I said when you KNOW your client is guilty as sin. Not when he's been charged with something he didn't do.
I said when you KNOW your client is guilty as sin. Not when he's been charged with something he didn't do.
A very astute and learned defense attorney once told me that it wasn't the job of a defense to establish guilt or innocense of their client. To a lawyer,it was immaterial. It was their sole purpose to be sure to test all Crown evidence and to ensure the accused got fair representation at trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by M_P
And how would you know?Quote:
Originally Posted by M_P
If you knew your lawyer was obliged to tell the court you were guilty if you admitted guilt, would you admit guilt to your lawyer? So then, how would the lawyer know?
I have had quite a few lawyer friends over the years, and they've all said the same thing. And they don't like defending guilty parties who insist on pleading not guilty, because it's just a PITA and the guy usually ends up convicted anyway. Real life is not a TV legal drama.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
The one thing I'd add is that when you're accused of a crime, there's a chance you don't even know if you're guilty, because chances are good that you don't know the law -- i.e. that you don't know what the elements of the offence are. We've seen that on this very board.
Actually I agree with Welsh that he abandoned his duty. And I'll bet you a bottle of single malt to a value not exceeding $200 that ole Stan is never criminally prosecuted over the circumstances being discussed.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Ken Deane testified that he believed Dudley George had a rifle in his hands. There was independent evidence to support this.
The crown chose to prosecute this respected officer and lo and behold the trial judge didnt believe the officers testimony. Well what judge would in that political climate?
So Sgt.Deane was convicted of Crim Neg Causing Death.
Obviously Tex should have said he was shooting at a deer.
The bush got a lot less safe recently.
To back up welsh's point about a lawyer making up stories and hiding evidence for his client. Paul Bernardo's lawyer, Ken Murray, was charged criminally and faced professional charges because he hid videotapes for his client instead of turning them over to the crown.
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/24/wo...r-at-risk.html
I think a lot of people owe welsh an apology right now.
Welsh is right in what lawyers can and cannot do. Where he is wrong is that many lawyers skirt these rules - and get away with it most of the time.
In the Pembroke "drunk driving denstist" case (Christy Natsis), prior to her breathalyzer, her lawyer had her on the phone for 40 minutes and the police finally made her take the breathalyzer before her call was complete. Now her lawyer is disputing the breathalyzer results based on her not having had legal counsel. Pretty clear the lawyer was just going to keep her on the phone until she sobered up.
That a lawyer that can't provide adequate council on a drunk driving fatality in 40 minutes is a bit of a stretch.
And Mr. Murray was acquitted....
There may be honorable defense attorneys out there but there are many that I wonder how they sleep at night - Ken Murray being one of them. After knowing about the existence of said tapes, how do you morally continue to defend an animal like Bernardo. How do you defend a Rafferty or Picton, or Magnotta or Olsen or...........These cases are a whole lot more different that Stan's here but you do have a guy that admitted to pulling the trigger on a hail mary shot from a roadway at what he THOUGHT was a deer, and a another guy standing up and telling the world that he's not guilty of careless and that it's the dead guys fault.
The moral of the story is to think up a good lie BEFORE you call your lawyer. Then stick with it.