there is.

At least, if you’re paying attention.

Ken: My client does not know I started this thread. There is no reason to tell him. Nothing I read here is going to change the degree or type of representation I’m providing him; I’m here for curiosity’s sake only.

Barrister: The “no fair” was directed only at the fact that my post immediately attracted a professional brother. I have no quarrel with how you framed the debate or the positions you took.

All: Thanks for the interesting perspectives. I struggle with explaining this facet of my profession to my Catholic in-laws and friends, but it is diffiicult to get them to articulate why it makes them uncomfortable. I know there is something inherently disturbing about arguing for the acquittal of a guilty man, but I believe it’s my ethical duty to do so, and I believe that our system of justice depends on the willingness of others like me to do the same.

Once again, thanks. I’ll let you know how it turns out.

 

[SoulRebel777]

I wouldnt defend the guy if he told me he did the crime man.

Why would you defend a guy who did something wrong and let him go free to maybe do it again?

You will be held accountable by God if you defend this guy with this knowledge you have of his guilt.

 

[Trad_Catholic]

I answer not as a Catholic, but as an American and a Christian.

The State, not you, bears the burden of proof in this matter. Unless they are able to bear that burden in court, your client should walk. You are not suborning perjury, you are not doing anything which is outside the canons of ethics. Warm, fuzzy pronouncements about “the moral law”, the “higher law”, or God’s law, are not your concern, Counsel. You took an oath when you were sworn in as a member of the Bar to zealously represent your client within the perimeters of legal ethics, and that alone should be your concern.

Good American men and women have fought and died so that everyone–and I mean, EVERYONE-- in this country can have those procedural due process rights which your client will enjoy at trial. If your client is found not guilty, then such is the will of a sovereign God: perhaps His will is that “divine justice” will take place withn a different venue than the courtroom. As an advocate, you are not afforded the luxury of determining guilt. Even if your client “said he’s guilty”, that is not his concern, either: he is a lawman, unschooled in the laws of evidence. That evidence presented within the courtroom alone will determine his guilt.

**Pay no attention whatsoever to third parties who advise you to “tell him to plead guilty”: they have no more standing in all of this than a bartender would have in advising a surgeon on how to perform an appendectomy. *How ***your client pleads, and how you advise him to plead, are between him and you. Ultimately, it is HIS decision. And if you think that you can either win based upon insufficient evidence, or that the outcome after trial will result in either a better circumstance for your client than a negotiated or blind plea-- then you should put it on. After all, you’re the professional here, and it will be your reputation as an advocate that’s on the line.

**Never apologize for what you do in court, Counsel, for without you, the U. S. Constitution would be nothing more than mere parchment in the National Archives. Because of defense attorneys like yourself, those ideals which we hold dear as Americans become more than platitutes: they become reality, not only for the ones we cherisish in our society, but more importantly, for those we often (with some justification) despise. **

1. You cannot answer as a Christian and not as a Catholic, as there is no such thing.
2. You cannot separate any decision from Catholicism, for this is secularism (modernism/liberalism) and is condemned by the Church as a heresy. Everything must be based upon Church teaching. Our mere opinions that contract such must be submitted to the Church.