They also can't let the client take the stand and lie, and if the client lies, the lawyer has to disclose that to the court. However, just because the client shot the victim doesn't mean that the client is guilty. Maybe it was self defense. Maybe it was an accident, which would make it manslaughter, not murder. Edit: also, the prosecution still ...
As the defense attorney's job is to protect their client to the best of their ability (as implicitly defined under their job as a representative of the client) and to preserve the integrity of the court, they would be in a heap of trouble from the magistrate if found out after the fact that they knowingly let their client lie under oath.
I'm not a cop basher. I support the police overall, and I'm grateful for everything they do. BUT cops lie a LOT. Even when I know my client is guilty, it still pisses me off to see a cop blatantly lie about something I know to be untrue. A big part of my job is making sure that ethical lines aren't crossed by "the good guys."
The job of a defence lawyer is to cast doubt, the prosecution is the one that has to convince you that the accused party actually committed the crime. level 2. · 8 yr. ago. That should be obvious. Unfortunately reddit is full of people who are far too quick to punish. level 2. · 8 yr. ago.
The job of defense lawyers is to try to help their clients avoid being found guilty. The legal profession thinks this makes sense because there are rules to be followed in proving a case and those rules have value in themselves, even if sometimes the rules prevent a guilty person from being found guilty.
If the evidence is dismissed, the prosecutor could decide not to press the matter cause they have to prove that the accused was in possession of evidence that he cannot show the jury. Conversely, a defense lawyer might strongly recomend that his client take a deal in order to minimize jail time.
Also Number 4 is a generalization about individual officers. There are in fact officers who strive to follow the law and do things correctly. The problem is that too often the system doesn't care about the officers who don't. Almost all criminal defendants are, in fact, guilty.
Furthermore, what if the lawyer was wrong in their belief that the client was guilty, but continued to act for them and let that belief influence how well they defended the client? Then if the client was convicted, the lawyer would be at least partly responsible for a great injustice. Furthermore, whilst the client can appeal a judge or jury’s decision, if the lawyer decided their client was guilty and let that affect their performance, that would not be a ground for appeal unless that could somehow be proven (which in practice may be very hard to do). It would be extremely improper and dangerous for a lawyer to engage in such hubris.
The first reason why it is perfectly ethical to defend a client who the lawyer knows or believes is guilty is that the lawyer is not the person whose role it is to decide whether or not the client is guilty. As Johnathan Goldberg has said, “a defending advocate is not there to stand in judgment upon his own client”.
Nevertheless, in Australia there are clear rules for lawyers in this situation. Client confidentiality. One important rule that applies is client confidentiality. Even if a client confesses to the lawyer, the lawyer is still bound by confidentiality to not disclose that communication to others. If the lawyer is ever called as a witness in court ...
The lawyer must not in any way seek to interfere with that right. Criminal defendant lawyers have often represented clients who they thought were guilty but who wished to plead not guilty.