Permit me to remind you that:
Rule 5-200 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct provides that: "In presenting a matter to a tribunal, a member:
(A) Shall employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to the member such means only as are consistent with truth;
(B) Shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law; . . ."
In addition, Section 6068(d) of the California Business & Professions Code, states that it is the duty of an attorney:
"To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him or her such means only as are consistent with truth, and never to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law."
Well what about the part where it says: "such means only as are consistent with truth"?
Do you have a copy of Black's Law Dictionary? I would really like to know what its definition of `artifice' is.
I tried search on Nolo.com, but "artifice" turned up no entries.
My only point is that, to me, it is not apparent that the attorneys knew for certain of Westerfield's guilt when they were "brokering" their plea agreement. I stated my reasons for thinking this in my earlier post. I may ultimately be proven wrong, but from O'Reilly's characterization that fact is not proven, in my opinion.
If the attorneys did not have direct knowledge of Westerfield's guilt, then advancing an alternate theory of the crime would not be inconsistent with truth.