There is agreement that the role of the defense attorney is to force the prosecution to follow the rules and prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The problem lies in the fact the defense lawyers apparently knew that he was guilty based on the efforts to plea bargain by offering information leading the police to the girl's body. In this situation, the laywers are obligated to defend their client but they cannot ethically produce confusing alternative crime scenarios that they know are false (e.g., implication of the son, and the mysterious third party that may have had access to the house owing to the parents life style, etc.).
O'Riley was over the edge but based on the newspaper accounts,lawyers were technically in violation of their duties, too.
It is interesting that the San Diego Union-Tribune was suing Judge Mudd in court to release the secret hearing transcripts during the trial citing the public's right to know.
Then they turn around after the trial and print a story citing "unnamed LE sources". What about the public's right to know. This story is useless without a name.
This story reminds me of the ones that came out of the "Clinton War Room". And this is an election year for SD District Attn.