13 year old girl, which was heavily covered by the media, why did the court-appointed lawyers help one guy get off? he admitted having sex with her but was innocent in her murder. you all can look it up on http:www.acadiananow.com look up the alexuia feast murder. this guy last name is Gross got off. please, why in this highly publicized case did the court-appointed lawyers work so hard in help getting him off? what can the court-appointed lawyers get out of this? it must be something
2007-03-27 13:11:32 · 3 answers · asked by Beaujock 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
has anyone researched
http://www.acadiananow.com
2007-03-27 14:31:46 · update #1
all attorneys have a duty to the client to zealously defend him, regardless of how he became the client. the sad fact of that highly moral and ethical self-regulated professional virtue is that sometimes a good attorney gets a clearly guilty man free. but the legal system depends on the confidence and competence of attorneys representing clients, court appointed or walk through the door.
some states require attorneys to perform certain number of pro bono hours. the legal profession is only one that self regulates ethics of members. attorneys can be disbarred.
2007-03-27 13:18:24 · answer #1 · answered by Jason W 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This is only speculation in guessing what the court appointed attorneys got out of this. First of all, most court appointed lawyers are recent graduates who just became lawyers. By getting someone off on a charge, this only increases the lawyers chance of getting a better job at a law firm, because wouldn't you want to hire someone that can get clients off? afterall, it is the lawyers job to protect others and minimize charges.
2007-03-28 12:28:18 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lawyers are duty-bounded to serve people, whatever they maybe,whether murderous , phedophilic goons or poor folks, whether your rich or richer, to poor to starving to death, all people deserve/have the right to be defended in court.
If you are a lawyer appointed to serve one person, you always have the choice to defend him or not, but would that do good if you don't defend him? He is also a person so a trial to separate the "truths from fallacies" should be conducted to see if he is really guilty or just innocent.
2007-03-27 20:23:13 · answer #3 · answered by JD 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋