Posted on 01/30/2003 12:46:28 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Huh? I thought the entire defense part of the system was to protect the rights of those accused, including the guilty. For example, say a shoplifter is caught. His attorney is there to make sure that he does not get the death penalty, that the prosecution does not take advantage of his ignorance of the legal process, and that the accused's rights are not violated... even though he is guilty.
I would think that the prosecutorial part of the system is the part that is in place to protect the innocent public. Yes, the defense part has the exceedingly important job to protect a falsely accused innocent, but that is not a limit.
Clara Harris was okay with her husband's affair too.
On the other hand, it doesn't take much to "plague" Northern San Joaquin "Investigators." They probably couldn't find a manatee in your bathtub, unless it had a loud muffler or was a phoned-in tip from one of their protected informers who was involved in the crime.
Huh?
I could do a better job refuting my point in a dismissal of your thesis than you do in making it.
You are missing the whole point of the criminal justice system in the first place. We defend the "rights" of the guilty to defend the rights of the innocent. Since we generally don't know the guilty from innocent, we presume innocence. Every defendent is innocent until convicted.
The problem comes in when the "innocent" makes it impossible for the defense attorney to maintain the presumption of innocence. Showing him where the bodies are is one example of this. At that point, the ethical thing to do is resign the case and tell the defendent to shut the hell up, then do the moral thing by making an anonymous call to the police pointing them to the relevant evidence. Academically, this may be a breach of ethics, but only an academic needs to care about it.
It is worth noting that if the lawyer, Belge, who was told the location of a body, had not actually gone out to that location, he might not have been charged with the public health violations. Had he not gone out there to see the body for himself, there is no way he could have been charged with obstruction of justice. (I realize he wasn't charged with obstruction of justice anyway.)
What a client tells a lawyer in confidence should be as though it were never spoken.
I feel extreme sympathy for Laci's family, not even knowing where the bodies of their loved ones lie. But once a person is dead, their spirit, the most important part of them, is no longer a part of their body. Laci's family knows that her spirit, and Connor's spirit, are still as alive as ever.
Another point: how is this lawyer, who has probably just met the defendant long after the occurrence of the crime, to know that the defendant is guilty? Is he supposed to be possessed of greater investigative and cognitive powers than a whole police force? Is the fact that the defendant says it enough to make it true? If the lawyer wasn't there, and wasn't privy to any on-the-spot evidence that it was his client who committed the crime, how is he supposed to have this omniscent certain knowledge of the defendant's guilt?
If a criminal defendant repeatedly tells his lawyer he is innocent, and the lawyer breaks confidence and tells the public, "he is innocent--I have learned that directly from him," the public will laugh in the lawyer's face. If a criminal defendant tells his lawyer he is guilty, and the lawyer breaks confidence and tells the public, "he is guilty--I have learned that directly from him," the public will say, "Do tell! Glad we solved that one! Next!"
The people who are currently keening about the moral bankruptcy of all lawyers now, are the same ones who complain when the press and others offer an opinion such as "oh, he did it--we just know he did it, all the signs point to it." These complainers answer that opinion by screaming, "WHATEVER HAPPENED TO INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY?"
So why do they give lawyers an oath which contains these things when they admit them to the bar?
Rebekah Miller disappeared less than 1 mile from the Peterson home just 2 months prior.
Exactly--we generally don't know.
As for your scenario about the lawyer, being told by the client where the bodies are, resigning, that is also a good suggestion. As you said, he could then call in the information to the police.
Of course, if the former client finds out it was his ex-attorney who gave incriminating information about the ex-client to the police, the ex-client will sue the attorney for damages if he is convicted. But what the heck, what's a little ol' lawsuit that will probably result in monetary loss for the attorney? At least the attorney has the satisfaction of knowing he has done the right thing.
Being satisfied that you have done the right thing is worth more than any money. I just wish more contractors, salesmen, credit card companies, telemarketers, politicians, zoning board members, storekeepers, insurance adjustors, stockbrokers, bankers, cable companies, utility companies, HMO's, postal workers, and other persons would take that to heart.
In the Westerfild trial, a large volume of evidence was left unanalyzed by the police, allegedly because of time constraints. But when Dusek noticed the pattern of pictures of police wearing orange in the photos Feldman was submitting to the court, he was able to get on the phone and have the police analyze the fibers of everything orange that was owned or possessed by all LEO associated with the case in a few days.
To me, this demonstrated an manifest collusion between the prosecutors and the police to selectively analyze or ignore evidence, in service of the goals of the prosecution in the case, and to decieve the court as to the reasons for the unavailability of some evidence. Collusion, and conspiracy to obstruct justice, whether Westerfield did it or not.
So, let me pose this question to this thoughtful group: How do a prosecutor's legal ethics and obligations compare to a defense lawyer's ethics and obligations?
That is a might big if.
Here's mine:
If the attorney in question can't handle an anonymous telephone call without giving himself away, the money won't be his long anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.