May a criminal defense attorney ethically do the following?

Question

1. Vigorously challenge the reliability or credibility of a rape victim on cross-examination when the defense attorney knows that the woman has testified truthfully.

2. Put his or her client to the stand knowing that the client intends to lie.

3. Advise a client regarding potential defenses to a crime before finding out the facts of the case even though this may lead the client to lie about the facts so as to take advantage of one of the described defenses (e.g., the Jimmy Stewart scenario from Anatomy of a Murder).

Answer 1

I will try to address each aspect of your three questions to the best of my knowledge. For reference, I grew up with an attorney who practiced criminal defense. I will try to explain the rational for each of my answers.

"1. Vigorously challenge the reliability or credibility of a rape victim on cross-examination when the defense attorney knows that the woman has testified truthfully." Ethical or not ethical?

Ethical. Any good defense attorney (in my books, at least), WILL NOT know for sure if the woman is testifying truthfully. There are so many aspects which effect the truth of a statement - whether or not the person is fabricating a story (lying), whether or not the person is not telling the entire story (deception by omission), and the inherent flaws of eye witness testimony.

The fact is, the defendant has the RIGHT to be defended. Furthermore, the issue as to whether or not the witness is lying is not the determination of the attorney, but of the judge and/or jury. And the judge and/or jury has the right to know about the credibility and reliability of any witness - whether or not they are currently "telling the truth". Not to bring up points of creditability and reliability would be unethical, because the jury has the right to know the facts surrounding a situation, not just the facts of the situation itself.

"2. Put his or her client to the stand knowing that the client intends to lie." Ethical or not ethical?

Prima facie, this is not only unethical, but possibly illegal. It could be illegal because the attorney would know that a crime is occurring, and thus not be reporting it.

However, many defense attorneys avoid this issue very skillfully. It goes back to how anyone actually KNOWS the person is lying. Whether or not a person is lying comes down, in some degree, to a subjective examination of the person and their statements. Often times an attorney might not even ASK their client what happened, so that the attorney does not "know" if their client will later lie about it on the stand. As to whether or not that is ethical, it most likely is - by attorney standards, though perhaps not by normal society standards. However, most attorneys won't put their client on the stand if they know their client intends to lie.

Finally, the biggest grey area here for me is the idea that an attorney does not always have control of their client. A client may DEMAND to take the stand with the intention of lying. An attorney may know that, but not have much they can do about it. The fact is, a defendant has the right to take the stand in their own defense. The do not, however, have the right to lie. The shade of grey here falls into the attorney-client privilege - the attorney may "know" the defendant is lying, but to release such information to the police could be violating the attorney-client privilege. The alternative to this, however, is to step aside as the person attorney, which effectively limits the attorney's responsibility for the actions of their client. Some judges, however, won't allow that to happen well into a case. So, there is definitely a shade of grey on that question.

"3. Advise a client regarding potential defenses to a crime before finding out the facts of the case even though this may lead the client to lie about the facts so as to take advantage of one of the described defenses." Ethical or not ethical?

Ethical. The attorney has not control over whether or not a client lies about things. In fact, an attorney might advise a client like this in order to avoid the legal/ethical dilemma I just described above. If the client knows the potential defenses to a crime, chances are they will start lying then - to their own attorney. It prevents the attorney from "knowing" the person lies later on. In addition, a client has the right to know the types of defenses available to them regardless of their involvement in a crime. It is an attorneys job to provide such information.

Furthermore (some people are unaware of this fact), an defendant does not have to provide a defense for a crime. They are innocent until proven guilty - if they were forced to provide a defense, it would be because they were presumed guilty, which is not how the justice system is designed. Of course, we could get in a discussion as to whether or not the innocent until proven guilty concept is actually in practice in the courts of today, but it's not important to this concept. The fact is, it IS law, and as such, exists - even if it isn't always practiced. States must prove the case against the defendant, not the defendant proving their defense against the state. All that said, however, most defendants want their attorneys to mount a defense against the State's case, so that is what they do (and it is usually the best thing to do, all theories of criminal justice aside).

I could go on and on about the legal concepts which govern the ethics of these examples. But I won't. I think the answers I gave will help you understand at least to some extent the ethics involved in defense work. It is worth mentioning, however, just like the problems with the justice system, there are problems with attorneys. Like people, some are simply not ethical. I do not project this on the entire profession of attorneys, however. I believe that, like most people, most attorneys are ethical. That said, they have a deeper understanding of the law, and deriver their ethics from the law, not just society's standards. Because of that, attorneys are often seen as unethical - their ethical standards do not match that of society. One must understand, however, that their ethics are derived from their legal obligations under the law, and will reflect those obligations, not society’s expectations.

-Saffyre

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

Star Wars is a science fantasy saga and fictional galaxy created by writer / producer / director George Lucas during the 1970s. The saga began with the film Star Wars (later retitled Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope), which was released on May 25, 1977, by 20th Century Fox. The film became a pop culture worldwide phenomenon - spawning five more feature films , three spin-off films, five television series and an extensive collection of licensed books, comics, video games, and other products - all of which are set within a fictional "galaxy far, far away."

An example of the space opera genre, the Star Wars story employs archetypal motifs common to both modern science fiction and ancient mythology, as well as the romantic music motifs now often associated with those genres.

Answer 4

Unfortunately the Law and Justice are two totally different things. The law (we the people) have decreed that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, therefore they are entitled to a legal defence. A defence attorneys duty is to prove his clients innocence, regardless of his personal view.
Personally, speaking from a UK perspective, there needs to be a change in the law. Where evidence exists defendants should be brought before a court and the evidence provided to them. At this stage they should be allowed to plea bargain. If they insist on their innocence in the face of the evidence they should get a defence lawyer but his only remit should be to minimise the sentence taking all extenuating circumstances into consideration.

Answer 5

is that the lawyer is now permitted to disclose confidential information to prevent the client’s commission of both criminal and fraudulent acts, not just criminal acts, but only if the lawyer reasonably believes the criminal or fraudulent act is likely to result in death or substantial bodily harm or in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another or to prevent the wrongful execution or incarceration of another. Former DR 4-101 permitted the lawyer to reveal the client’s intention to commit any crime, no matter how minor.

Answer 6

in case you're asked to take the case as a private lawyer, you are able to take or refuse any case you prefer. in case you paintings as a public defender, your activity is to do even though circumstances you're assigned. in case you're in private prepare and you're appointed to the case by potential of the courtroom, then you definately would be unable to refuse to take it without solid reason, and "he's accountable" or "he did some thing rather undesirable" are actually not sufficient motives. for sure, maximum people who're arrested are in fact accountable of what they are being arrested for, yet even those accountable of the main heinous crimes are nonetheless entitled to have somebody shield them. if so, your activity could be to a million) attempt to paintings out a plea good deal on your customer to get him the superb effect accessible given the crime he committed, 2) make constructive that your customer's rights are risk-free in the process the technique, and 3) if the case is going to trial, emphasize and convey the jury's interest to each weak point interior the prosecution's case and tension the prosecuting lawyer to do their activity of *proving* your customer's guilt. Even a serial killer is entitled to that lots representation interior the criminal justice gadget, and in case you haven't got self assurance and understand that then you definately in all likelihood shouldn't circulate into criminal protection regulation.

Answer 7

I'm sure that there are lawyers, who have done all of the above. They will do anything to build a reputation for themselves.

Answer 8

Richard Johnson and Tyrone Williams asked the same question. You should see their answers side by side.

Answer 9

Sounds like all of this would be unethical to this country girl.

Answer 10

Never thought too much about that