Lawyers who get people off Drink Drive charges
Discussion
Dwight VanDriver said:
Conversley of course the cost of hiring Nick Freeman etc far, far, far, far outweights the cost of a fine in many cases unless of course costs are awarded and that isn't often.
dvd
hmmmm, but is it more expensive than the cost of a twelve or eighteen month driving suspension?
There are lots of reasons why sometimes things do not go the way they should in court, in the rare cases where advocates are being paid for by the defendant (about 1% of those we see actually work!) it is quite obvious that he/she has been plucked from the box marked "beware sharp objects" whilst the CPS prosecutor is clearly labelled "safe for children" indeed in many cases (usually ones where the file has gone missing) the CPS send an agent who has no background to the case and hence little hope of a fair fight.
Magistrates do try and act in a common sense manor but as said it is often the letter of the law that prevents a just outcome and their hands are tied.
We have had a few cases lately where police witnesses have failed to appear and the case has been dropped, and the more usual breakdown in admin which means that due process has not been observed or indeed the file has been mislaid for the umpteenth time, all of this leads to people walking free who should not, no simple answer just a lot of little things that need addressing.
Conversely, last week I helped prevent a training manager get banned for totting who had fallen foul of one of our most notorious camera's, and finally sent down a multiple DWD offender who had no respect for the law or any other road user - sometimes it goes right!
A
Magistrates do try and act in a common sense manor but as said it is often the letter of the law that prevents a just outcome and their hands are tied.
We have had a few cases lately where police witnesses have failed to appear and the case has been dropped, and the more usual breakdown in admin which means that due process has not been observed or indeed the file has been mislaid for the umpteenth time, all of this leads to people walking free who should not, no simple answer just a lot of little things that need addressing.
Conversely, last week I helped prevent a training manager get banned for totting who had fallen foul of one of our most notorious camera's, and finally sent down a multiple DWD offender who had no respect for the law or any other road user - sometimes it goes right!
A
Agnostic said:
There are lots of reasons why sometimes things do not go the way they should in court,
The way they "should"? So you know better than the court? Hell, let's just shoot people by the roadside and save all this tedious nonsense about "innocent until proven guilty" and "human rights", eh?
Agnostic said:
Magistrates do try and act in a common sense manor but as said it is often the letter of the law that prevents a just outcome and their hands are tied.
It's their job to implement the law. Not to decide to hang people for littering.
Agnostic said:
We have had a few cases lately where police witnesses have failed to appear and the case has been dropped, and the more usual breakdown in admin which means that due process has not been observed or indeed the file has been mislaid for the umpteenth time, all of this leads to people walking free who should not,
If the prosecution can't be arsed to do their job, they *should* walk free. Innocent until proven guilty, no matter how much you dislike the concept.
Sheesh.
There are some interesting points about the morals involved here. I have defended myself twice in court against the CPS brief and had to cross-examine police officers myself. I did this because I had faith in fighting a fair case on a level playing field.
The first case where I was accused of running a red light by three police officers I contested because I knew I was innocent and could fight this on a level playing field and won.
The second was where I was zapped by a speed camera. I did a hell of a lot of research myself and had a good case. After the 90 minute case, the clerk congratulated me as he said in 20 years of doing the job it was by far the best self defended case.
However, my case was hindered by the CPS fudging and that blatantly ignoring my letters asking them for relevant information and documents which I was to base my case on. However, lo and behold they found them just in time to bring them to trial... When I got to speak to the CPS brief a couple of hours before the trial I did so in a formal way in front of the clerk and asked him for the information again. I was told that the adjoining police station which sent out the guys with the laserguns does not have a single instruction manual for them. I was also shown a calibration certificate for the device. This would have been fine, but the guy then pulled out a completely different document once the case had started!!!
My point is, I found out to my cost that it is very difficult to fight any kind of case on a level playing field. I would have liked to, but if we are talking about the defence lawyers using loopholes and not playing the game fairly, lets not pretend the same thing doesnt happen on both sides. The difference is that as a publicly funded organisation shoudnt the CPS at least be playing by the rules? I know in hindsight now that it was the fact that I was not allowed to play on a level field that I lost my case. Ironically these were the exact inaccuracies that I know a professional specialist would have picked up on to win the case for me.
Unfortunately the system in not in practicality a fair one. Whilst I can empathise with anyone who is innocent and forced to fight a case like I was, there is a large difference between this and knowing you are guilty for driving under the influence and using a lawyer to 'get you off'.
The lawyer in question is very good at what he does. Whilst it can be said that it is immorral to pick trivial holes undermining the principle of a case in order to win, I think this is a much lesser crime than the CPS commits every day by denying without reason documents and information just because they are defending themselves and wont have the necessary 'bite' in court to be able to get the case thrown out because of it.
The lawyers cases which we hear most of are obviously the ones he wins. From experience with talking to his office he does by no means take on every case, but will assess each case to see if there is a fault in it before agreeing to fight it. Whilst I cant speak for every case, some of his cases through scrupulously examining proceedure have brough out faults in systems which *should* be addressed for the good of the public. After all, if these faults had'nt occurred the case would have been won by the CPS. Each one I have heard of, where the CPS had failed to administrate their witnesses, their statements, the magistrate had made inappropriate contact with the CPS brief each brough forward something which should be addressed. Even in my own case, I exposed that the police officer operating the laser gun had made numerous errors in its operation. It was also exposed that the reason for this was that he had never read the ACPO Code of Practice for using it, and there was not even an instruction manual to reference at the police station!
In conclusion, I find it morally wrong that a guilty dring driver is not punished. However, I believe the cause of this is that he had a good lawyer who was able to win the case based on faults made by the opposition. Would the CPS capitalise in weaknesses in the defence case, or even impede them? Of course they would, and do it every day, sometime even to convict people who are actually innocent. Is that any different?
>> Edited by justinp1 on Monday 27th February 10:44
>> Edited by justinp1 on Monday 27th February 10:45
The first case where I was accused of running a red light by three police officers I contested because I knew I was innocent and could fight this on a level playing field and won.
The second was where I was zapped by a speed camera. I did a hell of a lot of research myself and had a good case. After the 90 minute case, the clerk congratulated me as he said in 20 years of doing the job it was by far the best self defended case.
However, my case was hindered by the CPS fudging and that blatantly ignoring my letters asking them for relevant information and documents which I was to base my case on. However, lo and behold they found them just in time to bring them to trial... When I got to speak to the CPS brief a couple of hours before the trial I did so in a formal way in front of the clerk and asked him for the information again. I was told that the adjoining police station which sent out the guys with the laserguns does not have a single instruction manual for them. I was also shown a calibration certificate for the device. This would have been fine, but the guy then pulled out a completely different document once the case had started!!!
My point is, I found out to my cost that it is very difficult to fight any kind of case on a level playing field. I would have liked to, but if we are talking about the defence lawyers using loopholes and not playing the game fairly, lets not pretend the same thing doesnt happen on both sides. The difference is that as a publicly funded organisation shoudnt the CPS at least be playing by the rules? I know in hindsight now that it was the fact that I was not allowed to play on a level field that I lost my case. Ironically these were the exact inaccuracies that I know a professional specialist would have picked up on to win the case for me.
Unfortunately the system in not in practicality a fair one. Whilst I can empathise with anyone who is innocent and forced to fight a case like I was, there is a large difference between this and knowing you are guilty for driving under the influence and using a lawyer to 'get you off'.
The lawyer in question is very good at what he does. Whilst it can be said that it is immorral to pick trivial holes undermining the principle of a case in order to win, I think this is a much lesser crime than the CPS commits every day by denying without reason documents and information just because they are defending themselves and wont have the necessary 'bite' in court to be able to get the case thrown out because of it.
The lawyers cases which we hear most of are obviously the ones he wins. From experience with talking to his office he does by no means take on every case, but will assess each case to see if there is a fault in it before agreeing to fight it. Whilst I cant speak for every case, some of his cases through scrupulously examining proceedure have brough out faults in systems which *should* be addressed for the good of the public. After all, if these faults had'nt occurred the case would have been won by the CPS. Each one I have heard of, where the CPS had failed to administrate their witnesses, their statements, the magistrate had made inappropriate contact with the CPS brief each brough forward something which should be addressed. Even in my own case, I exposed that the police officer operating the laser gun had made numerous errors in its operation. It was also exposed that the reason for this was that he had never read the ACPO Code of Practice for using it, and there was not even an instruction manual to reference at the police station!
In conclusion, I find it morally wrong that a guilty dring driver is not punished. However, I believe the cause of this is that he had a good lawyer who was able to win the case based on faults made by the opposition. Would the CPS capitalise in weaknesses in the defence case, or even impede them? Of course they would, and do it every day, sometime even to convict people who are actually innocent. Is that any different?
>> Edited by justinp1 on Monday 27th February 10:44
>> Edited by justinp1 on Monday 27th February 10:45
zumbruk said:
There are lots of reasons why sometimes things do not go the way they should in court,
The way they "should"? So you know better than the court? Hell, let's just shoot people by the roadside and save all this tedious nonsense about "innocent until proven guilty" and "human rights", eh?
Agnostic said:
Magistrates do try and act in a common sense manor but as said it is often the letter of the law that prevents a just outcome and their hands are tied.
It's their job to implement the law. Not to decide to hang people for littering.
Agnostic said:
We have had a few cases lately where police witnesses have failed to appear and the case has been dropped, and the more usual breakdown in admin which means that due process has not been observed or indeed the file has been mislaid for the umpteenth time, all of this leads to people walking free who should not,
If the prosecution can't be arsed to do their job, they *should* walk free. Innocent until proven guilty, no matter how much you dislike the concept.
Sheesh.
You seem to be full of instant decisions and sweeping statements
By "the way they should" I was implying that a case should have gone ahead if all parties bothered to turn up! If you had been assaulted and the witness failed to show would you be aggrieved that the perpetrator walked?
How can Magistrates implement the law if due process is not followed? Is your life just Black and White with no grey areas? how I wish life were that simple!
I think you need to speak to a few people who have been on the receiving end of miscarriages of justice, maybe meet a few wives who have been beaten by thuggish husbands for ten years, or the Mother of a child killed by a DD, maybe, just maybe you would stop and think a little before sweeping all aside with your "Innocent until proven guilty"?
The case has to be proved beyond "a reasonable doubt" - If the case isn't 100% watertight then who do we blame? The defence or the prosecution? This Freeman fella is simply selling a somewhat specialised service.
Perhaps the CPS head-honcho at a couny level, need to share information better to put a stop to such cases where the failure to observe the correct procedures causes the prosecution to fail.
Perhaps the CPS head-honcho at a couny level, need to share information better to put a stop to such cases where the failure to observe the correct procedures causes the prosecution to fail.
"Innocent until proved guilty" is an interesting misconception in my opinion. Picture this...You see a person pick up a brick and throw it through the glass window of a shop, it smashes and he runs off.
Simple enough, let's say you actually know the culprit personally and therefore as the witness you have seen the crime committed by a person you know (no identification problems for you), you KNOW he smashed the window as you saw him do it.
He is arrested and pleads not guilty at court. You are called as a prosecution witness.
Is HE not guilty of smashing the window? What if he's found not guilty by some quirk, is he innocent of the offence?? Of course he isn't.
>> Edited by phillipj on Tuesday 28th February 08:29
Simple enough, let's say you actually know the culprit personally and therefore as the witness you have seen the crime committed by a person you know (no identification problems for you), you KNOW he smashed the window as you saw him do it.
He is arrested and pleads not guilty at court. You are called as a prosecution witness.
Is HE not guilty of smashing the window? What if he's found not guilty by some quirk, is he innocent of the offence?? Of course he isn't.
>> Edited by phillipj on Tuesday 28th February 08:29
Are we arguing here that the ancient and established concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' should be changed to be 'guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent'.
This is a dangerous concept and starts to look a bit like a totalitarian state system.
No legal system is ever going to be perfect so we may as well accept that some people will never like the way the law works. Most of us have been disappointed at times.
Nevertheless, our system has been copied in many parts of the world and forms the basis of the legal systems in a large number of countries.
Do we now abandon all that because in some cases the prosecution have made errors in procedures which have allowed the defence lawyers to have the cases thrown out?
There have been many occassions where, in turn, the defence lawyers have failed their clients and people have been imprisoned whilst actually not guilty. Nevertheless the system is still in place and it works both ways.
If someone is charged with Drink Driving they may, or may not, be guilty. Forget the emotive issues, if the prosecution can convince the Magistrates by producing evidence that 'guilty' is the correct verdict so be it. Otherwise the accused is not-guilty, and that is the correct result. That's the way our system works. Am I alone in feeling nervous about the tone of some of this thread?
I've always believed that the Magistrates were ordinary people like you and me and that they make their decisions using their best and their unbiased judgement.
There are cases where the Clerk to the Justices may influence things somewhat, or at least try to, and that is why the Magistrates Courts Service being members of the Camera Partnerships is not necessarily a good thing from a perception point of view. I know one magistrate who believes the speed camera scheme is basically a bad thing, but he follows the law and disqualifies when the law requires, although if a good case for not disqualifying is made he seems inclined to show leniency when job/career would be significantly effected.
This is our British system. It ain't perfect, but if anyone knows a better system elsewhere let's hear about it.
This is a dangerous concept and starts to look a bit like a totalitarian state system.
No legal system is ever going to be perfect so we may as well accept that some people will never like the way the law works. Most of us have been disappointed at times.
Nevertheless, our system has been copied in many parts of the world and forms the basis of the legal systems in a large number of countries.
Do we now abandon all that because in some cases the prosecution have made errors in procedures which have allowed the defence lawyers to have the cases thrown out?
There have been many occassions where, in turn, the defence lawyers have failed their clients and people have been imprisoned whilst actually not guilty. Nevertheless the system is still in place and it works both ways.
If someone is charged with Drink Driving they may, or may not, be guilty. Forget the emotive issues, if the prosecution can convince the Magistrates by producing evidence that 'guilty' is the correct verdict so be it. Otherwise the accused is not-guilty, and that is the correct result. That's the way our system works. Am I alone in feeling nervous about the tone of some of this thread?
I've always believed that the Magistrates were ordinary people like you and me and that they make their decisions using their best and their unbiased judgement.
There are cases where the Clerk to the Justices may influence things somewhat, or at least try to, and that is why the Magistrates Courts Service being members of the Camera Partnerships is not necessarily a good thing from a perception point of view. I know one magistrate who believes the speed camera scheme is basically a bad thing, but he follows the law and disqualifies when the law requires, although if a good case for not disqualifying is made he seems inclined to show leniency when job/career would be significantly effected.
This is our British system. It ain't perfect, but if anyone knows a better system elsewhere let's hear about it.
phillipj said:
a"Innocent until proved guilty" is an interesting misconception in my opinion. Picture this...You see a person pick up a brick and throw it through the glass window of a shop, it smashes and he runs off.
Simple enough, let's say you actually know the culprit personally and therefore as the witness you have seen the crime committed by a person you know (no identification problems for you), you KNOW he smashed the window as you saw him do it.
He is arrested and pleads not guilty at court. You are called as a prosecution witness.
Is HE not guilty of smashing the window? What if he's found not guilty by some quirk, is he innocent of the offence?? Of course he isn't.
Sorry, Phillip, but he's not guilty of any offense until he is found guilty by the court before which he is appearing.
Don't confuse justice with the law.
Officers of the court swear to uphold the law. Justice only enters into it at all (*if* at all) when the judge passes sentence. If there is some 'quirk' which means a not guilty verdict is found, then that gentleman is innocent of the crime.
What I was trying to say in my earlier thread was simply that being found not guilty of an offence is not the same as saying that person is innocent of the offence.
Perhaps have verdicts of Guilty, Not Guilty and NOT PROVEN?
We have all seen examples of "mis-carriages of Justice" where the culprit of whatever offence has got off through Technical failures in the case. The culprit then goes on to crow about their "innocence" and even sue for compensation in some cases.
Being not guilty of an offence is not always innocent of it, there IS a difference.
The fact that a solicitor or barrister can exploit legal loopholes does not mean his client didn't commit the offence. We may pride ourselves on having a better legal system than other countries, but often theirs aren't as weak and liberal as ours towards the criminal.
Perhaps have verdicts of Guilty, Not Guilty and NOT PROVEN?
We have all seen examples of "mis-carriages of Justice" where the culprit of whatever offence has got off through Technical failures in the case. The culprit then goes on to crow about their "innocence" and even sue for compensation in some cases.
Being not guilty of an offence is not always innocent of it, there IS a difference.
The fact that a solicitor or barrister can exploit legal loopholes does not mean his client didn't commit the offence. We may pride ourselves on having a better legal system than other countries, but often theirs aren't as weak and liberal as ours towards the criminal.
Not quite sure how someone can be proved to have committed an offence other than in a court of law? Slightly OT, but does this mean that, for example, despite 3 High Court trials and 2 appeals, it is believed that Sion Jenkins is actually guilty? - AFAIK at the moment, although the Police are keeping the case open, there is no other suspect.
7.
7.
From hearsay and hearing Mr X speak he claims to have a good hit rate by case selection, though even he admits he doesn't win them all.
However I wonder what he would do in the case where there is opportunity to make a case but his client admits in a private meeting that he is guilty.
In my opinion in these circumstances I do believe that professional ethics determine that Mr X should then place limitations on the way the case can be conducted, ie the defendant should make no statement that he is innocent or use any false alibi but the case should be conducted on the basis of weakening the prosecution case. This is what from my understanding Mr X does very well.
However it does need a plea of not guilty which afaik goes against the professional ethics, that in this case the advice should be to plead guilty and do best to give advocacy on behalf or suggest that the retainer be removed.
All in all it gets back to the seeming resistance to learning of the CPS et al that if cases are overturned because of sloppy work then steps should be put in hand to stop it happening again which is the point made by Dibble rather better than I.
However I wonder what he would do in the case where there is opportunity to make a case but his client admits in a private meeting that he is guilty.
In my opinion in these circumstances I do believe that professional ethics determine that Mr X should then place limitations on the way the case can be conducted, ie the defendant should make no statement that he is innocent or use any false alibi but the case should be conducted on the basis of weakening the prosecution case. This is what from my understanding Mr X does very well.
However it does need a plea of not guilty which afaik goes against the professional ethics, that in this case the advice should be to plead guilty and do best to give advocacy on behalf or suggest that the retainer be removed.
All in all it gets back to the seeming resistance to learning of the CPS et al that if cases are overturned because of sloppy work then steps should be put in hand to stop it happening again which is the point made by Dibble rather better than I.
Lemme give an example from a case I sat in on ... lemme think .... 16 years ago now.
Mrs. S. was in an abusive marriage of 19 years. Having decided enough was enough, when her husband came home one evening, she fed him drugged food and then beat him to death. She attempted to dispose of the body in the garden of their house, but the body was discovered shortly afterwards.
She was found competant to stand trial for murder and her defence ran a provocation defence. The court ruled that diminished responsibility couldn't be offered. (That confuses me even to this day).
The jury found Mrs. S not guilty, but not on the grounds of provocation, rather on the ground of diminished responsibility which had not been offered, but which the judge did accept. There was no manslaughter charge offered, and Mr's S. walked free from court that day.
To the best of my knowledge, she was never charged with manslaughter. From what I remember of the conversations with the legal teams afterwards, no-one felt that a guilty verdict on a murder charge was approriate. (Just on an aside, this is why there is an attempt at the moment to bring in an offence of 2nd Degree Murder - some cases just do not fit into the current offences of Mureder or Manslaughter).
There was no denying that Mrs. S. had been a long time victim of her husband's abuse. There's also no denying that she planned to kill him and executed that plan. There's also no denying that she is not guilty of his murder.
The law is an ass, but the law is the law.
Mrs. S. was in an abusive marriage of 19 years. Having decided enough was enough, when her husband came home one evening, she fed him drugged food and then beat him to death. She attempted to dispose of the body in the garden of their house, but the body was discovered shortly afterwards.
She was found competant to stand trial for murder and her defence ran a provocation defence. The court ruled that diminished responsibility couldn't be offered. (That confuses me even to this day).
The jury found Mrs. S not guilty, but not on the grounds of provocation, rather on the ground of diminished responsibility which had not been offered, but which the judge did accept. There was no manslaughter charge offered, and Mr's S. walked free from court that day.
To the best of my knowledge, she was never charged with manslaughter. From what I remember of the conversations with the legal teams afterwards, no-one felt that a guilty verdict on a murder charge was approriate. (Just on an aside, this is why there is an attempt at the moment to bring in an offence of 2nd Degree Murder - some cases just do not fit into the current offences of Mureder or Manslaughter).
There was no denying that Mrs. S. had been a long time victim of her husband's abuse. There's also no denying that she planned to kill him and executed that plan. There's also no denying that she is not guilty of his murder.
The law is an ass, but the law is the law.
Agnostic said:
I think you need to speak to a few people who have been on the receiving end of miscarriages of justice, maybe meet a few wives who have been beaten by thuggish husbands for ten years, or the Mother of a child killed by a DD,
Ah, the "what about the childr-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-n?" argument beloved of all those who prefer to emote rather than think. At least I now know you can be ignored.
Agnostic said:
maybe, just maybe you would stop and think a little before sweeping all aside with your "Innocent until proven guilty"?
Hell, why bother with due process? Just string 'em up, right?
Flat in Fifth said:
From hearsay and hearing Mr X speak he claims to have a good hit rate by case selection, though even he admits he doesn't win them all.
However I wonder what he would do in the case where there is opportunity to make a case but his client admits in a private meeting that he is guilty.
In my opinion in these circumstances I do believe that professional ethics determine that Mr X should then place limitations on the way the case can be conducted, ie the defendant should make no statement that he is innocent or use any false alibi but the case should be conducted on the basis of weakening the prosecution case. This is what from my understanding Mr X does very well.
However it does need a plea of not guilty which afaik goes against the professional ethics, that in this case the advice should be to plead guilty and do best to give advocacy on behalf or suggest that the retainer be removed.
All in all it gets back to the seeming resistance to learning of the CPS et al that if cases are overturned because of sloppy work then steps should be put in hand to stop it happening again which is the point made by Dibble rather better than I.
If it is the same Mr X we are talking about, I think you are correct. He does spend a good amount of time (and your money...) analysing your case before taking it on. I would have thought that the battle plan would then be formed and the client informed on the chances of it working. Not all cases are clear cut, and surprisingly some have glaring problems (both of mine) which do affect the validity of the evidence. Mr X is a specialist in the field so it is pretty easy for him to concentrate on the exact failure points and can bring relevent recent cases into play etc to a level where the local brief doesnt have much of a defence against it.
There are two ways of thinking, either this is immorral or either it is very moral as it is disproving dodgy cases. A good example of this is the OJ Simpson case. He had literally the best possible team in the US against the albeit high ranking but local team. They won his case by literally exposing glaring problems and exposing lying witnesses. One example was the forensic evidence on 'the glove'. The investigating officer swore on oath that the evidence was good because he wore gloves to collect evidence. That was the cue for the replay of the news report with him in the background picking up forensic evidence bare handed! Similarly another investigating office swore on oath that he had no racial prejudice and never used racial slurs. That was the cue to replay a recording of a police radio transmission where he clearly uses the 'N' word a few times.
In my opinion that case fell apart due to the prosecution evidence being poor. Many of the cases which Mr X defends are the same. Sometimes it does take someone of his calibre (or the OJ lawyers calibre) to be able to exploit that. Sometimes we dont know if the person is guilty as the CPS does not have the evidence to show it. Although it may never be known if the person physically performed the act, in our system of justice if the case for the prosecution cannot be proved then that person is not guilty of the offence.
This is what happens when Mr X sometimes defends people. From the cases I have heard of the defendant is usually not there. This would be the situation when Mr X knows they are guilty, as if they gave evidence they would either lose the case or would they would have to lie. When this happens, the case is literally fought on the strength and validity of the evidence alone.
"A Solicitor or Barrister cannot allow the court to be lied to by their client or allow the court to be deceived."
This is what a solicitor told me when I asked him what he would do if his client admitted the offence to him but wanted to plead Not Guilty and fabricate a story. The solicitor said that if his client insisted on that course then he (the solicitor) would withdraw from the defence. BUT a no comment to questions or decline to "take the stand" is the usual advice given, that way the case rests or falls on the evidence and not on the lies of the defendant.
The Solicitor/Barrister's integrity is retained (questionably I think) and representation is still achieved.
P.S. Anyone else out there think OJ and Sion Jenkins actually DID commit the murders they were accused of despite their Not Guilty verdict and "unable to reach a verdict" respectively?
>> Edited by phillipj on Tuesday 28th February 12:02
This is what a solicitor told me when I asked him what he would do if his client admitted the offence to him but wanted to plead Not Guilty and fabricate a story. The solicitor said that if his client insisted on that course then he (the solicitor) would withdraw from the defence. BUT a no comment to questions or decline to "take the stand" is the usual advice given, that way the case rests or falls on the evidence and not on the lies of the defendant.
The Solicitor/Barrister's integrity is retained (questionably I think) and representation is still achieved.
P.S. Anyone else out there think OJ and Sion Jenkins actually DID commit the murders they were accused of despite their Not Guilty verdict and "unable to reach a verdict" respectively?
>> Edited by phillipj on Tuesday 28th February 12:02
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff