Okkkkkkkk For The Lawyers, or Anyone Knowledgeable In The Way Of The Law.........?

Question

lol Another Law and Order question. Last night on the show, the DA charged an attorney with...I think an accomplice to murder because his client told him where the bodies of the people he killed were, and the lawyer went and saw the bodies. The DA found out about the actions of the Defense lawyer, and decided to try him, because he would not tell where the bodies where, in order to protect his attorney-client privelege. All the Defense lawyer had to do was tell them, and the charges would be dropped. His client had already been sentenced to death, so the DA felt that in this matter, attorney-client privelege could be overlooked. The lawyer still refused, and was sentenced as guilty. Okay, my question's are...#1. Even if your client admits to you that they committed the murder, do you still defend them? #2. If the client tells a lawyer where the bodies are, should the lawyers go and see for themselves? #3. Could this scenario have happened in real life?

Answer 1

I can answer all these questions for you: Since Law and Order occurs in New York and that is where I practice.

1.) It is up to lawyer to decide who their clients are, however once you start representing a client you cannot withdraw without good cause and it must be on consent of the court.

2.) If a client tells the lawyers where the bodies are I would say that the lawyer should not go and see for themselves. But to having the ability to see the crime scene would certainly aid in any future defense, but why put yourself in that position.

3.) The scenario has happened in New York. In upstate New York a client told his attorney that he killed a girl and indicated where the body was. The lawyer refused to give any information to the authorities and was threatened with criminal action. However, it was ruled by the appellate courts that this information is covered by attorney client privilege. An Attorney could actually face sanctions for turning over information that is privileged. And as horrible as it sounds, unless it is information of a crime that is about to be committed the lawyer cannot break privilege so they cannot be charged with any crimes.

Hope this answers your questions.

Answer 2

The answer to your question #1, YES! Every criminal defendant is entitled to a defense. If the lawyer knows that his client is guilty, the lawyer cannot call the defendant to testify if he knows that he will claim that he is not guilty. The defendant does have a right to testify, but the lawyer cannot do anything to encourage or help the defendant do that and must advise the defendant to not testify. The obligations of the defense attorney are simply to make sure the defendant gets a fair trial and a fair sentence.

For Question #2, I am not sure how to answer this. A defense attorney can investigate his client's claims and the allegations against him, but I am not sure I would go so far as to go view the bodies myself. On the other hand, I don't know any other way to confirm what the client is saying. The lawyer could absolutely not tell the police to go and check it out, unless the client was okay with him doing that.

For #3, this episode, like many Law and Order episodes is based on a real case, with a lot of creative license. The case I learned about in law school involved similar circumstances, but the lawyer never actually went to look at any bodies. I don't recall the name of the case, but I will try to find it. The client in the real case told the lawyer the location of something like ten or twenty bodies, many of which were young girls that lived in the small community where the lawyer worked. The lawyer never told where the bodies were. I don't know if the DA tried to prosecute, but the lawyer's career was pretty much ruined anyway. The defendant was sentenced to life in prison I think, and he may have died in prison and the lawyer still couldn't tell where the bodies were.

A good lesson for lawyers, don't let your clients tell you where the bodies are.

Answer 3

whats up Rita, There are very, very few jurisdictions interior america which will help you take a seat down for the Bar without attending regulation college. of those jurisdictions, the necessities for non-regulation college applicants is very severe, to the ingredient the place you're able to besides in simple terms bypass to regulation college. yet your question become greater why. nicely, there are 2 reasons. First, the prepare of regulation bargains with human beings's rights, freedom, and sources. we are actually not speaking a role here the place, in case you decrease to rubble, somebody gets the incorrect soup. we are speaking a pair of interest the place, in case you decrease to rubble, somebody can bypass to detention center for the subsequent 15 years. Or Constitutional rights could be eroded. Or somebody loses a multi-million dollar contract. Or somebody gets fired. because of this, there's a licensing physique that ensures that people who prepare interior the sector have a minimum of a modicum of professional education. by utilising getting a licensing physique, the education can be regulated (all colleges could desire to coach a undeniable first 3 hundred and sixty 5 days curriculum, all scholars could desire to take ethics instructions, etc...). 2d, having a licensing physique enables you to constrain the form of those entering the profession. mutually as not a capability exercised plenty those days, a licensing physique can decrease the form admitted to the Bar each 3 hundred and sixty 5 days, subsequently with the intention that people who do attend regulation college have jobs afterwards. it quite is not something that's been occurring, although, and the ABA has come under fireplace at the instant for it.

Answer 4

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A GOOD LAWYER AND A
GREAT LAWYER IS, A GOOD LAWYER KNOWS THE LAW,
A GREAT LAWYER KNOWS THE JUDGE!!!!!

Answer 5

read about this case-is that real enough for you?
http://www.enquirer.com/midday/03/03042004_News_mday_erica04.html