a man is defended and found not guilty ( for what ever reason ) of murdering a child,and that child is found to have been bound and buried alive,and the lawyer know's he is guilty but still defends him with all his ability and wins,is that lawyer guilty of a crime or is he bound by law to turn over this evidence to the authorites?
2006-07-13 03:04:23 · 6 answers · asked by moecanic 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
An attorney is required by the canons of ethics to zealously defend his/her client. This means giving them the best possible defense. It is not a defense lawyer's role to judge the guilt or innocence of the accused. That is for the judge or jury. It is the defense lawyer's role to ensure that:
1) The state MUST prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
2) All of the state's evidence must conform to the rules of evidence. i.e. it must be lawfully obtained, must be relevant, and must be more probitive than prejudicial.
3) The witnesses are presented properly, that their stories are consistent, and that their testimony is properly presented to the court.
4) That the Defendant's claim of innocence, if he wishes to assert one, is properly presented to the court.
5) An attorney may NOT however, present perjured testimony. If he/she knows in fact that a witness is perjuring him/her self, they must present that information to the Court if the witness is a prosecution witness, and if it is a defense witness, then they should withdraw.
6) An attorney who knows or who has good reason to know that his/her client will perjur themselves on the stand should not allow that client to testify in their own defense. If the client insists (as is their right) then the attorney must withdraw and not further represent them.
The lawyer is not guilty of any crime if the state is unable to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, regardless of what crime. Remember: in ALL criminal prosecutions, the State (government) has the burden or proof,not the defense.
2006-07-13 03:19:48 · answer #1 · answered by Phil R 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A lawyer cannot withhold items material to the prosecution of the crime - bloody clothing, the ransom money, etc. Nor can a lawyer subborn perjury by putting his client on the stand knowing for a fact that the client is lying.
Other than that, a lawyer has a duty to zealously represent his client. And so does the prosecutor. The system is designed, at least in theory, to make both sides as clear as possible to the trier of fact so that the judge or jury can make the best decision possible. If a lawyer defends a guilty person and wins, it is the jury that committed the injustice, not the lawyer.
2006-07-13 10:13:09 · answer #2 · answered by Loss Leader 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Lawyer and his client benefit from a special relationship that is said to be "priviledged". The lawyer is duty-bound to maintain strict confidentiality and provide legal defense to the best of his/her ability no matter what the circumstance.
In the case that you mention of a lawyer knowing of his client's guilt there are two things to consider. Firstly, we are innocent until proven guilty, and on that basis the client has the right to a full defense. Secondly, unless the lawyer personally witnessed the criminal act, the level of proof he would have at his disposition wouldn't meet the "beyond the shadow of a doubt" guideline needed to convict.
The lawyer is only very rarely forced to defend a particular client. If he is uncomfortable with a case that he feels breaches his morality, or puts him in a conflict of interest type of situation, he can simply resign from the case.
2006-07-13 10:24:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hell no who do you think write the damn laws, lawyers. that is how they get your money if you are poor you get a public defender and they are the morons of the profession you might as well kiss your azz goodbye. If you are rich you will almost never go to prison, OJ, Ken Lay, Robert Blake, etc. In the rare case if you have to like Martha Stewart it will be a country club prison with tennis courts, and a chef.
2006-07-13 10:25:23 · answer #4 · answered by King Midas 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No he cannot, by the attorney-client priviledge. EXCEPT of course, if the prosecutor were to learn that the defense attorney had this information, in which case he could given a subpeona. However this is rare. Generally, anything said to one's attorney is not allowed as evidence.
2006-07-13 10:09:16 · answer #5 · answered by Brandon F 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Happens all the time...look at OJ.....did his lawyers get convicted.
2006-07-13 10:08:58 · answer #6 · answered by jpxc99 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋