Defence lawyers/barristers defending clients they know to be guilty (13 Viewers)

[Otis]

Just always wondered how they can defend a client in court that they know is guilty.

I understand them trying to get their client a fair trial and highlighting mitigating circumstances and background and trying to obtain the best deal etc.,but when they know the client is guilty, I just cannot stomach their trying to get their client off, which therefore deems that client to be not guilty.

This Turpin family case in the US is surely one of those cases. It is surely clear as day that this couple are guilty of at least child cruelty. So much evidence.

Children shackled and chained to their beds. The police actually found the children chained to the beds.

Children never ever having received dental treatment.

No child having been to the doctors in more than 4 years.

Human excrement on the floor.

The children all malnourished and underweight, apart from the very youngest. The 29 year old looks like a child and is just 6 stone.

These are all facts (apart from the police finding the children chained, which would then obviously mean that they all would have had to have lied if untrue). The malnutrition and weights and dental care and doctors facts etc. will be measured and tested facts, as long as the reports are true. This is seemingly child neglect pure and simple.

After that it is indeed allegations of course.

That the children had seemingly been plotting an escape plan for 2 years.

The children were starved and beaten.

The children were only allowed to shower once a year.

The parents would taunt then with food, letting them see it and smell it, but not eat it.

That the children were never allowed to play with toys.

That if they washed above their wrists when washing their hands they were punished.

There are obviously cases where the defence lawyer knows their client is guilty and that for me is where the law is an ass. If I was a lawyer I could never, ever defend a client I knew was guilty. I would only take the case on the premise that the client knows I believe them to be guilty and am only there to see they receive a fair trail and to present mitigating circumstances, diminished responsibility etc.

I would love to see some sort of law whereby a lawyer can only put up a defence of innocence for their client if they do indeed believe them to be innocent.

At the moment everyone just accepts it's just a lawyer just doing his or her job. If they could only take a case where there is doubt, or they believe their client is innocent, it puts them more on the block and more in a position of responsibility and scrutiny.

I think that ethics, morality, scruples and a sense of right and wrong has to be at the forefront of any defence lawyer's remit surely.

The same too of course can be said for any prosecutor trying to prove guilt when they believe the defendant to be innocent.

Maybe this Turpin case isn't the best example (it just made me reflect on the situation once again), but there are clearly cases where the client is clearly guilty, but the defence lawyer tries to obtain a verdict of not guilty.

It would be totally against everything I stand for to try and get a verdict of not guilty for a client I believe to be guilty.

 

---

[clint van damme]

Just always wondered how they can defend a client in court that they know is guilty.

I understand them trying to get their client a fair trial and highlighting mitigating circumstances and background and trying to obtain the best deal etc.,but when they know the client is guilty, I just cannot stomach their trying to get their client off, which therefore deems that client to be not guilty.

This Turpin family case in the US is surely one of those cases. It is surely clear as day that this couple are guilty of at least child cruelty. So much evidence.

Children shackled and chained to their beds. The police actually found the children chained to the beds.

Children never ever having received dental treatment.

No child having been to the doctors in more than 4 years.

Human excrement on the floor.

The children all malnourished and underweight, apart from the very youngest. The 29 year old looks like a child and is just 6 stone.

These are all facts (apart from the police finding the children chained, which would then obviously mean that they all would have had to have lied if untrue). The malnutrition and weights and dental care and doctors facts etc. will be measured and tested facts, as long as the reports are true. This is seemingly child neglect pure and simple.

After that it is indeed allegations of course.

That the children had seemingly been plotting an escape plan for 2 years.

The children were starved and beaten.

The children were only allowed to shower once a year.

The parents would taunt then with food, letting them see it and smell it, but not eat it.

That the children were never allowed to play with toys.

That if they washed above their wrists when washing their hands they were punished.

There are obviously cases where the defence lawyer knows their client is guilty and that for me is where the law is an ass. If I was a lawyer I could never, ever defend a client I knew was guilty. I would only take the case on the premise that the client knows I believe them to be guilty and am only there to see they receive a fair trail and to present mitigating circumstances, diminished responsibility etc.

I would love to see some sort of law whereby a lawyer can only put up a defence of innocence for their client if they do indeed believe them to be innocent.

At the moment everyone just accepts it's just a lawyer just doing his or her job. If they could only take a case where there is doubt, or they believe their client is innocent, it puts them more on the block and more in a position of responsibility and scrutiny.

I think that ethics, morality, scruples and a sense of right and wrong has to be at the forefront of any defence lawyer's remit surely.

The same too of course can be said for any prosecutor trying to prove guilt when they believe the defendant to be innocent.

Maybe this Turpin case isn't the best example (it just made me reflect on the situation once again), but there are clearly cases where the client is clearly guilty, but the defence lawyer tries to obtain a verdict of not guilty.

It would be totally against everything I stand for to try and get a verdict of not guilty for a client I believe to be guilty.

I wouldn't imagine that a lawyer would advice a not guilty plea in this case.

 

[Otis]

I wouldn't imagine that a lawyer would advice a not guilty plea in this case.

Nope, me neither. I think they would have said to plead on diminished responsibility or suchlike and the moment they said 'No, we are pleading not guilty,' I wouldn't have taken the case.

I think in such a circumstance where every defence lawyer believes them guilty, but they are adamant they will plead innocence, I think they should be left to defend themselves.

 

[clint van damme]

Nope, me neither. I think they would have said to plead on diminished responsibility or suchlike and the moment they said 'No, we are pleading not guilty,' I wouldn't have taken the case.

I think in such a circumstance where every defence lawyer believes them guilty, but they are adamant they will plead innocence, I think they should be left to defend themselves.

but then the defence lawyer is acting as judge and jury and that's not their job.
Everyone has a right to a fair trial, and though it's unpalatable that includes the Wests, returning ISIS members and a whole selection of assorted wrong uns.

Otherwise our justice system breaks down.

 

[Otis]

but then the defence lawyer is acting as judge and jury and that's not their job.
Everyone has a right to a fair trial, and though it's unpalatable that includes the Wests, returning ISIS members and a whole selection of assorted wrong uns.

Otherwise our justice system breaks down.

Yeah, I get ALL that. You're going off on a bit of a tangent. I don't believe they are acting as judge and jury, I think they would just be acting on their conscience.

If you were a lawyer and had a client you knew was guilty of a bad crime, would you try and secure a not guilty verdict for them?

 

[clint van damme]

Yeah, I get ALL that. You're going off on a bit of a tangent. I don't believe they are acting as judge and jury, I think they would just be acting on their conscience.

If you were a lawyer and had a client you knew was guilty of a bad crime, would you try and secure a not guilty verdict for them?

I'd imagine you would advise them to go guilty.
If the client has admitted they're guilty then I would assume they would take that advice.
If they are adamant they are not guilty even if the lawyer thinks they are then to deny them your services would be to act s judge and jury.

I'd imagine it's a moral dilemma that they deal with fairly early in the curriculum of a law degree.

 

[Otis]

I'd imagine you would advise them to go guilty.
If the client has admitted they're guilty then I would assume they would take that advice.
If they are adamant they are not guilty even if the lawyer thinks they are then to deny them your services would be to act s judge and jury.

I'd imagine it's a moral dilemma that they deal with fairly early in the curriculum of a law degree.

Yes, agree. What you are quoting is the system as it stands and that is what I advocate needs changing.

I am not sure on the rest past that of defending someone you believe is guilty, but that is surely the starting point. It all begins from there. You see the client, hear the story, look at the facts presented and then make a judgement.

Except for the reasons I mentioned above, IF you believe your client is guilty, I believe you should not take the case.

Been plenty of people who have got off through good lawyers (OJ Simpson case) and my heart is always with the victims and the victims' families.

You know someone is guilty, the defence lawyers know the defendant is guilty, yet they achieve a not guilty verdict.

I simply could not live with myself.

 

[Otis]

Surely the remit of a lawyer should be to see a fair trial and justice done.

 

[clint van damme]

Yes, agree. What you are quoting is the system as it stands and that is what I advocate needs changing.

I am not sure on the rest past that of defending someone you believe is guilty, but that is surely the starting point. It all begins from there. You see the client, hear the story, look at the facts presented and then make a judgement.

Except for the reasons I mentioned above, IF you believe your client is guilty, I believe you should not take the case.

Been plenty of people who have got off through good lawyers (OJ Simpson case) and my heart is always with the victims and the victims' families.

You know someone is guilty, the defence lawyers know the defendant is guilty, yet they achieve a not guilty verdict.

I simply could not live with myself.

but if you did what you are suggesting there would be a case where a lawyer assumed someone was guilty, refused to represent them they ended up in jail and it transpired they weren't guilty at all.

I agree, it's horrible when someone guilty gets off and the system isn't perfect but I don't think lawyers picking and choosing who to represent based on their own assumptions would be an improvement.

 

[clint van damme]

Surely the remit of a lawyer should be to see a fair trial and justice done.

but if you decide not to represent someone based on your assumptions you are acting as judge and jury and denying someone a fair trial, that isn't right.

 

[Otis]

but if you decide not to represent someone based on your assumptions you are acting as judge and jury and denying someone a fair trial, that isn't right.

I am not talking assumptions. I am talking about your knowing a client is guilty.

If it is true these Turpin parents chained their children to their beds and beat them and starved them, then they are guilty of child cruelty.

Seemingly doctors have said they are all malnourished. Even just that is neglect. The clients are denying they neglected their children when clearly they did.

I am not talking just about assumptions. There are cases where the defence lawyer clearly knows their client is guilty.

 

[Otis]

but if you decide not to represent someone based on your assumptions you are acting as judge and jury and denying someone a fair trial, that isn't right.

I do think we are talking about different things here, Clint. I am not talking in terms of just an assumption. I am talking of something much more concrete.

As an example I will use this Turpin case. A lot of it is alleged, so some element of doubt.

I think we have to take the doctors' reports as read. The children are all underweight and malnourished. There was human excrement on the floor.

That is child neglect right there. The parents might be innocent of the beating and strangulation charges and possibly the chained to the bed charges if the police lied.

I think you should be able to say as a lawyer I will defend you on the beatings, strangulation and imprisonment charges, but I can't defend you on the charges of neglect, unless you claim diminished responsibility.

The clients though have said not guilty to all charges. As a lawyer, if they say they are not guilty it is you duty to represent your clients wishes.

THIS is what I am talking about. I am most certainly not talking about just assumptions.

I think it is too black and white and it shouldn't just be that if a defendant says they are not guilty of all charges, you have to defend them on all charges even if you know they are in fact guilty of some of those charges.

 

[clint van damme]

I do think we are talking about different things here, Clint. I am not talking in terms of just an assumption. I am talking of something much more concrete.

As an example I will use this Turpin case. A lot of it is alleged, so some element of doubt.

I think we have to take the doctors' reports as read. The children are all underweight and malnourished. There was human excrement on the floor.

That is child neglect right there. The parents might be innocent of the beating and strangulation charges and possibly the chained to the bed charges if the police lied.

I think you should be able to say as a lawyer I will defend you on the beatings, strangulation and imprisonment charges, but I can't defend you on the charges of neglect, unless you claim diminished responsibility.

The clients though have said not guilty to all charges. As a lawyer, if they say they are not guilty it is you duty to represent your clients wishes.

THIS is what I am talking about. I am most certainly not talking about just assumptions.

I think it is too black and white and it shouldn't just be that if a defendant says they are not guilty of all charges, you have to defend them on all charges even if you know they are in fact guilty of some of those charges.

I'm amazed they have said not guilty, but if that's the case then they have a right to be represented as such as unpalatable as we may find that.
I understand your disgust.

 

[Otis]

I'm amazed they have said not guilty, but if that's the case then they have a right to be represented as such as unpalatable as we may find that.
I understand your disgust.

I could understand the torture and strangulation defence, but they clearly have not taken proper care of their children and left them without medical care and treatment.

Obvious starting point would be to accept the charges of neglect, but plead a defence of the other charges, much harder to prove.

 

[clint van damme]

I could understand the torture and strangulation defence, but they clearly have not taken proper care of their children and left them without medical care and treatment.

Obvious starting point would be to accept the charges of neglect, but plead a defence of the other charges, much harder to prove.

Hopefully they'll get their just desert.

 

[Otis]

Hopefully they'll get their just desert.

Undoubtedly.

I understand they believe they have done nothing wrong and were quite puzzled and shocked and confused upon arrest.

 

[Grendel]

Nope, me neither. I think they would have said to plead on diminished responsibility or suchlike and the moment they said 'No, we are pleading not guilty,' I wouldn't have taken the case.

I think in such a circumstance where every defence lawyer believes them guilty, but they are adamant they will plead innocence, I think they should be left to defend themselves.

That would be a breach of legal ethics. Any lawyer rejecting a case would be prejudicial to the defendant and that lawyer would be correctly expelled from practicing again.

 

[Otis]

That would be a breach of legal ethics. Any lawyer rejecting a case would be prejudicial to the defendant and that lawyer would be correctly expelled from practicing again.

Which is why I am saying we should look at the law itself.

And besides, that’s not quite right surely. You go and see a barrister or lawyer and they agree to take your case, or not.

My wife's friend struggled to get a lawyer to take her case.

 

[Otis]

Just checked and a lawyer can turn you down. Many reasons and they can just say they are too busy for instance.

Just went on the Law Society site. Lots of reasons you can turn a potential client down for and like I say, if you thought someone was lying and was guilty when they are saying they are innocent you could just say you are too busy to take them on.

 

[Captain Dart]

I don't like the adversarial system overmuch, I think the French do it better with the inquisitorial system, watch Spiral (several series, latest airing onBBC4 right now) for dramatised version.

I'm sure there are drawbacks to both systems of justice.

 

[Otis]

I don't like the adversarial system overmuch, I think the French do it better with the inquisitorial system, watch Spiral (several series, latest airing onBBC4 right now) for dramatised version.

I'm sure there are drawbacks to both systems of justice.

At the end of the day nothing is perfect.

Just wonder how defence lawyers feel about clients they have gotten off who have then gone on to commit the exact same sort of crime again?

 

[Captain Dart]

At the end of the day nothing is perfect.

Just wonder how defence lawyers feel about clients they have gotten off who have then gone on to commit the exact same sort of crime again?

I guess they have to live with it.

 

[Otis]

I guess they have to live with it.

 

[Nick]

It's probably worse for police and others who have to actively protect people when they know what they have done. It's one thing standing in court, but imagine being expecting to put your life and safety on the line to protect somebody you know has done bad things.

 

[Otis]

It's probably worse for police and others who have to actively protect people when they know what they have done. It's one thing standing in court, but imagine being expecting to put your life and safety on the line to protect somebody you know has done bad things.

I remember some drunk driver crashing into the back of my car as it was parked for the night outside our house. He wrote the car off.

He got taken to court and I had to testify, but he got off.

As soon the case ended the police told me outside the court that he had done the exact same thing on a number of occasions, but they weren't allowed to mention the fact during the trial.

 

[Covstu]

At the end of the day nothing is perfect.

Just wonder how defence lawyers feel about clients they have gotten off who have then gone on to commit the exact same sort of crime again?

It’s like the film Devils advocate, defence solicitors getting paid a shitload to get unscrupulous people off

 

[duffer]

It's a pretty old chesnut this one, Otis. Here's a barrister explaining...

Fundametally, the lawyer isn't there to judge their client, but to put the prosecution's case to the test whilst behaving ethically. The judge and jury get to judge!

 

[Otis]

It's a pretty old chesnut this one, Otis. Here's a barrister explaining...

Fundametally, the lawyer isn't there to judge their client, but to put the prosecution's case to the test whilst behaving ethically. The judge and jury get to judge!

Yep get all that. Still seems like a bit of cop out that though. Pass on a sense of moral internal duty and wash your hands of it all.

I could walk down the street, watch an old lady being mugged and just walk past saying 'Not my job, it's down to the police.'

I get all he is saying and what I am is saying is that maybe we need to think about changing the law.

I always thought I would love to be a lawyer, but could never, ever defend someone I believed to be guilty. If I got them a verdict of not guilty and then the defendant perpetrated the same crime again I would never ever forgive myself.

There is also the situation of getting someone a lesser sentence, therefore doing your job properly and then the defendant carrying out the same crime again upon their release.

For me, I would have to have belief in the client in order to defend him or her.

You also have to remember that someone representing a client will often tell them to answer no comment to every question and from the police's perspective that is most frustrating for them and does nothing to aid the investigation whatsoever.

 

[Grendel]

Surely the remit of a lawyer should be to see a fair trial and justice done.

No it’s to ensure judicial process is done - justice is decided by the jury. I worked in the legal profession for 4 years - you have a totally wrong perspective on this.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Just always wondered how they can defend a client in court that they know is guilty.

I understand them trying to get their client a fair trial and highlighting mitigating circumstances and background and trying to obtain the best deal etc.,but when they know the client is guilty, I just cannot stomach their trying to get their client off, which therefore deems that client to be not guilty.

This Turpin family case in the US is surely one of those cases. It is surely clear as day that this couple are guilty of at least child cruelty. So much evidence.

Children shackled and chained to their beds. The police actually found the children chained to the beds.

Children never ever having received dental treatment.

No child having been to the doctors in more than 4 years.

Human excrement on the floor.

The children all malnourished and underweight, apart from the very youngest. The 29 year old looks like a child and is just 6 stone.

These are all facts (apart from the police finding the children chained, which would then obviously mean that they all would have had to have lied if untrue). The malnutrition and weights and dental care and doctors facts etc. will be measured and tested facts, as long as the reports are true. This is seemingly child neglect pure and simple.

After that it is indeed allegations of course.

That the children had seemingly been plotting an escape plan for 2 years.

The children were starved and beaten.

The children were only allowed to shower once a year.

The parents would taunt then with food, letting them see it and smell it, but not eat it.

That the children were never allowed to play with toys.

That if they washed above their wrists when washing their hands they were punished.

There are obviously cases where the defence lawyer knows their client is guilty and that for me is where the law is an ass. If I was a lawyer I could never, ever defend a client I knew was guilty. I would only take the case on the premise that the client knows I believe them to be guilty and am only there to see they receive a fair trail and to present mitigating circumstances, diminished responsibility etc.

I would love to see some sort of law whereby a lawyer can only put up a defence of innocence for their client if they do indeed believe them to be innocent.

At the moment everyone just accepts it's just a lawyer just doing his or her job. If they could only take a case where there is doubt, or they believe their client is innocent, it puts them more on the block and more in a position of responsibility and scrutiny.

I think that ethics, morality, scruples and a sense of right and wrong has to be at the forefront of any defence lawyer's remit surely.

The same too of course can be said for any prosecutor trying to prove guilt when they believe the defendant to be innocent.

Maybe this Turpin case isn't the best example (it just made me reflect on the situation once again), but there are clearly cases where the client is clearly guilty, but the defence lawyer tries to obtain a verdict of not guilty.

It would be totally against everything I stand for to try and get a verdict of not guilty for a client I believe to be guilty.

Lawyers defend the legal process not the person as such.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Otis]

It's a pretty old chesnut this one, Otis. Here's a barrister explaining...

Fundametally, the lawyer isn't there to judge their client, but to put the prosecution's case to the test whilst behaving ethically. The judge and jury get to judge!

And also, it's the defence lawyer's job to put doubt in the minds of said jury. A good defence lawyer could make all the difference to a guilty or not guilty verdict and a defence lawyer's persuasion could indeed lead to a not guilty verdict when the defendant is actually guilty.

 

[Otis]

Lawyers defend the legal process not the person as such.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Yep. Get that. And get that defence lawyers must thoroughly dislike and detest the person they are defending too at times.

Can you imagine defending a child killer? Must be gut-wrenching

 

[Grendel]

And also, it's the defence lawyer's job to out doubt in the minds of said jury. A good defence lawyer could make all the difference to a guilty or not guilty verdict and a defence lawyer's persuasion could indeed lead to a not guilty verdict when the defendant is actually guilty.

That’s justice. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. The CPS has to prove guilt.

 

[Grendel]

Yep. Get that. And get that defence lawyers must thoroughly dislike and detest the person they are defending too.

Can you imagine defending a child killer? Must be gut-wrenching

I can assure you it isn’t.

 

[Otis]

That’s justice. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. The CPS has to prove guilt.

Yes, I do understand that.