THREE HARD LAW QUESTIONS - answers needed!!?

Question

1. Is it proper to cross-examine for the purpose of discrediting the reliability or credibility of an adverse witness whom you know to be telling the truth?

2. Is it proper to put a witness on the stand when you know he will commit perjury?

3. Is it proper to give your client legal advice when you have reason to believe that the knowledge you give him will tempt him to commit perjury?


Lawyers please help me!!

Thank you - the best answer will be choosen accordingly.

Answer 1

1. You are no one to know the opposite witness is telling the truth. It is your duty to only discredit his testimony if you can.
2. If he is the witness of the opposite party - Yes.
3. Protect your client. If he can get away with giving what you believe to be false testimony to help his case, by all means help your client. If there is scope for him to get caught and get charged for perjury take care. But again in the re-examination if you have scope to cover up, by all means go ahead in the interest of your clients case.
Your duty is to win your clients case. You are not the judge to decide whether the witnesses evidence is true or false. Let the judge decide that.

Answer 2

1. Yes. You are attempting to raise doubt, not necessarily impugn the facts stated. It is up to the jury to decide what motives the witness may have. It is a fine line to walk, but if done right, you will say volumes without really saying anything, just asking subversive questions.

2. No. It can get you disbarred. That is suborning perjury. However, what you 'know' is a subjective term. You are not a witness to the crime, so you really don't KNOW anything. Of course, that also depends on a lot of variables.

3. Depends. If all you do is tell him what another witness says in a deposition, and that leads him to align his testimony accordingly, that is his problem. You cannot withhold pertinent info. in order to protect your client from doing anything. Leading him to commit perjury, on the other hand, by making suggestions about the info, is another matter.

These general questions are kind of hard to answer succinctly. There are so many variables/circumstances that will change the answers. It helps when there is a 'for instance' attached to the question.

Answer 3

Number 1. It is unethical, but most attorneys are out for the win, not ethics. And if they do not win, the client is unhappy. As such, attorneys are something of whores, and admit to such. In a criminal case, it is the job of the jurors to figure out the labyrinth the attorney have spun, and each client is , as you know, innocent, until proven guilty.
Number 2. Often, the attorney has no choice, and it is hope the legal opposition in not sharp enough to find out. If, however, the witness is simply unreliable, the jury again is stuck with sorting out who is telling the truth and who is not, particularly if the opposing side can show evidence of unreliability, or that the testimony was given in exchange for a lighter sentence.
Number three. It is unethical. Actually, attorneys aren't really all that interested in the truth, they are interested in presenting a case, which if done properly they hope to win. As a paid employee of the client, indeed it their job.

Answer 4

If I`am 62 and have never saw a lawyer tell the truth how would I know they want let me breath in courts ? I live in Tennesse Little GITMO on my stolen homeland in this county because I did not know the Law stole me when I was born and let the county and country play and LIE to me Like we had a real government ?
On TV ? Because I bought a Deed from the wrong family I thought was mine ?

Answer 5

I am not a lawyer however these sound more like ethical questions so just for the sake of reference;

SURE

NO WAY

No one's telling him to perjure himself.