No, for once I'm afraid Alec has it wrong...
Posted on 10/10/2016 4:08:04 PM PDT by Mean Daddy
I understand the right to counsel. However, it does not include making false allegations against the key witness. Nor does it include tampering with or losing the evidence against your client.
It is interesting that at this last debate she kept hammering home her history as an advocate of women and children being one of her stronger points.
Really?
The record?!?
It is reported that she destroyed evidence.
A little off subject but I just turned on my TV and it was stuck on Fox news from something I was watching earlier
And there was Megyn Kelly having a fit over a hand on a crotch
She just love saying that poor woman she’s so needy
And attorneys do have a right to not represent someone reprehensible... even if appointed by a judge.
Lawyers do not have to take clients - even if appointed by a judge. They do have out clauses.
“Should a lawyer refuse to take up cases where the client is clearly guilty?
9 ANSWERS
Cliff Gilley
Cliff Gilley, JD cum laude, Seattle University Class of 2000; comments on Quora are not int...
Written 13 Aug 2014
That’s entirely up to the lawyer, unless they’re a public defender — in which case they work the cases assigned to them unless there’s a compelling reason to change attorneys.
One of the fundamental principles of American jurisprudence is that someone accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the State beyond a reasonable doubt. Combined with the protections against unreasonable search & seizure, self-incrimination, and other Constitutional restrictions on State power, it is the duty of an attorney to represent their client to the best of their ability, and to hold the State to their standard of proof.
There are many situations where someone is “clearly” guilty, but the State has overstepped its boundaries and illegally obtained evidence. In those cases, the defendant has an attorney to bring the State to bear on their violations of the defendant’s rights, and to assert any applicable defenses permitted by law. And, if it is demonstrated that the State acted illegally, such evidence is (and should be) disqualified from presentation. If that then leads to the release of the defendant, it’s not the defense attorney’s actions that caused that result, it was the overbearing actions by the State.
Now, not every attorney is cut out to be a criminal defense attorney, and that’s their prerogative. And a private attorney may choose to decline to represent a client for any non-discriminatory reason they choose, including that the evidence is overwhelming that the client is guilty. But that doesn’t mean that all attorneys should do so - that would leave a defendant entirely defenseless against the abuses of the State, and any country founded on the Rule of Law should realize that is unacceptable.
5.1k Views · View Upvotes
This answer is not a substitute for professional legal advice.... “
Hillary failed passing the bar exam in NY or DC
If she was smart enough to pass she would never have taken this case.
“That’s what the Constitution requires.”
Sorry but you lie.
Judge sounds like a moron
And a reprobate.
“but afterwards she gloated. That’s what I think is evil.”
I agree with you. That is the evil part.
“I’m a lawyer. I have defended people who “did it.”
If you knew they did it and tried to claim they didn’t you’re a perfect representation of everything that’s wrong with your profession.
What Hillary did was unethical and you know it.
L
Thank you for giving us a lawyer's perspective. Does the Constitution require lawyers to laugh about it later when telling other people about humiliating a 12 year old who was raped to save a nasty scumbag who deserved to be lynched? That seems a little insensitive to some people, but most of us are not lawyers.
Huh. Imagine that. The media attacking a child who was raped. Just like Hitlery.
Stay classy, Fox News.
Disagree. Her wrongfulness is in her laughing about her rape victim opponent.
Don’t forget that our country is about defending the accused against the government, that you’re innocent until proven guilty, and that every defendant is entitled to require the prosecution prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. That is our judicial heritage and it is a good one.
A lawyer is doing his sworn duty to require the government to prove its case. If the government can’t prove its case, the defendant should go free. Otherwise you have tribunals of terror.
No, for once I'm afraid Alec has it wrong...
Her case never came to trial-- it ended in a plea bargain-- so it's hard to say. Even harder for me to say, because I haven't represented anyone accused of a sex crime in almost 30 years; my practice today is white-collar crime (mostly tax evasion) and civil litigation.
I never defended the laughing.
Yes, because most public defenders are overworked and underpaid. Which is why we read every week about someone serving a long prison sentence who is exonerated by DNA evidence.
It is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.