Any lawyers on here?
Discussion
Yes, lawyers take on clients they know are guilty all of the time.
Sometimes it may be a person's thinks they are guilty but according to the law they are not, or the other way around. A person might just need representation to mitigate sentence.
What a lawyer cannot do, is know the client is guilty and represent them on a not guilty basis.
Sometimes it may be a person's thinks they are guilty but according to the law they are not, or the other way around. A person might just need representation to mitigate sentence.
What a lawyer cannot do, is know the client is guilty and represent them on a not guilty basis.
It's about justice and process and the rule of law - everyone has the right to be represented and the proceedings must be conducted correctly. If a defense lawyer knows - actually knows that the defendant is guilty, all they can do is put the prosecution to proof i.e. ensure that the prosecution adequately discharges the beyond reasonable doubt threshold. If the prosecution can't do that then the defendant can't be convicted.
OP's question comes from the wrong mindset - the defence lawyers aren't trying to get the defendant off, but trying to ensure that the trial is conducted fairly and properly. Indeed, the defence counsel would be prohibit from making a positive defence if they knew that the defendant was guilty, as they would be intentionally misleading the court if they suggested that they were innocent.
If you step back and think about it, it is in everyone's interest to ensure that everyone, even a self-confessed paedophile, is given a fair and proper trial and that the prosecution properly discharge the obligations and meet the required standards of proof.
OP's question comes from the wrong mindset - the defence lawyers aren't trying to get the defendant off, but trying to ensure that the trial is conducted fairly and properly. Indeed, the defence counsel would be prohibit from making a positive defence if they knew that the defendant was guilty, as they would be intentionally misleading the court if they suggested that they were innocent.
If you step back and think about it, it is in everyone's interest to ensure that everyone, even a self-confessed paedophile, is given a fair and proper trial and that the prosecution properly discharge the obligations and meet the required standards of proof.
JapanRed said:
Yes agree everyone has a right to defence (it’s the cornerstone of our legal system) but how would it sit with the lawyer trying to get a paedo off on a technicality when you know for certain they are guilty?
If they get off on a technicality, you might argue that they aren't guilty of the crime they are being tried for. I spoke to a Lawyer about this once, I think he said they can defend a guilty party even if they know/the client has admitted to them their guilty. They work it from an angle of PROVING their guilty. He gave me the example, the client is accused of stealing a mobile phone that was sat at the bar in a pub...Lawyers defence - There's no CCTV, no witnesses and the defendant hasn't been caught with the phone, so no evidence basically. Even though the defendant may have told the lawyer he is guilty, there's no way of proving it.
tinnitusjosh said:
It's about justice and process and the rule of law - everyone has the right to be represented and the proceedings must be conducted correctly. If a defense lawyer knows - actually knows that the defendant is guilty, all they can do is put the prosecution to proof i.e. ensure that the prosecution adequately discharges the beyond reasonable doubt threshold. If the prosecution can't do that then the defendant can't be convicted.
OP's question comes from the wrong mindset - the defence lawyers aren't trying to get the defendant off, but trying to ensure that the trial is conducted fairly and properly. Indeed, the defence counsel would be prohibit from making a positive defence if they knew that the defendant was guilty, as they would be intentionally misleading the court if they suggested that they were innocent.
If you step back and think about it, it is in everyone's interest to ensure that everyone, even a self-confessed paedophile, is given a fair and proper trial and that the prosecution properly discharge the obligations and meet the required standards of proof.
Great post thanks very much. Very insightful.OP's question comes from the wrong mindset - the defence lawyers aren't trying to get the defendant off, but trying to ensure that the trial is conducted fairly and properly. Indeed, the defence counsel would be prohibit from making a positive defence if they knew that the defendant was guilty, as they would be intentionally misleading the court if they suggested that they were innocent.
If you step back and think about it, it is in everyone's interest to ensure that everyone, even a self-confessed paedophile, is given a fair and proper trial and that the prosecution properly discharge the obligations and meet the required standards of proof.
I read The Secret Barrister whilst on holiday, and he covered this very point.
"9. How can you defend someone you know is guilty?
Quite easily. If they tell me they are guilty, I will strongly advise them to plead guilty. If they refuse and insist on running a trial, as is their right, I am strictly limited in what I can say on their behalf. I cannot assert anything in court that I know not to be true. So in that example, I can “test” the prosecution evidence (i.e. point out holes or inconsistencies in the prosecution case and suggest to a jury that the prosecution has not proven its case beyond reasonable doubt), but I cannot positively assert something false (i.e. my client did not do X, where he has told me that he has).
If the evidence against a client is overwhelming, but in the face of the evidence and all common sense they instruct me that they are not guilty, then I will fight their corner at trial.
Finally, if someone has pleaded guilty or been convicted after trial, I can defend them by representing them at their sentence hearing and putting forward mitigation on their behalf."
The book is well worth a read - https://thesecretbarrister.com/
"9. How can you defend someone you know is guilty?
Quite easily. If they tell me they are guilty, I will strongly advise them to plead guilty. If they refuse and insist on running a trial, as is their right, I am strictly limited in what I can say on their behalf. I cannot assert anything in court that I know not to be true. So in that example, I can “test” the prosecution evidence (i.e. point out holes or inconsistencies in the prosecution case and suggest to a jury that the prosecution has not proven its case beyond reasonable doubt), but I cannot positively assert something false (i.e. my client did not do X, where he has told me that he has).
If the evidence against a client is overwhelming, but in the face of the evidence and all common sense they instruct me that they are not guilty, then I will fight their corner at trial.
Finally, if someone has pleaded guilty or been convicted after trial, I can defend them by representing them at their sentence hearing and putting forward mitigation on their behalf."
The book is well worth a read - https://thesecretbarrister.com/
It is worth a read, however by about 2/3rds the way through, it felt very much like repetition of the same message over and over again. I was thinking 'I get it, the system is under resourced, move on!’.
To those who've never experienced the criminal legal system, probably a good eye opener, though.
To those who've never experienced the criminal legal system, probably a good eye opener, though.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff