2007-03-01 06:13:24 · 4 answers · asked by PATTI 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Even the guilty are entitled to due process. Most defense attorneys don't spend any time pondering whether or not they truly believe their clients are guilty. Their job is to defend them zealously and, more importantly, to make sure that the prosecutor follows the rules in prosecuting them. A criminal case isn't so much about finding out the "truth." In most cases, the objective truth can't even be known. The case is about following the rules and procedures. If procedure is followed then "justice" is presumed to have been done.
Think about it. If cases and trials were about finding out the truth, then why would we have exclusionary rules about what can and cannot be admitted as evidence? Any evidence with relevance should be admissable if all we want to know is the truth. But it's not all admissable, because the trial is all about procedure. And the attorneys serve as checks and balances to one another to try to assure that the procedure is followed and as fair as it can be.
2007-03-01 06:31:06 · answer #1 · answered by jurydoc 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, in the first place, it's not up to anyone but a jury to decide if a defendant is guilty - assuming it's a jury trial. Guilt or innocence is not an attorney's job, presenting eveidence to establish that a person is innocent or guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, is however.
2007-03-01 14:26:46 · answer #2 · answered by Spud55 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
what a lawyer thinks and knows are two different things.
It is OK if a lawyer defends someone who he thinks is guilty. However, if a lawyer knows that a defendant is guilty, he must recuse himself from the case.
2007-03-01 14:20:25 · answer #3 · answered by Jack Chedeville 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That would just about wipe out the legal system wouldn't it?
2007-03-01 14:20:47 · answer #4 · answered by jaypea40 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋