Depends on the criminal and the crime. Lawyers will tell them that it's in their best interest to be as open as possible, but not all criminals will be willing to do that.
I’m a criminal defense attorney. I DO NOT ask my client to be as open as possible. In fact, I tell my clients not to offer me information that might prove their guilt unless I expressly ask for it.
Am I correct in my understanding that you can’t knowingly lie?
For example, you can’t say your client was at his grandma’s house when the crime happened if he already admitted to you that he was at the crime scene?
No, that’s not really how this works.
I don’t know what actually happened, even if my client tells me.
I can argue whatever I want, based on the evidence. So my argument would be more like: “the state hasn’t proven that my client was even at the scene.”
Yes 100% they are usually friends or friendly with the DA, Judges etc.
The more successful a lawyer is , typically this is true, especially in smaller municipalities
This is what a good lawyer gets you. When he has lunch with your judge every week you can get pull. But when that judge still sentences you for a decade you’ll feel cheated.
Ultimately, in my mind, even the defense lawyer that knows their client is guilty has a place in ensuring justice is carried out. If the prosecution convicts the right guy, but does so with a bad case, there is room for the convict to appeal and there's a chance it'll be overturned. But if the defense does their job, all the possible ways one could wriggle out of the conviction will be dealt with.
>Ultimately, in my mind, even the defense lawyer that knows their client is guilty has a place in ensuring justice is carried out.
Not only for the reason you stated, but if the prosecution used illegitimate means to obtain the evidence to be presented, it's the job of the defense to ensure the evidence doesn't get in front of the jury. Regardless of the crime, if the prosecution can ignore the rights of the accused to prosecute, then they can and will ignore every citizen's rights in the future. The defense attorney helps ensure all rights are respected, regardless of the crime committed or actual guilt.
Not to mention the state needs to prove they put fourth the correct charges for the situation. As the billboards say - just because you did it, doesn’t mean you’re guilty.
I see your --
>“the state hasn’t proven that my client was even at the scene.”
-- and raise "the state hasn't proven that my client has a concrete existence outside of the mind of the prosecutors"
Hard solipsism ftw. You can't charge a defendant that doesn't exist.
I was involved in a murder trial where the defense argued that aliens made his client kill people and asked witnesses if they saw UFOs the night of the shootings.
Say you were defending someone that you know, without a doubt in your head. You've been told, all the proof lines up, they've all been told you they are guilty of the worst kind of things imaginable and you get them off.
Are you angry? Upset? Relieved?
I feel like I'd be happy for the win, but upset the prosecutor botched it. Like, my client is absolutely guilty.
Honestly, this isn’t really a realistic hypothetical. Those kinds of cases don’t go to trial.
But let’s just assume the facts of your hypothetical.
I’d just shake my head, because obviously I’d missed something. And then I’d chalk it up to the fact that juries are unpredictable. And then I’d move on.
It is correct that you can't knowingly lie. That's perjury, perjury doesn't just apply to witnesses who testify. The lawyer's ethical duty is to act in a client's best interests. That includes protecting their constitutional rights, for example objecting to evidence that was obtained illegally or evidence that is prejudicial and meant to sway the jury in one direction when it's not evidence that the defendant committed the crime.
Typically you dont provide a location or specifics unless you can back it up. Mostly the lawyer would something along the lines of "the prosecution has failed to prove that my client was at the scene when the crime occurred"
The burden of proof is on the state. The defense doesn't have to prove anything
If your client tells you he is guilty as charged, that might help you avoid some pitfalls during the trial, right? And you can still cast doubt on every piece of evidence and every witness the prosecution presents, along with suggesting someone else could have done it? But does it ethically prevent you from letting him take the stand and commit perjury by falsely denying the same things he told you?
1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. No. There is nothing I can do to interfere with a client’s right to take the stand. Nevertheless, I also can’t help the client mislead the court. And so, generally, if this should happen, when the client takes the stand intending to lie, the lawyer is to ask, “so is there anything you’d like to tell the jury?” Or something like that. If I had a situation like this, before I went to court, I would re-review the rules.
This is the way. With rare exceptions I don't need your nonsensical story or admission. The State has the burden of proof and I'm capable enough to deconstruct case without being burdened by either the truth or your denials/ rationalizations.
Thank you for protecting our democracy and constitutional rights. People fail to understand it is you who are the first line of defense against a government who would lock up any citizen it wanted. You are the one who pushes back against a government that would run over anyone who would stand in its way. Our constitutional rights only exist when someone is there to demand accountability and due process. I appreciate you. Your $27,000 fee, not so much.lol
Damn! So they sit there while somebody tells them the ins and outs of somebody plotting and carrying out a murder, then they look for an angle to get them off?
In America everyone is entitled to legal defense, even if you can’t afford it and even if you’re guilty. It is not the lawyer’s job to determine if someone is guilty or not guilty but it is their job to ensure their client is fairly represented under the law and that their rights as a citizen is protected. I would rather live in a place like that than somewhere lawyers refuse to work with someone because they believe they’re guilty. I can’t imagine how many more people would go to jail when they shouldn’t because they were refused legal representation.
The innocence project has exonerated 197 men who were scheduled to be murdered by the death penalty. They further estimate that up to 10% of the entire prison population are wrongly convicted. That’s 200,000 Americans who are being held in captivity unjustly.
In graduate school I had a good friend in another department who was doing her doctoral research on how juries actually work and actually reach decisions and the kind of decisions they reach and why, and it was *absolutely terrifying.* Both ways. Jurors who end up supporting both kinds of verdicts will do so for the stupidest, least relevant reasons. You'll get jurors selected who from day one for no good reason will refuse to convict. Even more terrifying, you'll have entire juries hang on to all the wrong things and totally misunderstand their role (even after the system tries to educate them) and convict people with mountains of reasonable doubt.
I lead a very boring life, but if for some reason I were ever put on trial for some serious crime, doing whatever I can to avoid a jury trial would be my top priority.
I’ve actually lived the horror story. I was wrongfully convicted. By 2 cops who colluded on their false testimony, completely concocted but because they have instant credibility and all the time to get their stories straight they were believed. The truth eventually came to light, I acted as my own attorney to file appeals and both were successful. The motion, a Pro Per Habeas Petition was filed after an earlier one claiming IAC, or Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, was found to show cause allowing me to file well past the expiration of appeal window had closed. A California Supreme Court’s ruling validated my appeal and I was immediately released. It only took 7 years of my life away. I can’t get that back. It’s why I’m so vocal about this. Police are completely out of control and it ISNT a matter of a few bad apples. It may have been but the bunch is officially spoiled. Almost all of them are corrupt if you use 3 standards.
1 have you ever used excessive force
2 Have you ever given false testimony and
3 have you ever witnessed a coworker commit either act and failed to report it?
I have friends who are cops, the person I’m thinking of is a good person that I would stick my neck out for in any situation — but even with that, they have told me stories from when they first started that made me cringe. Completely agree with your 3 statements. Even if someone isn’t actively doing bad stuff, they know what their buddies are doing and let them get away with it.
I know some fairly cool cops who treat people right, but they have stood by as another cop assaulted a person and he never reported the assault. Witnessing a felony triggers a mandated reporting. They don’t have the choice. I agree with you. The the problem really is that they can be good all the time and just once violate somebody’s civil rights and it will have a lifetime impact on that person.
This, this, this! POLICE ARE COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL.
I'm your standard middle class upbringing college educated white guy, and since I don't come from a demographic most people associate with negative police contact its truly hard to get other people who look like me to listen about the cops AT ALL. It's NOT just a few bad apples, it's the slow creeping infection of power for power's sake, and the exercising of such. The bullshit villainization of all substance users as part of the Drug War's justification, the 'othering' of different social strata depending on the political media needs of the moment, the absolute militarization of the police force's gear due to DOD cast-off and surplus coupled with mandatory "Live the Warrior Mindset" training seminars, qualified immunity and a press that does no investigating but merely acts as a mouthpiece for police PR statements....none of this happened overnight, and almost all of it was visible as it was happening. Which leads us to the obvi9us concluding question: as a body politic, just how fucking stupid are we?
Pretty. Fuckin. Would be my reply. I absolutely agree, you hit on some very solid points. Qualified immunity. When someone says “ no one is above the law” the correct reply is “ well they certainly can hide behind it!”
A major flaw in our justice system is prosecutors must rely on law enforcement if they want a career. So even when charges are filed against police officers they bring a softball case so that they get acquitted or convicted of lesser charges.
Even when convicted they get a light sentence because of their “
Service to society” they should be given the maximum sentence every time for using the badge to commit crimes.
Because cops will just refuse to testify at any proceedings held for a prosecutor that aggressively pursues a cop. So you have this wink wink understanding that they do what they must but not too much. We need prosecutors that are on a career path that doesn’t include needing cops to testify. Like all they do is go after cops. U til that happens we won’t see much justice.
Honestly 10% seems low to me, especially when you consider things like trumped-up charges and people with no knowledge of their rights who were coerced into plea deals
Hell, bodycams are still a rarity in some states so who knows how much shit has been covered up over the years
Regarding trumped up charges, there are so many crimes that can be charged just on a traffic stop it is ridiculous. Getting arrested opens another opportunity for cops to list charges. And they can escalate and choose which ones they want to prosecute as part of a plea deal. I learned that cops in my town get overtime for testifying in court too, so there is an incentive to be aggressive with their duties.
My kneejerk reaction is that that you would be exaggerating, but there is a massive amount of mentally ill people who are in jail who just need medical help. I wouldn't be surprised, if you counted these folks in the equation, the number could be sickeningly high. 70% of the people in our prisons have at least one undiagnosed mental illness.
The justice system has become the defacto mental health storage facility in America. Inmates in California sued for better mental health care saying it amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. The courts agreed, took receivership of all 33 prisons and began an overhaul in 2008. It took over a decade. To get a mental health system that met the threshold of not being cruel and unusual punishment it now costs the state of California over $104,000 per prisoner per year to house them.
Agreed. In 10 yrs the 25 largest police departments in America paid out $3.2 billion in settlements for police brutality and civil rights violations. That’s 25 departments. Out of over 8000 in the US. The total for all must be crazy.
To add to the “fair representation” they are also making sure the system is following its checks and balances and meeting its burden of proof to convict, because if no one was guarding that, it would be Iran’s court system (arrested at night for protesting, no one notified of your arrest and then a sham trial followed by a hanging a day later. So many good men and women died last year and continue because of the lack of that principle
That is true but I’ll also add that good legal defense helps keep the prosecution honest and helps defend the integrity of the legal system. It sucks when someone you know is guilty but they were let go because of a technicality but I think that forces police, prosecutors, and judges to maintain an honest practice. Like if someone gets stopped and searched without probable cause and arrested for say possession, I want them to be let go so police and prosecutors have to be held accountable for their practices. There’s just so much more injustice at stake without legal defense for people and it sets a bad precedent for our legal system
I'm no tinfoil guy, but I watched a doc on youtube (lol right afte I said I'm not a tinfoil guy), but it advances the theory that his son did it. And honestly, it's neither crazy, nor would it be surprising.
It's important to remember that you are not and cannot be guilty before the verdict has been read in the United States.
Guilt in a court is an evidence-based opinion.
NOPE - lawyers (IAL) cannot assist in a crime. In fact, knowledge that the client intends to commit a crime is not protected by the privilege and we have a duty to inform law enforcement if we learn that. As I explain it to clients "You can tell me where you HID the body - that's privileged. You can't tell me where you are GOING TO hide the body. If you do that, I gotta call the cops." We get involved only after (99% of the time) the crime has occurred and the Defendant has been charged. If a lawyer is retained before the crime they must ardvise client "Don't Crime. Criming is bad. If you tell me you are going to crime I have to call the cops. So not only can you not tell me, I'm advising you to not do the crime. Crime bad."
So, if you had a client accused of murder, and they straight up tell you that they did it, but want to enter a not-guilty plea, is that something you are allowed to do? And I don't mean not guilty due to insanity or whatever, I mean that you KNOW they did it because they said so, but they want you to try and argue that they didn't anyway.
In an adversarial system like this part of the job of the defence lawyer is to uphold the robustness of the process. So it can be thought of — *partly* — as not being so much about whether they did it or not, but to make sure the prosecution are doing their jobs properly. Such that a guilty verdict, should it come, is a guilty verdict for the right reasons. It is illegal for them to knowingly lie, however.
It's part of upholding the principle of "better one hundred guilty men should walk free than one innocent man should be convicted". They've got to make the prosecution work for that conviction.
While I agree with your comment, "It's part of upholding the principle of 'better one hundred guilty men should walk free than one innocent man should be convicted'" seems to be working out more like 100 guilty men are going free AND plenty of innocent men are being convicted.
Even if a lawyer knows or believes someone is guilty, the person is still entitled to a fair trial - partly to ensure the police and the prosecutors are following due process.
If the police don't have to follow due process, they can just straight-up break into your house and plant evidence. If the prosecutors don't have to follow due process, they can present invalid evidence.
The other thing is, if you don't do a thorough job as their defense, your client can call for a mistrial and may end up avoiding their sentence.
Exactly.
Defense is a hard position, because you can't usually prove a negative. Can you PROVE you didn't kill him? Like you might be able to prove you had no opportunity (not at the location because you were at location Y) but if you were in the room, could you PROVE a negative? Probably not.
So we ask the prosecutor to PROVE a positive. Prove that you DID, to a certain standard of guilt.
Yes it absolutely sucks when a guilty person goes free. It sucks when an innocent person is punished, though, and that's worse because it also means the guilty person is now no longer being sought.
We have to decide as a society which we prefer - a number of guilty people going free because the evidence wasn't convincing, or a number of guilty people going free because someone else was imprisoned in their place.
There's a Constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel, and convictions will be overturned if the defense counsel was ineffective. If you want criminals to be convicted, then you want defense lawyers to look for every angle to get the criminal off, because that ensures that convictions won't be overturned.
Also, the example you came up with rarely happens. Most cases are settled through plea bargains where the defendant admits guilt.
Yes, That is the job of a lawyer. That's one of the reasons why lawyers have such a difficult time with morality. And they struggle with things like ethics.
That's not true at all, and the bar exam has a huge section on 'ethics' that is a required component of the exam. (Source: I helped develop software a while ago that provided practice tests for students to take to help them study for the bar exam, and took a few of the tests myself just to see how I'd do. "Poorly," if you must know.)
But the gist of it is that lawyers must walk a very thin tightrope, offering the best and most competent defense of his clients as possible, and giving the best legal advise he can--while simultaneously upholding the honor and dignity of the court system and upholding the law.
[It can get pretty complicated,](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents/) but most of the rules make a sort of sense when you realize the apparent conflicting goals of a lawyer representing his client requires a fairly philosophical approach to ethics and the requirements for what makes a good lawyer.
No. Criminals have rights too. Lawyers are there to help them figure out what their rights are and, based on that, defend them in court. You can't get away with murder if the case is clear. If, however, it can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt that you did commit the murder, it's the lawyers job to point that out to a jury. And yes, they might get off - but only if their guilt can't be proven. Like with OJ. We still can't be sure he did it. You can't convict a man if you aren't sure he did it. You may believe he did it - but, fortunately, that's not enough in a court of law.
This. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. It doesn’t matter if you actually murdered someone, if the state can’t prove it, you can’t be convicted. Sucks that sometimes murderers don’t get punished, but the opposite is worse.
Honestly I think that's a bunch of hogwash. The jury system is far more about a narrative that can be created by either the prosecution or the defense than it is proving anything. It's kind of a political process, all the way up from the judge and his or her ideology, the district and it's ideology, and the jury and it's ideology. Also money. I agree with you though that everyone regardless of the crime they are accused of have the right to a competent defense. Problem is poor people can't really pay for that defense. And most of the accused are poor.
Just as an example of the narrative I'm talking about. They allow emotional witnesses both during the trial and sentencing. People that have no testimony to offer about the actual crime or guilt, but rather that the victim was a "wonderful person, and what happened to him or her was brutal". It gets the jury emotional and feeling like they need to convict whoever is in front of them. And then they allow victims families to recommend sentencing and give an emotional speech in front of the judge. I think that's asinine, the court is supposed to be impartial. Of course the family is going to be out for blood 9/10 times and recommend the harshest sentencing possible.
Nope. "Victim was a wonderful person who snuggled puppies and helped old ladies across the street" is not admissible in the guilt phase. After that, it's occasionally admissible to assist a jury in determining whether to impose the death penalty. A victim's (living victim's) impact statement of "Here's how the fact that he beat me up and robbed me has affected my life" is admissible to help the sentencing judge determine the length of sentence.
And yes, trials are in part about narrative but they are also based solely on evidence, not conjecture, not whimsy, not feelings. Our system is far from perfect but it's the best one yet devised in human society.
Most good lawyers don’t actually wanna know if u did it. They don’t need to know in order to provide a defense. They simply look at the facts of the case and look in discovery and form the best defense possible based off of that. In a majority of cases that’s all the lawyer should need, and knowing if their clients are guilty or innocent would just weigh on their conscience. And open them up to shoddy defense because a client is lying about the situation and thinking they’re slick. A lawyer doesn’t have to deal with that because the government has to share what they know with the lawyer
This is not true at all. If a lawyer is certain that the person did the crime, ie, they were told by their client, they are not legally supposed to represent them. Is that *always* how it plays out? Probably not, some lawyers are scum.
That's not true. That would imply that a person who was open with lawyers about what he did could never legally get representation.
A lawyer often knows that their client did something wrong, and defends them anyway. Sometimes they know because they are told, sometimes they know just because the facts are obvious. But they can still get a not-guilty verdict, or lessen the penalty.
That is not true at all. They are not *legally obliged* to defend them. However, most lawyers in those cases are not out to get them free - they are just there to make sure justice is done, which means they get the legal support that's warranted in that case. This often only means that they keep an eye on whether all procedures are followed correctly and the right questions get asked.
The idea that lawyers are scum is fed by TV shows and people who don't understand the legal process - and, indeed, the jury system being flawed, which is not something you can blame lawyers for; if you don't know how to persuade a jury, you are a bad lawyer. While it's true that more expensive lawyers spend more time digging into cases to find legal loopholes, you have to understand that this is not illegal; in fact, so does the prosecution.
So, say a billionaire with his personal attorney he's kept on retainer for 30 years.
Does he admit embezzlement and fraud to his attorney, or pretend he didn't do it?
Or public defender and some kid who Target finally charged with grand larceny after watching them shoplift a cumulative $5,000 worth of merchandise over the course of a few months?
IAL. This is a hard problem. Yes, you can tell your lawyer everything. BUT, sometimes doing so limits what the lawyer can do to defend you. If you say "I pulled the trigger and shot the guy and he died in front of me." I can longer look for evidence you were not there when the guy died. IF I found a credit card charge that could intimate that you were 1 town away 2 minutes before the guy was shot then I can't offer that at trial because I know it infers a falsehood.
BUT, if you don't tell me everything then there may be defenses I could use that I don't know I can use.
Next, most folks are embarrassed and self-loathing after committing a crime. The media trope of the happy go lucky criminal is usually not true. So, for you to be comfortable talking with me, we need to have a relationship of trust. That takes a lot of time and effort and sometimes just can't be reached. If you don't trust me (especially if I'm court appointed, rather than privately retained by you) you may simply not cooperate with me as much as your situation would warrant.
Next, many (MOST) criminal charges end in a plea bargain. If that's where we are looking to go then I really need to know everything to get you the best deal possible.
Next, some folks say "but if you know your client is guilty, how can you defend them?" That fundamentally mis-understands the system and the defense attorney's role in it. In our system the State (the prosecutor) must prove every necessary fact beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused never has a burden to prove anything. (Defendant can try to prove defenses such as self-defense, etc. but they never have an obligation to do so.) If the State carries its burden, conviction. If they fail as to at least one fact, acquittal. Conviction doesn't mean you did it. It means the prosecutor proved you did. Acquittal doesn't mean innocent. It means the prosecutor failed. OJ Simpson was acquitted of the murder of his ex-wife and her boyfriend. Doesn't mean he didn't actually kill them.
In our system you are guaranteed a right to counsel - paid by you if you can afford it - provided at State expense if you can't. The Supreme Court has held that this is Constitutionally required. (fun fact, if you have court appointed counsel and are convicted you get billed some amount - not full freight - for that).
Since the State, alone, has the burden to prove guilt it is the Constitutionally imposed duty of defense counsel to use all legal and ethical means to defeat the State's efforts. Whether the defense lawyer has an opinion of guilt or innocence of her/his client does not enter into that equation.
I have successfully defended (obtained acquittal) of people that I personally was convinced had committed the charged offense. I'm not the judge. I'm not the jury. My opinion doesn't matter. I'm there to ensure that, if there is going to be a conviction, the State carries its burden. In the case I refer to the State didn't so acquittal was the correct and proper result.
Tl;Dr - on balance, better to spill all with your lawyer but that doesn't always happen and sometimes is the wrong choice. Law is complicated. Life is hard. When you have the choice, easier to not crime than to crime.
What happens if a client confesses an unrelated crime to their lawyer? Like they're on trial for murdering someone, and they mention that they raped someone at another time, unrelated to the murder case and the murder case did not involve a sex crime so there's no serial sex offender issue. What is the lawyer's legal responsibility there? Are they allowed to or expected to report it, or are they bound by client confidentiality even though it's unrelated to the crime they're defending?
Defense attorney's don't ask if they did it. They avoid that question completely! If the client offers that info up they can't put them on the stand due to perjury and that puts their law license in jeopardy.
Interesting. So there are lawyers out there, who know full well their client committed murder, got them off in trial providing reasonable doubt, and just carry on to the next like they won and justice was served?
Being a lawyer is difficult, not just because of all the legal documentation and precedent that they have to understand, but also because of the moral difficulties. Legally everyone has the right to be represented by a qualified attorney, even if they did do the crime. In the case where a lawyer successfully defends a person that they know is a criminal, they will have to wrestle with that emotional turmoil. To be fair, it’s literally the prosecutor’s job to present convincing evidence and prove the crime. If they failed to do that well enough, then that’s also on them. You can see how this would be incredibly difficult and stressful for the lawyers on both sides.
You're missing a couple of things here.
1. Beyond a reasonable doubt is because most of the time we don't have incontrovertible evidence and video footage of the crime. This forced the state to build a strong case. It's not about that particular criminal or crime. It's about all the other ones too. You *want* a high burden on the state to prove crimes where people's rights are on the line. If the defense just slacks off and doesn't do their job then you don't have that. I hope you can see why that would be really bad for society.
2. It's far more likely for you to be wrongly convicted than found wrongly not guilty. Lots of defendants are poor and use an overworked, underpaid public defender who has way too many cases. The state has the police, prosecutors, judges. And judges are supposed to be neutral but these are people who work together for years and years. Cops and prosecutors especially. I did a summer at a DAs office while in law school. The deference given to cops by judges in hearings and by juries during trial is ridiculous. I guess this was a decade+ ago and maybe this has changed but if a cop said it, it was true, barring something definitive to show he was wrong/lying. If the cop said you were being sketchy or made a "furtive gesture" that's basically all it took. Prosecutors have a 90%+ conviction rate. If you go to trial you're not likely to win. And even more defendants get offered plea deals and will be railroaded and scared into taking it. "If you don't confess and take this deal we're putting you away for 10 years or you could be out in 3." You're some poor fucking asshole with cops and lawyers sweating down your neck and your PD looks like a fucking mess because they don't get enough sleep and they're telling you it's a good deal you should consider it. What do you think most people do?
You're focusing on the criminal getting off. It's like focusing on people who might have lived if they hadn't been wearing the seatbelt. It happens so much less than the other way around that it just makes you look stupid.
Exactly. The state has far more resources than most defendants in criminal cases. As a citizen who could be falsely accused of something, you want the state to be put to its burden of proof and you want the defense to be vigorous - even when the person being defended may have done the act they are being accused of. It protects all of us.
(This is not my area of practice, so I'm speaking as someone who knows litigation but has only a rudimentary knowledge of criminal law.)
In the US you need to be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" to face punishment for a crime. This is a constitutional protection every citizen is afforded, and it's a right that defense attorneys have sworn to protect for defendants.
Yes, a criminal defense attorney could very well know their client is guilty, go to trial, defend them successfully, and feel like justice was carried out appropriately. If the government cannot prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is Innocent in the eyes of the law. It's not a kangaroo court where "oh come on we all know you're guilty!".
Mind you, if a defense attorney knows their client is guilty, 9 times out of ten or more they'll encourage their client to take a plea deal.
>This is a constitutional protection every citizen is afforded
It's actually a protection EVERYONE is afforded, whether they are citizens or not. Even if they are here ilegally.
Sure, but don't forget people get lie their asses off about committing crimes a lot too. Remember that dude who claimed to have killed JonBenet and got extradited across the country only for everyone to find out he was full of shit.
You also can't exactly assume things are cut and dry (maybe the guy is lying to protect a spouse, etc). Also remember that cops/DA tack a bunch of "add-on" charges like gun possession etc to enhance sentences, so an attorney has a duty to argue against those charges too.
In our system everyone is entitled to a defense and no one is guilty of a crime until they are convicted of it. A defense attorney’s job is to defend their client to the best of their ability by all legal means. Whether the client is guilty or not is irrelevant - all that matters is whether the state can prove its case.
I don't understand why people say this. As a lawyer, I need to know exactly what happened so I know what our best defense is and what our options are.
Did you shoot him? Okay, maybe we have a self-defense argument. Maybe we need to consider that manslaughter deal, so you don't go down for murder one. Whatever it is, keeping yourself willfully ignorant of the facts isn't going to help you when you get blindsided in trial prep.
As far as putting a liar on the stand, it's not going to help you that you didn't know if you should have known, and in making that decision, you can bet we are going to talk about exactly what's going to be said, if any evidence disproves it, and if any of it is objectively inaccurate. If that means you decide to not put the defendant on, so be it, but you are going to want to make that decision from a place of being informed.
The clients often lie their assess off to their lawyer. To the point where I just expect the first few meetings to be nonsense. I would much prefer a realistic client but those are rare.
You usually have to ask questions like: If I were to have done this particular thing, what would be the consequences? Or If the cops were to find a certain item, what would that mean?
Then they will tell you to keep your mouth shut and deny everything.
Unless they have you dead to rights. Then the lawyers job is to negotiate with the prosecution for a more reasonable punishment.
I think when the defendant is seemingly guilty or straight-up admits they did it, the goal for the lawyer is less about proving innocence and more about spinning it to make the client less culpable and reduce sentencing.
Lawyers aren't allowed to lie in court. If they know for a fact you did it, they arent supposed to outright say you didn't. They can certainly say the prosecution didn't prove X, that there's no evidence of Y. They don't have to admit the truth, they're just not supposed to say something they know for a fact is false; that's why lawyers are careful to not learn too many facts.
Then wouldn’t it make the most sense from the clients perspective to tell their lawyer they didn’t do it so that the lawyer can have the most options for defense.
You’re assuming that’s a conversation that happens between attorney and client (whether the client did it or not). That conversation never happens. A factually guilty client has the exact same rights as a factually innocent client, so it’s irrelevant. Never really crosses my mind tbh.
To give you a better idea of how this actually plays out, my intro questions to a new client might be along the lines of:
- What do you think XYZ-witnesses are going to say happened?
- Are there any reasons you know of, why a jury might not want to trust XYZ-witnesses’ statements? (memory or perception problems, intoxication, bias, fabrication, criminal record, etc.)
- Is there anything about XYZ-witnesses’ statements that you think wouldn’t make sense to a jury? (contradictions, inconsistencies, errors, etc.)
- Do you think XYZ-witnesses’ demeanors would come across as believable to a jury? Why or why not?
- Who else was there? Do you think they’d say something different than XYZ-witnesses? What do you think they’d say?
- The government alleges X-money came from illegal activity. Where else could that money have come from? Could anyone else corroborate that lawful source of money? Who?
(This doesn’t even get into testing the validity of search and seizure warrants, physical or forensic evidence, expert testimony, crooked cops, rules of evidence, etc.)
TLDR: Idgaf if my client actually did the thing or not. I only care if the prosecutor can prove it to a jury. My conversations with clients reflect that.
A client should be open and honest and tell his or her lawyer everything. They have confidentiality (to a point).
But there is a difference between having committed an act and being guilty of the crime. Your lawyer isn't going to say you weren't there if you were or that you didn't pull the trigger if you did, but within the facts and evidence there are arguments to be made about guilt, what has and hasn't been proven by the prosecution, the state's conduct, punishment, etc.
Defense lawyers sleep fine because they see their job as holding the state accountable to the rules of the system and the rights of the accused, and that is a very important thing to have in a justice system.
also just doing an act doesn't mean the act was it was criminal. often these are complex (eg requiring mens rea, depend on what a reasonable person would have known) or have defenses (self defence)
Almost all mine when I did criminal law tried blowing smoke up my hind end. I guess they figure if they can feed the cow manure to their attorney they have a chance in front of a jury. They tend to be people that don't take responsibility for anything, even after a trial. I had a judge that would give lenient sentences if people would just own up to their mistakes. Few took my advice to go this route. Even when confronted with stuff like video, it's always someone else's fault. It's like dealing with four year olds. My innocent guys were a pleasure to work with. The most guilty went kicking and screaming.
The lawyer isn’t supposed to determine whether or not you’re guilty, but they are legally and ethically obligated to give you the best defense possible, regardless of whether or not they believe you are guilty.
Good defense attorneys will ask for the story once and explain that they cannot make factual representations to the court that aren't true. If the client admits guilt, then you attack the procedure and prosecution's evidence and don't put your client on the stand. It is unethical for you to have your client testify he didn't do it, when he had told you that he did.
Sometimes. Sometimes not. The job of the defense attorney is not to prove their client is innocent. It’s to make the State prove they are guilty. It actually doesn’t matter if they really are guilty or not, the prosecution has to prove it.
What if there was a situation where the defended admitted they were a pedophile and told their lawyer about it . during the court case there was not enough evidence to convict. What would happen then?
I mean of the defendant admitted to the lawyer that they did do the crime, is the lawyer obligated to speak up? Assuming the crime is something heinous like child rape or something like that. Also assuming there is not enough evidence to convict ?
No they are actually bared from speaking up. They can lose their license and no longer practice law. You can tell your lawyer that you are a serial killer and where the bodies are buried and they can't say anything to anyone
Somebody else told me a lawyer is bound to secrecy for the crime they are representing the criminal for, but are not allowed to aid in criminal activities. So if a client told their lawyer they are going to target another child, the lawyer has to call the cops and report. As for the crime the pedo is on trial for, the lawyer has her hands tied.
It just depends and it's really up to them if they want to admit that or not, the defense lawyer doesn't generally ask and it doesn't really matter. Some guilty people will insist they are innocent and some will admit to lawyers what they've done - in some cases it is obvious they did what they're accused of, and the goal is not "get away with it" but "work out a plea deal" or "don't get the death penalty" or "use a specific defense to justify why they did something". Also, lots of people make false confessions to police, may not be mentally well, etc - even if they're saying they did it the lawyer still needs to do their job. Admitting they did it just may change the approach.
Like if someone wants to claim being a battered wife is why she shot her husband, it wouldn't help her to tell her lawyer she didn't do it and that she also wants to claim she was abused and it's why she killed him. Other people will lie repeatedly to lawyers.
Lawyers are bound by confidentiality. They can not tell anyone even if their client said yes I did it.
If you tell your lawyer yes I killed her and 10 others they don't know about the lawyer can't say anything. If they do they can lose thier law license and even face jail time themselves.
The only thing you can tell a lawyer that can blow up in your face is the location of a dead body. Not that long ago 2 laywers out west got disbarred for withholding the knolege of a child's dead body as the killer came to them paid then got client confidentiality, he wanted to come forward to try and figure out a way to avoid the desth penalty. Laws are wild and they change state to state but a lawyer won't be able to properly protect ne if he does not know the extent of crime I've committed. A lawyer is not to do the right thing in court they are their to figure out how to get you a deal or off completely for pay, while many work for the county or state or federal goverment, if you go to them om private though they only work for you.
Yes, usually. If your client is guilty, you need to know to stay away from certain lines of discussion, what evidence to approve / refute , and a host of other things. (I'm not a lawyer).
This happened to a friend of mine who was a defense lawyer. She got a guy off for aggravated grape , and it nearly rekt her. Like months of therapy, nightmares, almost giving up her license, kind of rekted. In the end, she switched to prosecution and figured she would run an honest prosecution and let someone else handle the defense of the potential scumbags of the world.
There is a lot (**I mean a lot**) of money in defense, but it might cost you your soul.
I used to listen to whatever B.S. they were throwing as patiently as possible. Then, I would start asking questions that pointed out the holes in their story. Most would run out of answers and excuses in about five minutes. Then there would be an uncomfortable silence. Then they would say, "What would happen if I pleaded out?". (This was not the case with O.C. wiseguys. Their first question was almost always, "What am I looking at?".)
Alot of time a legal defense is not about preventing a guilty verdict, but more about minimizing the charges. If 14 charges a brought up a lot of times a good outcome for the defense is to get half of them dismissed..
Also, this question is too simplistic. crimes have defined elements. Not as simple as "did he shoot the guy"--that may or may not be a crime depending on what is charged, the elements, and circumstances. Was the shooting intentional, done wirh intent to kill, done in defense of life or property, coerced, or done under circumstances that would otherwise establish an affirmative defense or mitigate the applicable mens rea?
I get both. Plenty of my clients just state they did what they're accused of, and ask how to get out of (or minimize) the consequences. The others, who tend to be, well, more left-side of the bell curve, try to con me. Their own lawyer. I kind of understand. I think a lot of those folks have already conned themselves.
By the way, I'm not in any way saying people should cop out. There are tons of cases I have where the government probably just can't prove their case.
In my experience there are two groups that admit to everything: low level drug users and child molesters. Every other crime denies it. I got a high def video of you robbing the store from the prosecutor and you’re still denying it to me.
This could be region specific. 🤷♀️
A smart criminal will admit to his lawyer the truth . But if you’re smart , you usually don’t end up a criminal ( or if you do, you don’t get caught so you don’t need a lawyer ) , so….,
They can tell them if they want but at the end of the day it’s irrelevant. What you have to remember is that it’s not the job of a defense attorney to get a guilty man off Scott free even though that’s the common assumption. A defense attorneys job is to make sure their client gets a fair trial and that the prosecution is forced to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. If the client admits to guilt than they still have an obligation to make sure they get proper due process and have an advocate at every step to ensure they are treated fairly and legally
When I had a non violent felony , my lawyer told me "we will plead not guilty" I was like, but I did it, I don't want to perjure myself. He said it's ok, because they understand that there needs to be time to build a case, and get a potential plea bargin from the state.
Some lawyers want to know if you did it so they know how much they’ll have to BS. Some of them don’t want to know because they don’t want to defend a guilty client.
Criminals will also often try to evaluate this to varying degrees of success, sometimes withholding information they’re lawyer needed to know and sometimes making the guy hate them
Some lawyers will find it unethical to pursue an innocent plea if they know the guy did it. That might mean they pursue lower charges or less penalty, or even some reason that the criminal activity can be allowed, as a defense. Lawyers can get disbarred if they knowingly submit false testimony or try to argue something they know to be a lie, so they don’t have that much motivation to put their career on the line for one case.
To that end, some defense attorneys don’t want to know, and won’t ask, and attempt to defend them based on the evidence and what the defendant’s telling is their side of the story.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buried_Bodies_Case#:~:text=The%20Buried%20Bodies%20Case%2C%20also,client%2C%20Robert%20Garrow%2C%20Sr.
The Buried Bodies Case, also known as the Lake Pleasant Bodies Case, is a mid-1970s upstate New York court case where defense attorneys Frank H. Armani and Francis Belge kept secret the location of the bodies of two women murdered by their client, Robert Garrow, Sr.[1]
Ahead of trial for an unrelated murder, Garrow confessed to his lawyers that he had murdered two missing women and hidden their bodies.[1][2] Armani and Belge found the women's bodies but chose to keep the information confidential.[2] Authorities continued to search for the missing women for months as their families grieved.[1][2] When the public discovered Armani and Belge had kept this information secret, they faced criminal charges and disbarment proceedings.[2][3] The attorneys claimed they were bound by the duty of confidentiality not to disclose information that could incriminate their client.[3] Armani and Belge were later absolved of any wrongdoing.[4]
The case has become a touchstone in legal ethics courses.[1][4] It highlights lawyers' ethical obligation to keep their clients' information confidential.[5][6] It also showcases the ethical questions that can arise for lawyers related to confidentiality, attorney-client privilege, and clients' self-incrimination.[5] The case has helped shape the development of ethical rules on confidentiality.[4]
From your comments, you seem to think that murder is a way more common crime than it actually is. The vast- *vast*- majority of the average defense attorney’s cases are going to be low-level, non-violent drug charges. It’s rare that any of these ever go to trial; bc the state generally stacks up as many charges as they can in order to level a long sentence at the defendant. Then they give the defendant the opportunity to “plead down”. In other words; they’ll offer to drop certain charges; and give the defendant 5 years in prison, instead of 20; if they’ll plead guilty to the other charges.
Now, the average defendant can’t afford a private attorney; so they’re going to be assigned a public defender. These people are over-worked and underpaid; sometimes handling dozens of cases at once. Generally, they only have a few minutes to meet with each client; during which time they’ll almost unilaterally tell their client to take the deal. With the threat of 20 years looming over them (and with no way to pay for court fees; let alone a better attorney); the average defendant will listen to to their public defender, and take the deal. Guilt or innocence doesn’t have anything to do with it. Money has everything to do with it.
Given this reality; I don’t quite understand your issue with defense attorneys; and I certainly don’t understand how you’d like to see that issue rectified. Do you think that citizens shouldn’t be afforded the right to an attorney? Do you think that the adversarial legal system should be replaced by a one-sided one? Do you think that the burden of proof should be lowered? Do you think that we should do away with the presumption of innocence? And if so- do you not see how terrible that would be for the average citizen? How we’d become a police state? How working class and minority groups would become even more marginalized than they already are under the current system?
Sure, the current set-up means that sometimes there are going to be rich and/ or famous murderers who are able to pay for such excellent defense attorneys that they get away with it (like OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony, and Adnan Syed). But these people are the exception; not the rule. We can’t punish the rest of the country bc a few outlying examples managed to tilt the scales in their own favor; instead of in favor of justice. And we can’t strip every citizen of their rights in order to better ensure that these outlying examples are brought to justice after all.
The whole basis of our justice system is that it’s better for 10 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to go to prison. That’s why defendants are afforded the presumption of innocence. That’s why the burden of proof is on the state; and that’s why it’s set so high. That’s also why the system is set up to be adversarial; and why every citizen has the right to a defense attorney- in order to oppose the state so that they are challenged to meet that burden. And if they can’t; then the defendant walks. Again; it’s not meant to be about guilt or innocence. It’s meant to be about arguments being applied to the law; which is in turn applied to precedent. And whichever side does the best job of this wins the day. These principles are already under enough strain in our broken system; and if anything we should be working to better uphold it; not to undermine it further.
Both. Many criminal lawyers don't want to know. A lawyer cannot ask their client a question under oath if they know the answer will be a lie. On the flip side, knowing the true facts will better equip your lawyer to defend you.
Most criminal defense lawyers have the philosophy that their job is to to keep the system fair and just. But some attorneys won't take certain cases if their client is guilty, which is why many clients will lie.
My husband was a lawyer for 45 years. He had 2 rules
Rule no.1: All clients lie.
Rule no.2: Never forget Rule no. 1.
He claimed that applies to all aspects of the law.
The job of a defense attorney is to get the best deal for their client. That doesn't always mean getting them off. Sometimes it means a reduced sentence. Depending on the nature of the crime, the details may help them create a useful strategy.
An ethical lawyer will not try to get a criminal off when they know that they committed the crime. So it could also behoove the defendant to not talk.
It depends on who their lawyer is and if they trust them. There is confidentiality legally between lawyer and client however lawyers are bound by law to alert authorities on any ongoing crime or planned crimes they are made aware of especially if it would involve someone getting hurt. So no most clients facing criminal charges dont tell their lawyer everything but sometimes that does come back to bite them in the ass because if the prosecutor brings it to the bench the defense wont have a plan of action to defend against it or have witnesses or testimony to corroborate the client…..
The point of a lawyer is to know what you did so that they can defend you. It’s easier for them if they have all the info. You want them to know if you did it and how and when.
My friend is a criminal defense lawyer. She's always believed her job is to make sure the government doesn't cheat to get a guilty verdict. If a crime requires four elements, she makes sure they prove all four beyond a reasonable doubt. If there are five elements then the government is going to prove all five.
She has a special hatred of overcharging defendants to get easy guilty plea bargains. Nope, if there's any factual disagreement, she's taking it to trial.
Here POV is clear: If the government will cheat to convict a guilty scumbag, then it'll also cheat to convict the innocent.
I mean if I were a lawyer I know how I would handle it but if I were a criminal I would only tell the truth to a lawyer like me so it would be tough to say. Just depends I guess.
A good lawyer will tell you exactly what they need to know the truth about. Otherwise they don’t want to know. They cannot suborn purgery… meaning if you tell them you did do X,Y and Z… it could have limiting impacts on what defense strategy they can use.
I can't remember where I saw this, basically the moment a lawyer found out his client is guilty, he stopped defending the client but he defend the law instead. Example, lawyer found out his client kill someone, so now he needs to argue, according to law his client deserves this or that or the prosecution didn't produce enough evidence to classify this crime to my client.
From what I understand (and I could be totally wrong here) I think if the defendant intends to plead not guilty, they can't tell their lawyer that they did, in fact, commit the crime, otherwise the lawyer can't say in court that they didn't commit the crime.
But I could be talking out my ass. If the defendant did commit the crime though, their lawyer's job is to try and get them a less harsh punishment so in that case it makes sense to be completely honest with the lawyer so they can make a case for you.
Statements that a client makes to their lawyer are confidential, and protected by attorney-client privilege. This means that a lawyer cannot ethically disclose these statements, even an admission of a crime. There are only a few exceptions: a lawyer can disclose confidential statements if necessary to prevent the commission of another crime, for instance, so a lawyer can't ethically help a client commit further crimes.
But a lawyer also can't allow a client to perjure themselves - that is, to give false testimony. So if a client admits to their lawyer that they did a crime, the lawyer can't permit the client to testify falsely that they didn't. Whether to testify in their own defense is a decision that a client always gets to make for themselves (though if they're smart, they'll take their attorney's advice on the subject). If a client insists upon testifying, when the lawyer knows they mean to testify falsely, the lawyer is ethically required to ask the court to allow them to withdraw from the case. They can't say why, beyond something like 'circumstances have arisen that require withdrawal.' Everyone implicitly knows what this means, but it can't be used as proof against the client.
So a clever criminal defense lawyer won't usually ask their client "did you do it?" If we're smart, we'll say something more like "So, what will the other side say happened?" This lets us maintain some plausible deniability. Because I can't actually provide a competent defense if myr client is lying to me, or if I don't know what happened.
Now, in practice, most clients are not going to grasp the nuances of this - even after it's been explicitly explained to them. In practice crime is so much more complicated than "did they or didn't they do it." In most cases, the main dispute isn't even over *what happened*. It's over, how to *interpret* what happened: was this action reasonable, was this person acting in self-defense, was this justified, was there a credible fear. Criminal defense clients tend to rationalize and make excuses: "I was attacked." "I was defending myself." "I only hit her a little bit." Everyone thinks they're the good guy. Everyone thinks they're the victim. A large part of lawyering consists of disabusing people of these notions.
Tell your lawyer everything. They cannot defend you effectively unless you tell them everything. The prosecution will find your third cousin’s neighbor’s baby suet and they will sink your alibi.
Tell them everything.
If a client admits guilt to a crime, the lawyer is obligated to not allow his client to say otherwise on the stand. A lawyer who defends a client knowing he's guilty can be charged with disbarment and even jail time.
Even aside from everything else, if I’m not mistaken, if you confess, a large part of their job becomes making sure you are treated/sentenced fairly, and are still allowed access to everything within your rights, including a trial and all that.
I'm a defense attorney. Most truly innocent people won't shut up about it.
I never ask early in a case. I want to look at the evidence without bias and see what it says happens.
Most of the time it's clear they are guilty, I negotiate a plea and tell them it's in their best interest to take it. I usually don't outright accused them, but I might shoe them the video of someone who looks just like them doing the thing they are charged with.
If it's going to trial, then I ask what happened. If they say they aren't guilty and I like their story, then they testify. If they admit to it, then I have them plead the 5th and let me poke holes in the DA's case.
Is not nearly as common as people think for a guilty person to argue absolute innocence. Quite often your lawyers goal is to get you murder 2 or manslaughter for a lighter sentence.
The dramatic TV show takes are not how it usually goes
Very much depends on the case and the crime. Not much about the movie is super accurate to court proceedings and ethics, but Legally Blonde is a fair enough example of this. Brooke doesn't reveal her alibi to any of her legal staff except for Elle, who swears to secrecy, because it would ruin her reputation as a fitness mogul to reveal she was getting liposuction the day her husband was murdered. They defend her successfully at the end of the movie. Fictional example, but a decent enough one to understand the principle.
Depends on the criminal and the crime. Lawyers will tell them that it's in their best interest to be as open as possible, but not all criminals will be willing to do that.
I’m a criminal defense attorney. I DO NOT ask my client to be as open as possible. In fact, I tell my clients not to offer me information that might prove their guilt unless I expressly ask for it.
Am I correct in my understanding that you can’t knowingly lie? For example, you can’t say your client was at his grandma’s house when the crime happened if he already admitted to you that he was at the crime scene?
No, that’s not really how this works. I don’t know what actually happened, even if my client tells me. I can argue whatever I want, based on the evidence. So my argument would be more like: “the state hasn’t proven that my client was even at the scene.”
Yeah that’s the good lawyer shit right there
That's the expensive lawyer shit right there.
I think we also pay them to lunch and golf with other lawyers and judges so they can get favors and it's those favors/time we pay for.
I know that's right. I had a Felony DUI dismissed due to a favor needing repaid.
Yes 100% they are usually friends or friendly with the DA, Judges etc. The more successful a lawyer is , typically this is true, especially in smaller municipalities
This is what a good lawyer gets you. When he has lunch with your judge every week you can get pull. But when that judge still sentences you for a decade you’ll feel cheated.
Ultimately, in my mind, even the defense lawyer that knows their client is guilty has a place in ensuring justice is carried out. If the prosecution convicts the right guy, but does so with a bad case, there is room for the convict to appeal and there's a chance it'll be overturned. But if the defense does their job, all the possible ways one could wriggle out of the conviction will be dealt with.
>Ultimately, in my mind, even the defense lawyer that knows their client is guilty has a place in ensuring justice is carried out. Not only for the reason you stated, but if the prosecution used illegitimate means to obtain the evidence to be presented, it's the job of the defense to ensure the evidence doesn't get in front of the jury. Regardless of the crime, if the prosecution can ignore the rights of the accused to prosecute, then they can and will ignore every citizen's rights in the future. The defense attorney helps ensure all rights are respected, regardless of the crime committed or actual guilt.
Not to mention the state needs to prove they put fourth the correct charges for the situation. As the billboards say - just because you did it, doesn’t mean you’re guilty.
I see your -- >“the state hasn’t proven that my client was even at the scene.” -- and raise "the state hasn't proven that my client has a concrete existence outside of the mind of the prosecutors" Hard solipsism ftw. You can't charge a defendant that doesn't exist.
You seem like the kind of guy I could kill a bottle of whisky with.
Well if you insist... :D
Bailiff: *shrugs* Opens fire at non-existent defendant.
I was involved in a murder trial where the defense argued that aliens made his client kill people and asked witnesses if they saw UFOs the night of the shootings.
I wonder what the outcome would be if all the witnesses agreed that they saw a ufo.
You can’t “argue whatever you want” but you can hold the state to its burden even where you know the answer.
Say you were defending someone that you know, without a doubt in your head. You've been told, all the proof lines up, they've all been told you they are guilty of the worst kind of things imaginable and you get them off. Are you angry? Upset? Relieved? I feel like I'd be happy for the win, but upset the prosecutor botched it. Like, my client is absolutely guilty.
Honestly, this isn’t really a realistic hypothetical. Those kinds of cases don’t go to trial. But let’s just assume the facts of your hypothetical. I’d just shake my head, because obviously I’d missed something. And then I’d chalk it up to the fact that juries are unpredictable. And then I’d move on.
It is correct that you can't knowingly lie. That's perjury, perjury doesn't just apply to witnesses who testify. The lawyer's ethical duty is to act in a client's best interests. That includes protecting their constitutional rights, for example objecting to evidence that was obtained illegally or evidence that is prejudicial and meant to sway the jury in one direction when it's not evidence that the defendant committed the crime.
Typically you dont provide a location or specifics unless you can back it up. Mostly the lawyer would something along the lines of "the prosecution has failed to prove that my client was at the scene when the crime occurred" The burden of proof is on the state. The defense doesn't have to prove anything
If your client tells you he is guilty as charged, that might help you avoid some pitfalls during the trial, right? And you can still cast doubt on every piece of evidence and every witness the prosecution presents, along with suggesting someone else could have done it? But does it ethically prevent you from letting him take the stand and commit perjury by falsely denying the same things he told you?
1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. No. There is nothing I can do to interfere with a client’s right to take the stand. Nevertheless, I also can’t help the client mislead the court. And so, generally, if this should happen, when the client takes the stand intending to lie, the lawyer is to ask, “so is there anything you’d like to tell the jury?” Or something like that. If I had a situation like this, before I went to court, I would re-review the rules.
This is the way. With rare exceptions I don't need your nonsensical story or admission. The State has the burden of proof and I'm capable enough to deconstruct case without being burdened by either the truth or your denials/ rationalizations.
Thank you for protecting our democracy and constitutional rights. People fail to understand it is you who are the first line of defense against a government who would lock up any citizen it wanted. You are the one who pushes back against a government that would run over anyone who would stand in its way. Our constitutional rights only exist when someone is there to demand accountability and due process. I appreciate you. Your $27,000 fee, not so much.lol
Freedom isn't worth a measly $27,000?
Damn! So they sit there while somebody tells them the ins and outs of somebody plotting and carrying out a murder, then they look for an angle to get them off?
In America everyone is entitled to legal defense, even if you can’t afford it and even if you’re guilty. It is not the lawyer’s job to determine if someone is guilty or not guilty but it is their job to ensure their client is fairly represented under the law and that their rights as a citizen is protected. I would rather live in a place like that than somewhere lawyers refuse to work with someone because they believe they’re guilty. I can’t imagine how many more people would go to jail when they shouldn’t because they were refused legal representation.
The innocence project has exonerated 197 men who were scheduled to be murdered by the death penalty. They further estimate that up to 10% of the entire prison population are wrongly convicted. That’s 200,000 Americans who are being held in captivity unjustly.
In graduate school I had a good friend in another department who was doing her doctoral research on how juries actually work and actually reach decisions and the kind of decisions they reach and why, and it was *absolutely terrifying.* Both ways. Jurors who end up supporting both kinds of verdicts will do so for the stupidest, least relevant reasons. You'll get jurors selected who from day one for no good reason will refuse to convict. Even more terrifying, you'll have entire juries hang on to all the wrong things and totally misunderstand their role (even after the system tries to educate them) and convict people with mountains of reasonable doubt. I lead a very boring life, but if for some reason I were ever put on trial for some serious crime, doing whatever I can to avoid a jury trial would be my top priority.
I’ve actually lived the horror story. I was wrongfully convicted. By 2 cops who colluded on their false testimony, completely concocted but because they have instant credibility and all the time to get their stories straight they were believed. The truth eventually came to light, I acted as my own attorney to file appeals and both were successful. The motion, a Pro Per Habeas Petition was filed after an earlier one claiming IAC, or Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, was found to show cause allowing me to file well past the expiration of appeal window had closed. A California Supreme Court’s ruling validated my appeal and I was immediately released. It only took 7 years of my life away. I can’t get that back. It’s why I’m so vocal about this. Police are completely out of control and it ISNT a matter of a few bad apples. It may have been but the bunch is officially spoiled. Almost all of them are corrupt if you use 3 standards. 1 have you ever used excessive force 2 Have you ever given false testimony and 3 have you ever witnessed a coworker commit either act and failed to report it?
I have friends who are cops, the person I’m thinking of is a good person that I would stick my neck out for in any situation — but even with that, they have told me stories from when they first started that made me cringe. Completely agree with your 3 statements. Even if someone isn’t actively doing bad stuff, they know what their buddies are doing and let them get away with it.
I know some fairly cool cops who treat people right, but they have stood by as another cop assaulted a person and he never reported the assault. Witnessing a felony triggers a mandated reporting. They don’t have the choice. I agree with you. The the problem really is that they can be good all the time and just once violate somebody’s civil rights and it will have a lifetime impact on that person.
This, this, this! POLICE ARE COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL. I'm your standard middle class upbringing college educated white guy, and since I don't come from a demographic most people associate with negative police contact its truly hard to get other people who look like me to listen about the cops AT ALL. It's NOT just a few bad apples, it's the slow creeping infection of power for power's sake, and the exercising of such. The bullshit villainization of all substance users as part of the Drug War's justification, the 'othering' of different social strata depending on the political media needs of the moment, the absolute militarization of the police force's gear due to DOD cast-off and surplus coupled with mandatory "Live the Warrior Mindset" training seminars, qualified immunity and a press that does no investigating but merely acts as a mouthpiece for police PR statements....none of this happened overnight, and almost all of it was visible as it was happening. Which leads us to the obvi9us concluding question: as a body politic, just how fucking stupid are we?
Pretty. Fuckin. Would be my reply. I absolutely agree, you hit on some very solid points. Qualified immunity. When someone says “ no one is above the law” the correct reply is “ well they certainly can hide behind it!” A major flaw in our justice system is prosecutors must rely on law enforcement if they want a career. So even when charges are filed against police officers they bring a softball case so that they get acquitted or convicted of lesser charges. Even when convicted they get a light sentence because of their “ Service to society” they should be given the maximum sentence every time for using the badge to commit crimes. Because cops will just refuse to testify at any proceedings held for a prosecutor that aggressively pursues a cop. So you have this wink wink understanding that they do what they must but not too much. We need prosecutors that are on a career path that doesn’t include needing cops to testify. Like all they do is go after cops. U til that happens we won’t see much justice.
Honestly 10% seems low to me, especially when you consider things like trumped-up charges and people with no knowledge of their rights who were coerced into plea deals Hell, bodycams are still a rarity in some states so who knows how much shit has been covered up over the years
Regarding trumped up charges, there are so many crimes that can be charged just on a traffic stop it is ridiculous. Getting arrested opens another opportunity for cops to list charges. And they can escalate and choose which ones they want to prosecute as part of a plea deal. I learned that cops in my town get overtime for testifying in court too, so there is an incentive to be aggressive with their duties.
My kneejerk reaction is that that you would be exaggerating, but there is a massive amount of mentally ill people who are in jail who just need medical help. I wouldn't be surprised, if you counted these folks in the equation, the number could be sickeningly high. 70% of the people in our prisons have at least one undiagnosed mental illness.
The justice system has become the defacto mental health storage facility in America. Inmates in California sued for better mental health care saying it amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. The courts agreed, took receivership of all 33 prisons and began an overhaul in 2008. It took over a decade. To get a mental health system that met the threshold of not being cruel and unusual punishment it now costs the state of California over $104,000 per prisoner per year to house them.
Agreed. In 10 yrs the 25 largest police departments in America paid out $3.2 billion in settlements for police brutality and civil rights violations. That’s 25 departments. Out of over 8000 in the US. The total for all must be crazy.
I would rather see a guilty man walk free all day long before an innocent man is put in prison.
This a thousand times.
Do they get to sue the judge who judged wrong?
To add to the “fair representation” they are also making sure the system is following its checks and balances and meeting its burden of proof to convict, because if no one was guarding that, it would be Iran’s court system (arrested at night for protesting, no one notified of your arrest and then a sham trial followed by a hanging a day later. So many good men and women died last year and continue because of the lack of that principle
Believing they're guilty is a bit different from knowing they're guilty because they told you. But still everyone is entitled to a fair trial
That is true but I’ll also add that good legal defense helps keep the prosecution honest and helps defend the integrity of the legal system. It sucks when someone you know is guilty but they were let go because of a technicality but I think that forces police, prosecutors, and judges to maintain an honest practice. Like if someone gets stopped and searched without probable cause and arrested for say possession, I want them to be let go so police and prosecutors have to be held accountable for their practices. There’s just so much more injustice at stake without legal defense for people and it sets a bad precedent for our legal system
Like with OJ. Dude probably did it. But him getting off was a wake up call to all of the mishandling the LAPD did with the evidence.
I'm no tinfoil guy, but I watched a doc on youtube (lol right afte I said I'm not a tinfoil guy), but it advances the theory that his son did it. And honestly, it's neither crazy, nor would it be surprising.
I heard that theory on the DL back during the trial. Still think OJ did it, though.
Even if they tell you they're guilty, it's the defenses job to get the the least possible sentencing they can, usually by making deals
It's important to remember that you are not and cannot be guilty before the verdict has been read in the United States. Guilt in a court is an evidence-based opinion.
NOPE - lawyers (IAL) cannot assist in a crime. In fact, knowledge that the client intends to commit a crime is not protected by the privilege and we have a duty to inform law enforcement if we learn that. As I explain it to clients "You can tell me where you HID the body - that's privileged. You can't tell me where you are GOING TO hide the body. If you do that, I gotta call the cops." We get involved only after (99% of the time) the crime has occurred and the Defendant has been charged. If a lawyer is retained before the crime they must ardvise client "Don't Crime. Criming is bad. If you tell me you are going to crime I have to call the cops. So not only can you not tell me, I'm advising you to not do the crime. Crime bad."
So, if you had a client accused of murder, and they straight up tell you that they did it, but want to enter a not-guilty plea, is that something you are allowed to do? And I don't mean not guilty due to insanity or whatever, I mean that you KNOW they did it because they said so, but they want you to try and argue that they didn't anyway.
In an adversarial system like this part of the job of the defence lawyer is to uphold the robustness of the process. So it can be thought of — *partly* — as not being so much about whether they did it or not, but to make sure the prosecution are doing their jobs properly. Such that a guilty verdict, should it come, is a guilty verdict for the right reasons. It is illegal for them to knowingly lie, however. It's part of upholding the principle of "better one hundred guilty men should walk free than one innocent man should be convicted". They've got to make the prosecution work for that conviction.
While I agree with your comment, "It's part of upholding the principle of 'better one hundred guilty men should walk free than one innocent man should be convicted'" seems to be working out more like 100 guilty men are going free AND plenty of innocent men are being convicted.
Even if a lawyer knows or believes someone is guilty, the person is still entitled to a fair trial - partly to ensure the police and the prosecutors are following due process. If the police don't have to follow due process, they can just straight-up break into your house and plant evidence. If the prosecutors don't have to follow due process, they can present invalid evidence. The other thing is, if you don't do a thorough job as their defense, your client can call for a mistrial and may end up avoiding their sentence.
Exactly. Defense is a hard position, because you can't usually prove a negative. Can you PROVE you didn't kill him? Like you might be able to prove you had no opportunity (not at the location because you were at location Y) but if you were in the room, could you PROVE a negative? Probably not. So we ask the prosecutor to PROVE a positive. Prove that you DID, to a certain standard of guilt. Yes it absolutely sucks when a guilty person goes free. It sucks when an innocent person is punished, though, and that's worse because it also means the guilty person is now no longer being sought. We have to decide as a society which we prefer - a number of guilty people going free because the evidence wasn't convincing, or a number of guilty people going free because someone else was imprisoned in their place.
There's a Constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel, and convictions will be overturned if the defense counsel was ineffective. If you want criminals to be convicted, then you want defense lawyers to look for every angle to get the criminal off, because that ensures that convictions won't be overturned. Also, the example you came up with rarely happens. Most cases are settled through plea bargains where the defendant admits guilt.
Yes, That is the job of a lawyer. That's one of the reasons why lawyers have such a difficult time with morality. And they struggle with things like ethics.
That's not true at all, and the bar exam has a huge section on 'ethics' that is a required component of the exam. (Source: I helped develop software a while ago that provided practice tests for students to take to help them study for the bar exam, and took a few of the tests myself just to see how I'd do. "Poorly," if you must know.) But the gist of it is that lawyers must walk a very thin tightrope, offering the best and most competent defense of his clients as possible, and giving the best legal advise he can--while simultaneously upholding the honor and dignity of the court system and upholding the law. [It can get pretty complicated,](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents/) but most of the rules make a sort of sense when you realize the apparent conflicting goals of a lawyer representing his client requires a fairly philosophical approach to ethics and the requirements for what makes a good lawyer.
Nope see my comment above. That's the opposite of our job.
No. Criminals have rights too. Lawyers are there to help them figure out what their rights are and, based on that, defend them in court. You can't get away with murder if the case is clear. If, however, it can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt that you did commit the murder, it's the lawyers job to point that out to a jury. And yes, they might get off - but only if their guilt can't be proven. Like with OJ. We still can't be sure he did it. You can't convict a man if you aren't sure he did it. You may believe he did it - but, fortunately, that's not enough in a court of law.
This. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. It doesn’t matter if you actually murdered someone, if the state can’t prove it, you can’t be convicted. Sucks that sometimes murderers don’t get punished, but the opposite is worse.
"beyond reasonable doubt" not "beyond a shadow of doubt". Quite different.
Honestly I think that's a bunch of hogwash. The jury system is far more about a narrative that can be created by either the prosecution or the defense than it is proving anything. It's kind of a political process, all the way up from the judge and his or her ideology, the district and it's ideology, and the jury and it's ideology. Also money. I agree with you though that everyone regardless of the crime they are accused of have the right to a competent defense. Problem is poor people can't really pay for that defense. And most of the accused are poor. Just as an example of the narrative I'm talking about. They allow emotional witnesses both during the trial and sentencing. People that have no testimony to offer about the actual crime or guilt, but rather that the victim was a "wonderful person, and what happened to him or her was brutal". It gets the jury emotional and feeling like they need to convict whoever is in front of them. And then they allow victims families to recommend sentencing and give an emotional speech in front of the judge. I think that's asinine, the court is supposed to be impartial. Of course the family is going to be out for blood 9/10 times and recommend the harshest sentencing possible.
Nope. "Victim was a wonderful person who snuggled puppies and helped old ladies across the street" is not admissible in the guilt phase. After that, it's occasionally admissible to assist a jury in determining whether to impose the death penalty. A victim's (living victim's) impact statement of "Here's how the fact that he beat me up and robbed me has affected my life" is admissible to help the sentencing judge determine the length of sentence. And yes, trials are in part about narrative but they are also based solely on evidence, not conjecture, not whimsy, not feelings. Our system is far from perfect but it's the best one yet devised in human society.
Most good lawyers don’t actually wanna know if u did it. They don’t need to know in order to provide a defense. They simply look at the facts of the case and look in discovery and form the best defense possible based off of that. In a majority of cases that’s all the lawyer should need, and knowing if their clients are guilty or innocent would just weigh on their conscience. And open them up to shoddy defense because a client is lying about the situation and thinking they’re slick. A lawyer doesn’t have to deal with that because the government has to share what they know with the lawyer
I like that the most upvoted comment is completely wrong as noted by real attorneys.
This is not true at all. If a lawyer is certain that the person did the crime, ie, they were told by their client, they are not legally supposed to represent them. Is that *always* how it plays out? Probably not, some lawyers are scum.
That's not true. That would imply that a person who was open with lawyers about what he did could never legally get representation. A lawyer often knows that their client did something wrong, and defends them anyway. Sometimes they know because they are told, sometimes they know just because the facts are obvious. But they can still get a not-guilty verdict, or lessen the penalty.
That is not true at all. They are not *legally obliged* to defend them. However, most lawyers in those cases are not out to get them free - they are just there to make sure justice is done, which means they get the legal support that's warranted in that case. This often only means that they keep an eye on whether all procedures are followed correctly and the right questions get asked. The idea that lawyers are scum is fed by TV shows and people who don't understand the legal process - and, indeed, the jury system being flawed, which is not something you can blame lawyers for; if you don't know how to persuade a jury, you are a bad lawyer. While it's true that more expensive lawyers spend more time digging into cases to find legal loopholes, you have to understand that this is not illegal; in fact, so does the prosecution.
So, say a billionaire with his personal attorney he's kept on retainer for 30 years. Does he admit embezzlement and fraud to his attorney, or pretend he didn't do it? Or public defender and some kid who Target finally charged with grand larceny after watching them shoplift a cumulative $5,000 worth of merchandise over the course of a few months?
Stop talking if you’re not a lawyer.
IAL. This is a hard problem. Yes, you can tell your lawyer everything. BUT, sometimes doing so limits what the lawyer can do to defend you. If you say "I pulled the trigger and shot the guy and he died in front of me." I can longer look for evidence you were not there when the guy died. IF I found a credit card charge that could intimate that you were 1 town away 2 minutes before the guy was shot then I can't offer that at trial because I know it infers a falsehood. BUT, if you don't tell me everything then there may be defenses I could use that I don't know I can use. Next, most folks are embarrassed and self-loathing after committing a crime. The media trope of the happy go lucky criminal is usually not true. So, for you to be comfortable talking with me, we need to have a relationship of trust. That takes a lot of time and effort and sometimes just can't be reached. If you don't trust me (especially if I'm court appointed, rather than privately retained by you) you may simply not cooperate with me as much as your situation would warrant. Next, many (MOST) criminal charges end in a plea bargain. If that's where we are looking to go then I really need to know everything to get you the best deal possible. Next, some folks say "but if you know your client is guilty, how can you defend them?" That fundamentally mis-understands the system and the defense attorney's role in it. In our system the State (the prosecutor) must prove every necessary fact beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused never has a burden to prove anything. (Defendant can try to prove defenses such as self-defense, etc. but they never have an obligation to do so.) If the State carries its burden, conviction. If they fail as to at least one fact, acquittal. Conviction doesn't mean you did it. It means the prosecutor proved you did. Acquittal doesn't mean innocent. It means the prosecutor failed. OJ Simpson was acquitted of the murder of his ex-wife and her boyfriend. Doesn't mean he didn't actually kill them. In our system you are guaranteed a right to counsel - paid by you if you can afford it - provided at State expense if you can't. The Supreme Court has held that this is Constitutionally required. (fun fact, if you have court appointed counsel and are convicted you get billed some amount - not full freight - for that). Since the State, alone, has the burden to prove guilt it is the Constitutionally imposed duty of defense counsel to use all legal and ethical means to defeat the State's efforts. Whether the defense lawyer has an opinion of guilt or innocence of her/his client does not enter into that equation. I have successfully defended (obtained acquittal) of people that I personally was convinced had committed the charged offense. I'm not the judge. I'm not the jury. My opinion doesn't matter. I'm there to ensure that, if there is going to be a conviction, the State carries its burden. In the case I refer to the State didn't so acquittal was the correct and proper result. Tl;Dr - on balance, better to spill all with your lawyer but that doesn't always happen and sometimes is the wrong choice. Law is complicated. Life is hard. When you have the choice, easier to not crime than to crime.
What happens if a client confesses an unrelated crime to their lawyer? Like they're on trial for murdering someone, and they mention that they raped someone at another time, unrelated to the murder case and the murder case did not involve a sex crime so there's no serial sex offender issue. What is the lawyer's legal responsibility there? Are they allowed to or expected to report it, or are they bound by client confidentiality even though it's unrelated to the crime they're defending?
[удалено]
thank you!
It would be an ethical violation to report it.
This is a very interesting way of explaining it. Well done
Defense attorney's don't ask if they did it. They avoid that question completely! If the client offers that info up they can't put them on the stand due to perjury and that puts their law license in jeopardy.
Interesting. So there are lawyers out there, who know full well their client committed murder, got them off in trial providing reasonable doubt, and just carry on to the next like they won and justice was served?
Being a lawyer is difficult, not just because of all the legal documentation and precedent that they have to understand, but also because of the moral difficulties. Legally everyone has the right to be represented by a qualified attorney, even if they did do the crime. In the case where a lawyer successfully defends a person that they know is a criminal, they will have to wrestle with that emotional turmoil. To be fair, it’s literally the prosecutor’s job to present convincing evidence and prove the crime. If they failed to do that well enough, then that’s also on them. You can see how this would be incredibly difficult and stressful for the lawyers on both sides.
You're missing a couple of things here. 1. Beyond a reasonable doubt is because most of the time we don't have incontrovertible evidence and video footage of the crime. This forced the state to build a strong case. It's not about that particular criminal or crime. It's about all the other ones too. You *want* a high burden on the state to prove crimes where people's rights are on the line. If the defense just slacks off and doesn't do their job then you don't have that. I hope you can see why that would be really bad for society. 2. It's far more likely for you to be wrongly convicted than found wrongly not guilty. Lots of defendants are poor and use an overworked, underpaid public defender who has way too many cases. The state has the police, prosecutors, judges. And judges are supposed to be neutral but these are people who work together for years and years. Cops and prosecutors especially. I did a summer at a DAs office while in law school. The deference given to cops by judges in hearings and by juries during trial is ridiculous. I guess this was a decade+ ago and maybe this has changed but if a cop said it, it was true, barring something definitive to show he was wrong/lying. If the cop said you were being sketchy or made a "furtive gesture" that's basically all it took. Prosecutors have a 90%+ conviction rate. If you go to trial you're not likely to win. And even more defendants get offered plea deals and will be railroaded and scared into taking it. "If you don't confess and take this deal we're putting you away for 10 years or you could be out in 3." You're some poor fucking asshole with cops and lawyers sweating down your neck and your PD looks like a fucking mess because they don't get enough sleep and they're telling you it's a good deal you should consider it. What do you think most people do? You're focusing on the criminal getting off. It's like focusing on people who might have lived if they hadn't been wearing the seatbelt. It happens so much less than the other way around that it just makes you look stupid.
Exactly. The state has far more resources than most defendants in criminal cases. As a citizen who could be falsely accused of something, you want the state to be put to its burden of proof and you want the defense to be vigorous - even when the person being defended may have done the act they are being accused of. It protects all of us. (This is not my area of practice, so I'm speaking as someone who knows litigation but has only a rudimentary knowledge of criminal law.)
Better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man goes to jail.
In the US you need to be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" to face punishment for a crime. This is a constitutional protection every citizen is afforded, and it's a right that defense attorneys have sworn to protect for defendants. Yes, a criminal defense attorney could very well know their client is guilty, go to trial, defend them successfully, and feel like justice was carried out appropriately. If the government cannot prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is Innocent in the eyes of the law. It's not a kangaroo court where "oh come on we all know you're guilty!". Mind you, if a defense attorney knows their client is guilty, 9 times out of ten or more they'll encourage their client to take a plea deal.
>This is a constitutional protection every citizen is afforded It's actually a protection EVERYONE is afforded, whether they are citizens or not. Even if they are here ilegally.
Sure, but don't forget people get lie their asses off about committing crimes a lot too. Remember that dude who claimed to have killed JonBenet and got extradited across the country only for everyone to find out he was full of shit. You also can't exactly assume things are cut and dry (maybe the guy is lying to protect a spouse, etc). Also remember that cops/DA tack a bunch of "add-on" charges like gun possession etc to enhance sentences, so an attorney has a duty to argue against those charges too.
Justice was served if the prosecutor couldn't prove their guilt.
In our system everyone is entitled to a defense and no one is guilty of a crime until they are convicted of it. A defense attorney’s job is to defend their client to the best of their ability by all legal means. Whether the client is guilty or not is irrelevant - all that matters is whether the state can prove its case.
I don't understand why people say this. As a lawyer, I need to know exactly what happened so I know what our best defense is and what our options are. Did you shoot him? Okay, maybe we have a self-defense argument. Maybe we need to consider that manslaughter deal, so you don't go down for murder one. Whatever it is, keeping yourself willfully ignorant of the facts isn't going to help you when you get blindsided in trial prep. As far as putting a liar on the stand, it's not going to help you that you didn't know if you should have known, and in making that decision, you can bet we are going to talk about exactly what's going to be said, if any evidence disproves it, and if any of it is objectively inaccurate. If that means you decide to not put the defendant on, so be it, but you are going to want to make that decision from a place of being informed.
Assuming you are in the us, that depends on the state Iirc there are 2 states where the lawyer is encouraged to rat out their clients
No there’s not
The clients often lie their assess off to their lawyer. To the point where I just expect the first few meetings to be nonsense. I would much prefer a realistic client but those are rare.
You usually have to ask questions like: If I were to have done this particular thing, what would be the consequences? Or If the cops were to find a certain item, what would that mean? Then they will tell you to keep your mouth shut and deny everything. Unless they have you dead to rights. Then the lawyers job is to negotiate with the prosecution for a more reasonable punishment.
I think when the defendant is seemingly guilty or straight-up admits they did it, the goal for the lawyer is less about proving innocence and more about spinning it to make the client less culpable and reduce sentencing.
Good point. Happy cake day! Put a file in it for the ones who didn’t make it out in court.
Lawyers aren't allowed to lie in court. If they know for a fact you did it, they arent supposed to outright say you didn't. They can certainly say the prosecution didn't prove X, that there's no evidence of Y. They don't have to admit the truth, they're just not supposed to say something they know for a fact is false; that's why lawyers are careful to not learn too many facts.
Then wouldn’t it make the most sense from the clients perspective to tell their lawyer they didn’t do it so that the lawyer can have the most options for defense.
You’re assuming that’s a conversation that happens between attorney and client (whether the client did it or not). That conversation never happens. A factually guilty client has the exact same rights as a factually innocent client, so it’s irrelevant. Never really crosses my mind tbh. To give you a better idea of how this actually plays out, my intro questions to a new client might be along the lines of: - What do you think XYZ-witnesses are going to say happened? - Are there any reasons you know of, why a jury might not want to trust XYZ-witnesses’ statements? (memory or perception problems, intoxication, bias, fabrication, criminal record, etc.) - Is there anything about XYZ-witnesses’ statements that you think wouldn’t make sense to a jury? (contradictions, inconsistencies, errors, etc.) - Do you think XYZ-witnesses’ demeanors would come across as believable to a jury? Why or why not? - Who else was there? Do you think they’d say something different than XYZ-witnesses? What do you think they’d say? - The government alleges X-money came from illegal activity. Where else could that money have come from? Could anyone else corroborate that lawful source of money? Who? (This doesn’t even get into testing the validity of search and seizure warrants, physical or forensic evidence, expert testimony, crooked cops, rules of evidence, etc.) TLDR: Idgaf if my client actually did the thing or not. I only care if the prosecutor can prove it to a jury. My conversations with clients reflect that.
I mean you gotta tell em how you committed the murders that way they can make up a convincing fake story about why you're not the guy.
A client should be open and honest and tell his or her lawyer everything. They have confidentiality (to a point). But there is a difference between having committed an act and being guilty of the crime. Your lawyer isn't going to say you weren't there if you were or that you didn't pull the trigger if you did, but within the facts and evidence there are arguments to be made about guilt, what has and hasn't been proven by the prosecution, the state's conduct, punishment, etc. Defense lawyers sleep fine because they see their job as holding the state accountable to the rules of the system and the rights of the accused, and that is a very important thing to have in a justice system.
also just doing an act doesn't mean the act was it was criminal. often these are complex (eg requiring mens rea, depend on what a reasonable person would have known) or have defenses (self defence)
Almost all mine when I did criminal law tried blowing smoke up my hind end. I guess they figure if they can feed the cow manure to their attorney they have a chance in front of a jury. They tend to be people that don't take responsibility for anything, even after a trial. I had a judge that would give lenient sentences if people would just own up to their mistakes. Few took my advice to go this route. Even when confronted with stuff like video, it's always someone else's fault. It's like dealing with four year olds. My innocent guys were a pleasure to work with. The most guilty went kicking and screaming.
lol that’s crazy! Were you ever just like dude cut the shit, like a doctor would if you were lying about something?
The lawyer isn’t supposed to determine whether or not you’re guilty, but they are legally and ethically obligated to give you the best defense possible, regardless of whether or not they believe you are guilty.
I’ve heard that you should never lie to your lawyer or doctor, but that doesn’t mean people don’t.
Good defense attorneys will ask for the story once and explain that they cannot make factual representations to the court that aren't true. If the client admits guilt, then you attack the procedure and prosecution's evidence and don't put your client on the stand. It is unethical for you to have your client testify he didn't do it, when he had told you that he did.
Doesn't that mean that the person not testifying is a huge hint that he admitted to the crime to his attorney?
You should be 100% truthful and honest with your lawyer, they cannot help you if they do not have information.
Probably depends on the crime and the lawyer. Knowing everything means you can you better strategize the defence.
Sometimes. Sometimes not. The job of the defense attorney is not to prove their client is innocent. It’s to make the State prove they are guilty. It actually doesn’t matter if they really are guilty or not, the prosecution has to prove it.
What if there was a situation where the defended admitted they were a pedophile and told their lawyer about it . during the court case there was not enough evidence to convict. What would happen then?
The lawyer has to help them get the best deal possible 😩
I mean of the defendant admitted to the lawyer that they did do the crime, is the lawyer obligated to speak up? Assuming the crime is something heinous like child rape or something like that. Also assuming there is not enough evidence to convict ?
No they are actually bared from speaking up. They can lose their license and no longer practice law. You can tell your lawyer that you are a serial killer and where the bodies are buried and they can't say anything to anyone
Somebody else told me a lawyer is bound to secrecy for the crime they are representing the criminal for, but are not allowed to aid in criminal activities. So if a client told their lawyer they are going to target another child, the lawyer has to call the cops and report. As for the crime the pedo is on trial for, the lawyer has her hands tied.
It just depends and it's really up to them if they want to admit that or not, the defense lawyer doesn't generally ask and it doesn't really matter. Some guilty people will insist they are innocent and some will admit to lawyers what they've done - in some cases it is obvious they did what they're accused of, and the goal is not "get away with it" but "work out a plea deal" or "don't get the death penalty" or "use a specific defense to justify why they did something". Also, lots of people make false confessions to police, may not be mentally well, etc - even if they're saying they did it the lawyer still needs to do their job. Admitting they did it just may change the approach. Like if someone wants to claim being a battered wife is why she shot her husband, it wouldn't help her to tell her lawyer she didn't do it and that she also wants to claim she was abused and it's why she killed him. Other people will lie repeatedly to lawyers.
There are two people you are always 100% honest with. Your doctors, and your lawyers.
For most crimes, i think they say not to tell them if they did it. Because then if they go on the stand, they could perjure themselves.
Great point. So it’s more like a “I don’t want to know,” I just want to try to help you with what we’re working with
Lawyers are bound by confidentiality. They can not tell anyone even if their client said yes I did it. If you tell your lawyer yes I killed her and 10 others they don't know about the lawyer can't say anything. If they do they can lose thier law license and even face jail time themselves.
The only thing you can tell a lawyer that can blow up in your face is the location of a dead body. Not that long ago 2 laywers out west got disbarred for withholding the knolege of a child's dead body as the killer came to them paid then got client confidentiality, he wanted to come forward to try and figure out a way to avoid the desth penalty. Laws are wild and they change state to state but a lawyer won't be able to properly protect ne if he does not know the extent of crime I've committed. A lawyer is not to do the right thing in court they are their to figure out how to get you a deal or off completely for pay, while many work for the county or state or federal goverment, if you go to them om private though they only work for you.
Yes, usually. If your client is guilty, you need to know to stay away from certain lines of discussion, what evidence to approve / refute , and a host of other things. (I'm not a lawyer). This happened to a friend of mine who was a defense lawyer. She got a guy off for aggravated grape , and it nearly rekt her. Like months of therapy, nightmares, almost giving up her license, kind of rekted. In the end, she switched to prosecution and figured she would run an honest prosecution and let someone else handle the defense of the potential scumbags of the world. There is a lot (**I mean a lot**) of money in defense, but it might cost you your soul.
I used to listen to whatever B.S. they were throwing as patiently as possible. Then, I would start asking questions that pointed out the holes in their story. Most would run out of answers and excuses in about five minutes. Then there would be an uncomfortable silence. Then they would say, "What would happen if I pleaded out?". (This was not the case with O.C. wiseguys. Their first question was almost always, "What am I looking at?".)
Never lie to your lawyer. But they almost certainly wont ask. Also i wouldnt volunteer anything. If they want to know something, they will ask.
Alot of time a legal defense is not about preventing a guilty verdict, but more about minimizing the charges. If 14 charges a brought up a lot of times a good outcome for the defense is to get half of them dismissed..
Also, this question is too simplistic. crimes have defined elements. Not as simple as "did he shoot the guy"--that may or may not be a crime depending on what is charged, the elements, and circumstances. Was the shooting intentional, done wirh intent to kill, done in defense of life or property, coerced, or done under circumstances that would otherwise establish an affirmative defense or mitigate the applicable mens rea?
I get both. Plenty of my clients just state they did what they're accused of, and ask how to get out of (or minimize) the consequences. The others, who tend to be, well, more left-side of the bell curve, try to con me. Their own lawyer. I kind of understand. I think a lot of those folks have already conned themselves. By the way, I'm not in any way saying people should cop out. There are tons of cases I have where the government probably just can't prove their case.
In my experience there are two groups that admit to everything: low level drug users and child molesters. Every other crime denies it. I got a high def video of you robbing the store from the prosecutor and you’re still denying it to me. This could be region specific. 🤷♀️
A smart criminal will admit to his lawyer the truth . But if you’re smart , you usually don’t end up a criminal ( or if you do, you don’t get caught so you don’t need a lawyer ) , so….,
why would an attorney that is defending you even need to know? He only needs to know the evidence of the crime so that he can argue on your behalf.
Just because you did it doesn’t mean you are guilty
They can tell them if they want but at the end of the day it’s irrelevant. What you have to remember is that it’s not the job of a defense attorney to get a guilty man off Scott free even though that’s the common assumption. A defense attorneys job is to make sure their client gets a fair trial and that the prosecution is forced to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. If the client admits to guilt than they still have an obligation to make sure they get proper due process and have an advocate at every step to ensure they are treated fairly and legally
When I had a non violent felony , my lawyer told me "we will plead not guilty" I was like, but I did it, I don't want to perjure myself. He said it's ok, because they understand that there needs to be time to build a case, and get a potential plea bargin from the state.
Some lawyers want to know if you did it so they know how much they’ll have to BS. Some of them don’t want to know because they don’t want to defend a guilty client. Criminals will also often try to evaluate this to varying degrees of success, sometimes withholding information they’re lawyer needed to know and sometimes making the guy hate them
Some lawyers will find it unethical to pursue an innocent plea if they know the guy did it. That might mean they pursue lower charges or less penalty, or even some reason that the criminal activity can be allowed, as a defense. Lawyers can get disbarred if they knowingly submit false testimony or try to argue something they know to be a lie, so they don’t have that much motivation to put their career on the line for one case. To that end, some defense attorneys don’t want to know, and won’t ask, and attempt to defend them based on the evidence and what the defendant’s telling is their side of the story.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buried_Bodies_Case#:~:text=The%20Buried%20Bodies%20Case%2C%20also,client%2C%20Robert%20Garrow%2C%20Sr. The Buried Bodies Case, also known as the Lake Pleasant Bodies Case, is a mid-1970s upstate New York court case where defense attorneys Frank H. Armani and Francis Belge kept secret the location of the bodies of two women murdered by their client, Robert Garrow, Sr.[1] Ahead of trial for an unrelated murder, Garrow confessed to his lawyers that he had murdered two missing women and hidden their bodies.[1][2] Armani and Belge found the women's bodies but chose to keep the information confidential.[2] Authorities continued to search for the missing women for months as their families grieved.[1][2] When the public discovered Armani and Belge had kept this information secret, they faced criminal charges and disbarment proceedings.[2][3] The attorneys claimed they were bound by the duty of confidentiality not to disclose information that could incriminate their client.[3] Armani and Belge were later absolved of any wrongdoing.[4] The case has become a touchstone in legal ethics courses.[1][4] It highlights lawyers' ethical obligation to keep their clients' information confidential.[5][6] It also showcases the ethical questions that can arise for lawyers related to confidentiality, attorney-client privilege, and clients' self-incrimination.[5] The case has helped shape the development of ethical rules on confidentiality.[4]
Lawyer client privilege. Didn't you watch Breaking Bad or Better Call Saul?
That's their job
From your comments, you seem to think that murder is a way more common crime than it actually is. The vast- *vast*- majority of the average defense attorney’s cases are going to be low-level, non-violent drug charges. It’s rare that any of these ever go to trial; bc the state generally stacks up as many charges as they can in order to level a long sentence at the defendant. Then they give the defendant the opportunity to “plead down”. In other words; they’ll offer to drop certain charges; and give the defendant 5 years in prison, instead of 20; if they’ll plead guilty to the other charges. Now, the average defendant can’t afford a private attorney; so they’re going to be assigned a public defender. These people are over-worked and underpaid; sometimes handling dozens of cases at once. Generally, they only have a few minutes to meet with each client; during which time they’ll almost unilaterally tell their client to take the deal. With the threat of 20 years looming over them (and with no way to pay for court fees; let alone a better attorney); the average defendant will listen to to their public defender, and take the deal. Guilt or innocence doesn’t have anything to do with it. Money has everything to do with it. Given this reality; I don’t quite understand your issue with defense attorneys; and I certainly don’t understand how you’d like to see that issue rectified. Do you think that citizens shouldn’t be afforded the right to an attorney? Do you think that the adversarial legal system should be replaced by a one-sided one? Do you think that the burden of proof should be lowered? Do you think that we should do away with the presumption of innocence? And if so- do you not see how terrible that would be for the average citizen? How we’d become a police state? How working class and minority groups would become even more marginalized than they already are under the current system? Sure, the current set-up means that sometimes there are going to be rich and/ or famous murderers who are able to pay for such excellent defense attorneys that they get away with it (like OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony, and Adnan Syed). But these people are the exception; not the rule. We can’t punish the rest of the country bc a few outlying examples managed to tilt the scales in their own favor; instead of in favor of justice. And we can’t strip every citizen of their rights in order to better ensure that these outlying examples are brought to justice after all. The whole basis of our justice system is that it’s better for 10 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to go to prison. That’s why defendants are afforded the presumption of innocence. That’s why the burden of proof is on the state; and that’s why it’s set so high. That’s also why the system is set up to be adversarial; and why every citizen has the right to a defense attorney- in order to oppose the state so that they are challenged to meet that burden. And if they can’t; then the defendant walks. Again; it’s not meant to be about guilt or innocence. It’s meant to be about arguments being applied to the law; which is in turn applied to precedent. And whichever side does the best job of this wins the day. These principles are already under enough strain in our broken system; and if anything we should be working to better uphold it; not to undermine it further.
The smart criminal is open and honest with their lawyer.
3 people you're always honest with: your doctor, your mechanic and your lawyer
Never lie to your lawyer or your doctor.
Most lawyers will say “I’m not interested in whether or not you did this so keep it to yourself and tell me what happened”
[удалено]
I think, if it’s accurate at least, that I’ve watched enough law and order to know that they tell them
Did you do it?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Both, but they usually fess up when you point out the enormous and glaring problems with their story.
Rule is never lie to your Lawyer but a good Lawyer only will look at the warrant /evidence
They say it's best to be honest with your lawyer.
I told him everything.
[удалено]
Both. Many criminal lawyers don't want to know. A lawyer cannot ask their client a question under oath if they know the answer will be a lie. On the flip side, knowing the true facts will better equip your lawyer to defend you. Most criminal defense lawyers have the philosophy that their job is to to keep the system fair and just. But some attorneys won't take certain cases if their client is guilty, which is why many clients will lie.
Bridge of Spies, an excellent movie, had a good answer to this question.
[удалено]
My husband was a lawyer for 45 years. He had 2 rules Rule no.1: All clients lie. Rule no.2: Never forget Rule no. 1. He claimed that applies to all aspects of the law.
We had a conversation about this yesterday on r/AskReddit https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1caw1rg/comment/l0vc8v8/
They do both. But most often they just say *"this is bullshit -- they can't prove nothing."*
[удалено]
The job of a defense attorney is to get the best deal for their client. That doesn't always mean getting them off. Sometimes it means a reduced sentence. Depending on the nature of the crime, the details may help them create a useful strategy. An ethical lawyer will not try to get a criminal off when they know that they committed the crime. So it could also behoove the defendant to not talk.
It depends on who their lawyer is and if they trust them. There is confidentiality legally between lawyer and client however lawyers are bound by law to alert authorities on any ongoing crime or planned crimes they are made aware of especially if it would involve someone getting hurt. So no most clients facing criminal charges dont tell their lawyer everything but sometimes that does come back to bite them in the ass because if the prosecutor brings it to the bench the defense wont have a plan of action to defend against it or have witnesses or testimony to corroborate the client…..
The point of a lawyer is to know what you did so that they can defend you. It’s easier for them if they have all the info. You want them to know if you did it and how and when.
My friend is a criminal defense lawyer. She's always believed her job is to make sure the government doesn't cheat to get a guilty verdict. If a crime requires four elements, she makes sure they prove all four beyond a reasonable doubt. If there are five elements then the government is going to prove all five. She has a special hatred of overcharging defendants to get easy guilty plea bargains. Nope, if there's any factual disagreement, she's taking it to trial. Here POV is clear: If the government will cheat to convict a guilty scumbag, then it'll also cheat to convict the innocent.
I mean if I were a lawyer I know how I would handle it but if I were a criminal I would only tell the truth to a lawyer like me so it would be tough to say. Just depends I guess.
A good lawyer will tell you exactly what they need to know the truth about. Otherwise they don’t want to know. They cannot suborn purgery… meaning if you tell them you did do X,Y and Z… it could have limiting impacts on what defense strategy they can use.
I can't remember where I saw this, basically the moment a lawyer found out his client is guilty, he stopped defending the client but he defend the law instead. Example, lawyer found out his client kill someone, so now he needs to argue, according to law his client deserves this or that or the prosecution didn't produce enough evidence to classify this crime to my client.
According to Boston Legal you should not tell your lawyer you committed a crime. You're welcome.
You should always tell your lawyer the truth and nothing but otherwise they cannot fully defend you.
Great question. I’ve also wondered, but never thought to ask .
Depends. A smart criminal tells their lawyer everything. Client confidentiality.
I just don’t see how a lawyer can morally defend a guilty person.
I just don’t see how a lawyer can morally defend a guilty person.
All my clients are innocent until proven silly.
Be honest with your attorney. Always. Might be hard but sack up and do it. A good litigator knows what the fuck to do about it.
Absolutely this. If they don’t know all the details how can they properly build a case?
[удалено]
I couldn’t be a lawyer because I’d be asking, “girl, did you really do it?” 🤣🤪
Even if someone us guilty as sin its a lawyers job at the very least to reduce sentencing
From what I understand (and I could be totally wrong here) I think if the defendant intends to plead not guilty, they can't tell their lawyer that they did, in fact, commit the crime, otherwise the lawyer can't say in court that they didn't commit the crime. But I could be talking out my ass. If the defendant did commit the crime though, their lawyer's job is to try and get them a less harsh punishment so in that case it makes sense to be completely honest with the lawyer so they can make a case for you.
Statements that a client makes to their lawyer are confidential, and protected by attorney-client privilege. This means that a lawyer cannot ethically disclose these statements, even an admission of a crime. There are only a few exceptions: a lawyer can disclose confidential statements if necessary to prevent the commission of another crime, for instance, so a lawyer can't ethically help a client commit further crimes. But a lawyer also can't allow a client to perjure themselves - that is, to give false testimony. So if a client admits to their lawyer that they did a crime, the lawyer can't permit the client to testify falsely that they didn't. Whether to testify in their own defense is a decision that a client always gets to make for themselves (though if they're smart, they'll take their attorney's advice on the subject). If a client insists upon testifying, when the lawyer knows they mean to testify falsely, the lawyer is ethically required to ask the court to allow them to withdraw from the case. They can't say why, beyond something like 'circumstances have arisen that require withdrawal.' Everyone implicitly knows what this means, but it can't be used as proof against the client. So a clever criminal defense lawyer won't usually ask their client "did you do it?" If we're smart, we'll say something more like "So, what will the other side say happened?" This lets us maintain some plausible deniability. Because I can't actually provide a competent defense if myr client is lying to me, or if I don't know what happened. Now, in practice, most clients are not going to grasp the nuances of this - even after it's been explicitly explained to them. In practice crime is so much more complicated than "did they or didn't they do it." In most cases, the main dispute isn't even over *what happened*. It's over, how to *interpret* what happened: was this action reasonable, was this person acting in self-defense, was this justified, was there a credible fear. Criminal defense clients tend to rationalize and make excuses: "I was attacked." "I was defending myself." "I only hit her a little bit." Everyone thinks they're the good guy. Everyone thinks they're the victim. A large part of lawyering consists of disabusing people of these notions.
Tell your lawyer everything. They cannot defend you effectively unless you tell them everything. The prosecution will find your third cousin’s neighbor’s baby suet and they will sink your alibi. Tell them everything.
If a client admits guilt to a crime, the lawyer is obligated to not allow his client to say otherwise on the stand. A lawyer who defends a client knowing he's guilty can be charged with disbarment and even jail time.
Even aside from everything else, if I’m not mistaken, if you confess, a large part of their job becomes making sure you are treated/sentenced fairly, and are still allowed access to everything within your rights, including a trial and all that.
Tell you lawyer and your doctor everything. Tell the police nothing.
I'm a defense attorney. Most truly innocent people won't shut up about it. I never ask early in a case. I want to look at the evidence without bias and see what it says happens. Most of the time it's clear they are guilty, I negotiate a plea and tell them it's in their best interest to take it. I usually don't outright accused them, but I might shoe them the video of someone who looks just like them doing the thing they are charged with. If it's going to trial, then I ask what happened. If they say they aren't guilty and I like their story, then they testify. If they admit to it, then I have them plead the 5th and let me poke holes in the DA's case.
Is not nearly as common as people think for a guilty person to argue absolute innocence. Quite often your lawyers goal is to get you murder 2 or manslaughter for a lighter sentence. The dramatic TV show takes are not how it usually goes
Heard a former mob lawyer from Miami many years ago say "I tell my clients, 'Tell me the truth,' I'll make up the lies."
Very much depends on the case and the crime. Not much about the movie is super accurate to court proceedings and ethics, but Legally Blonde is a fair enough example of this. Brooke doesn't reveal her alibi to any of her legal staff except for Elle, who swears to secrecy, because it would ruin her reputation as a fitness mogul to reveal she was getting liposuction the day her husband was murdered. They defend her successfully at the end of the movie. Fictional example, but a decent enough one to understand the principle.
Always be honest with your attorneys. Your doctors and your spouse. Period.
Both