Scott Peterson's Lawyer May Have a Hobson's Choice: Laci's husband could jeopardize own lawyer

FrontpageMagazine.com ^ | Thursday, January 30, 2003 | By Henry Mark Holzer

[JohnHuang2]

Thursday, January 30, 2003

Quote of the Day by Buckhead

[TheFilter]

Peterson might be evil, but he's no idiot. Like he would tell his attorney he killed his wife and where he hid the body?

[DB]

The legal system's goal of justice was derailed when it was decided that a lawyer's job is to hide the guilt of his client as opposed to the defense of his innocents. There is a difference.

[gonzo]

"...The legal system's goal of justice was derailed when it was decided that a lawyer's job is to hide the guilt of his client as opposed to the defense of his innocents. There is a difference..."

DB, it's been a long time since my ethics course, (even engineers had to take one) but one of the cornerstones of lawyering used to be that as an officer-of-the-court, a lawyer could not knowingly defend a guilty client. I believe that was the reason O J Simpsons' first lawyer ran away from him - O J admitted it.

Of course, ethics left the legal community long ago...

Good to see you, pal...........FRegards

[gonzo]

Sorry - good morning, John. Stay well, Pancho.........FRegards

[shezza]

The California statute admonishes him "to maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself to preserve the secrets, of his client."

Doesn't seem moral, truthful, or just. How can a lawyer perpetuate what he knows is a lie and expect to maintain his perceived integrity? This is absurd. Sure, the guilty has a right to not incriminate himself, but accomplices (including lawyers) knowing guilt and subsequently refuting that factual guilt in a court of law, in the halls of justice, is immoral.

I notice how witnesses are required to take an oath to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (so help me, God)." Lawyers are not required to do ANYTHING except protect their clients at all cost--not uphold the law, not to protect the innocent, not to serve justice, not to defend the Constitution, not to even do what is right and decent and honest. No wonder people hate lawyers so much.

[CaliGirlGodHelpMe]

With all due respect, I believe you are missing the point; as was Mr. Holzer, from his illogical argument in comparing apples and oranges re the Garrow-Belge matter, to his very unlikely scenario with Peterson admitting his guilt to his attorney, to his inappropriate use of the appellation "Hobson's choice", in the title, no less.

Nobody but the guilty LIKES the fact that sometimes criminal defense attorneys must deliberately hide facts pointing to the guilt of their clients, including direct evidence; but that is the way our criminal justice system was designed. It's adversarial - not a search for truth, but a prosecution vs. defense format, that best protects the interests of those defendants who may APPEAR guilty, or whose guilt was established by illegal means, e.g., a warrantless search or an interrogation without Miranda rights.

Criminal defense lawyers go into that field for varying reasons, but they all must accept that sometimes they will find themselves defending the guilty, and when that happens, they have to remind themselves that THIS IS OUR SYSTEM; it's better in theory to let 10 guilty men go than to wrongfully imprison 1 innocent one. Of course, if it should get REALLY horrendous, like if Peterson was found to have murdered 6 more young women, then most attorneys would find a way to bail, using the excuse that their client was not "forthcoming" with them.

BTW, in my opinion Peterson would NEVER admit his guilt to anyone - he has repeatedly demonstrated his ability to keep calm and quiet under pressure, why would he break his silence with the one person who can defend him?

[Bluntpoint]

What cannot be defended is when the attorney is aware of the guilt of their client and they purposely drag innocent people in front of the jury as if they are guilty, destroying lives and reputations in their wake.

[RWG]

(love-struck pregnant girl-friend drowned by social-climbing fiancé)...a Kennedy spin-off?

[Slyfox]

If I were the lawyer in such a predicament, I think I would anonymously call the police hotline and leave them a hint. They'd then figure out the rest.

I don't think Scott told her about the other woman. I think Laci figured it out and confronted him about it. She would've been understandibly upset and something probably got out of hand. If he had planned it, I don't think he would've chosen the day before Christmas.

But still, accident or not, that wouldn't make him any less guilty if he diposed of her body, instead of calling the police.

[CaliGirlGodHelpMe]

Agreed; it cannot be defended. I think that hardly ever happens, though. Example: OJ's attorneys posited that Nicole was murdered by a Columbian drug cartel, hence the "Columbian necktie." They didn't go around L.A. rounding up Cali cartel members to appear on the stand though!

[Bluntpoint]

As an attorney, I have seen it happen a number of times in civil trials and a few times in criminal.

Some attorneys are nothing but hired whores.

[DB]

For my enlightenment, where in the constitution or our founding traditions does it spell out it is a lawyers job to knowingly hide his clients guilt verses defend his clients innocents?

[RGSpincich]

Bump

[DB]

Really.

You don't think that is exactly what David Westerfield's lawyer did during his trial?

[Bluntpoint]

When you catch a used car salesman cheating they are embarrassed.

Catch an attorney and you will get a lecture on how you do not understand the legal system.

Priceless!!!

[runningbear]

thanks RG.... Back yet?... Pinging...

[wimpycat]

This is an interesting article. It explains a lot why defense attorneys never ask their client if he/she is guilty.

[CatoRenasci]

It's not that an attorney cannot defend a client he knows is guilty, rather an attorney cannot (i) assert the innocence of a client he knows is guilty (i.e. he can say "the state must prove x, y and z in order for you to convict, and it has not", but not "my client did not commit the crime") or (ii) suborn perjury by permitting a client to testify falsely. If a client insists on testifying, and suggests he will lie, the lawyer must refuse to put him on or resign from the case.

[hopespringseternal]

I do not speak as a lawyer, but as a citizen the courts are supposed to serve.

The problem with such a system is that when it hides direct evidence, such as a body, it defeats the very purpose for which it exists.

No one in their right mind would suggest such an arrangement. Attorney-client priviledge taken to such extremes is an abuse. The defense part of the system is in place to protect the innocent, not the guilty.

If a lawyer resigns himself to being hated and thought scum because he hides such information then he is scum. The moral imperative dwarfs even the legal system itself. Lawyers are members of yet another profession that feel themselves above morality. Morality is the reason for the system in the first place.

Academic discussions aside, there are ways to divulge information anonymously.