I don't agree. Sometime ago I was required to appear for jury duty. The case involved an individual accused of 1st degree assault, assault and something else. He was held for 24 monrhs before this trial.
We had to fill out a questionnaire. I added to it that the individual should fess up to his crime and take his punishment and then get his life straightened out.
Needless to say, I was called before the judge. I was told that we assume innocent until proven guilty. I didn't back off. Ultimately, I was excused.
Then I began to research the maxim of innocent until proven guilty. It came from an 1894 Supreme Court decision, Coffin vs U.S. Justice White wrote the majority opinion quoting liberally from the writing of an Irish lawyer who defended Irish rebels. But, only after turning them into the Crown and then getting to defend them.
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.... “
Judge sounds like a moron
And a reprobate.