Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Illbay
He doesn't have to "throw" [a case where the defendent is "probably" guilty]. If he has a shred of morality, he tells the judge that he cannot continue as attorney, on ethical and moral grounds.

If all lawyers did this, no defendent who was "probably" guilty could ever get a defense.
245 posted on 09/20/2002 7:16:21 AM PDT by Stone Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies ]


To: Stone Mountain
If all lawyers did this, no defendent who was "probably" guilty could ever get a defense.

Say that you are an honest, moral person who happens to be a defense lawyer.

You want justice. Are you going to abandon a client because you THINK the MIGHT be guilty? No. But you're going to insist on the truth. You're going to make the prosecution prove it's case.

But say you come across a defendant who says "look, tell the DA I'll tell 'em where the child's body was dumped if they'll drop the death penalty. We'll talk about maybe 20 years or whatever. Offer 'em that."

So you do, and then the body is recovered. What do you do then?

No, sorry, you don't proceed along trying to get your client off. You don't try to do so by LYING. You KNOW he did it; he's told you so. So you're supposed so serve some sort of "greater good" by pretending that you really think some one else did it?

Sorry, this is just an untenable side of this argument. You people are trying to make this a noble thing, and it's not. It's just SLEAZY.

250 posted on 09/20/2002 8:17:09 AM PDT by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson