What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.65: I'm Just Here For The Lincoln Project Ads

Status
Not open for further replies.
MichVandal said:
Not sure about that. This says just asking to further conceal a crime invalidates it:https://www.justia.com/criminal/wor...ent privilege does,planning to commit a crime.



the crime took place, and it was asked to further the crime. So for that, at least the attempt to further the crime invalidates it. And that can be used as evidence. As I see it.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I guess that makes sense. I'll be interested in hearing what uno or any of the other lawyer(s?) say here
 
I am pretty sure it just means that the Lawyer is not breaking privilege by mentioning it. A lawyer cannot be forced to do something that is unethical or illegal or they risk disbarment. So for the purposes of this situation he can break privilege to say what happened because it is not in fact covered by privilege since it is a crime. Beyond that though I do not believe it means much.

Now...if the lawyer had done it or attempted to? Well then that opens a whole new can of worms.
 
If you come across evidence your client is guilty, do you (1) have to turn it over to the Court, and (2) have to drop the client?
 
Kepler said:
If you come across evidence your client is guilty, do you (1) have to turn it over to the Court, and (2) have to drop the client?
Click to expand...

If that was the case, legitimately guilty people would (1) never be able to get out of stuff, and (2) never be able to have a lawyer.
 
Kepler said:
If you come across evidence your client is guilty, do you (1) have to turn it over to the Court, and (2) have to drop the client?
Click to expand...

[only stayed at a Holiday Inn and took my law classes 2 decades ago so take with all the salt in Utah]

I think that it would depend on the type of evidence it is. Ethics would of course say yes (and I don't think you would get in trouble for doing it) but there is different rules for different types of evidence. Plus is it undeniable (like say a video of the client committing the crime) or not? For the most part though smoking gun evidence would need to be turned over yes.

The second is a no though. Just because you know your client is guilty doesn't mean you have to drop them. They still have a right to defend themselves and have an attorney. You cannot lie for them so you would never say, put them on the stand, but you don't have to drop them and likely would get in trouble if you did. (especially if things were already in motion) You just need to make sure to not make any argument that is provably false in said defense cause then you are in trouble. Dropping a client puts them at a disadvantage and also can be seen as prejudicial to a juror i.e. the lawyer dropped him cause he is guilty so vote guilty! Most defense attorneys are defending guilty clients...

But again, I am not a lawyer.
 
Kepler said:
If you come across evidence your client is guilty, do you (1) have to turn it over to the Court, and (2) have to drop the client?
Click to expand...

No and no. An attorney's duty of confidentiality prohibits the former absent an explicit exception. And the 6th Amendment guarantees everyone the right to an attorney. It's not limited to innocent persons.
 
Kepler said:
If you come across evidence your client is guilty, do you (1) have to turn it over to the Court, and (2) have to drop the client?
Click to expand...

1, no but there is sometimes a little more to it than a simple "no", and 2, no.

If you are a criminal defense attorney you have almost certainly seen plenty of evidence that your client is guilty via discovery. Reciprocal discovery may require a defense attorney to disclose some items, like witnesses names and intent to offer specific alibis. That depends on jurisdiction as well, 50 states, 50 laws (plus the feds and other jurisdictions). YOu can't lie or use false evidence to defend your client, or knowingly allow them to lie and not come forward with evidence of perjury. You can't be in possession of physical evidence of their crime (if they indeed commited one). But simply knowing something or having something that otherwise is not criminal in nature doesn't mean you have to run to the prosecution and let them know it.

I would think competent defense attorneys would also want to know what their client has done so they are prepared best to defend them, even if that includes them providing their legal counsel evidence that may tend to be problematic or statements that may show their guilt. Additionally, "guilty" is a legal term in these circumstances. A defendant is only "guilty" once a judge or jury has returned that verdict following a fair trial. O.J. was guilty, but O.J. was also absolutely not guilty.
 
WeAreNDHockey said:
I would think competent defense attorneys would want to know what their client has done so they are prepared best to defend them, even if that includes them providing their legal counsel evidence that may tend to be problematic or statements that may show their guilt.
Click to expand...

Depends. You can't suborn perjury, but the decision to testify is entirely up to the client, no matter how strongly you advise them one way or the other.

So if you know everything but they still intend to testify over your objections because you know they'll lie, that can put you in a very awkward position where even if you don't do a "noisy withdrawal" (signaling they're about to perjure themselves), you wind up having them testify in narrative form, also signaling they're perjuring themselves.

Plus there are situations where you know their best defense is to argue X, but if you learn everything you may be prevented from arguing X because you can't suborn perjury and/or you can't make an argument you know to be false (attorneys are officers of the court and cannot themselves lie, either). So sometimes willful ignorance is the better trial strategy in criminal cases.
 
St. Clown said:
In my extensive 0 days of law school, it’s my understanding that the federal prosecutors are not the county ADA when it comes to quality.
Click to expand...

Federal indictments are watertight enough that 90% of the time defendants plead guilty before going to trial. Of the cases that do go to trial, they win convictions more than 80% of the time. In fiscal 2018, fewer than 1 percent of all federal criminal defendants went to trial and won. I doubt local prosecuters have anywhere near that kind of record.
 
Handyman said:
I am pretty sure it just means that the Lawyer is not breaking privilege by mentioning it. A lawyer cannot be forced to do something that is unethical or illegal or they risk disbarment. So for the purposes of this situation he can break privilege to say what happened because it is not in fact covered by privilege since it is a crime. Beyond that though I do not believe it means much.

Now...if the lawyer had done it or attempted to? Well then that opens a whole new can of worms.
Click to expand...

Not bad for the lawyer if he says in court. Bad for dumpy as it’s evidence of intent. More that this was not some misunderstanding, but intentional in every way.
 
unofan said:
Depends. You can't suborn perjury, but the decision to testify is entirely up to the client, no matter how strongly you advise them one way or the other.

So if you know everything but they still intend to testify over your objections because you know they'll lie, that can put you in a very awkward position where even if you don't do a "noisy withdrawal" (signaling they're about to perjure themselves), you wind up having them testify in narrative form, also signaling they're perjuring themselves.

Plus there are situations where you know their best defense is to argue X, but if you learn everything you may be prevented from arguing X because you can't suborn perjury and/or you can't make an argument you know to be false (attorneys are officers of the court and cannot themselves lie, either). So sometimes willful ignorance is the better trial strategy in criminal cases.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Thanks. Do you do any criminal defense or is your practice focused elsewhere? You always seem to have good, understandable answers to a lot of the legal pondering here, but that could just mean you're an exceptional attorney and not just that you understand criminal defense!
 
unofan said:
Depends. You can't suborn perjury, but the decision to testify is entirely up to the client, no matter how strongly you advise them one way or the other.

So if you know everything but they still intend to testify over your objections because you know they'll lie, that can put you in a very awkward position where even if you don't do a "noisy withdrawal" (signaling they're about to perjure themselves), you wind up having them testify in narrative form, also signaling they're perjuring themselves.

Plus there are situations where you know their best defense is to argue X, but if you learn everything you may be prevented from arguing X because you can't suborn perjury and/or you can't make an argument you know to be false (attorneys are officers of the court and cannot themselves lie, either). So sometimes willful ignorance is the better trial strategy in criminal cases.
Click to expand...

My late cousin was a defense attorney and was my sort of mentor when I was headed down that path. His rule of thumb was don't ask if they did it and if it sounds like they may say something incriminating to you stop them from talking. You can't be punished for what you don't know.

While he was a rather shady guy he was one of the best known lawyers in the state and is still remembered fondly all over Minneapolis...except the U of M but that is a different story!
 
bronconick said:
It's obstruction on some schmuck in the documents case that deleted video tape in Mar-A-Lago that had been subpoenaed
Click to expand...

Obvious Predicted Quote:

DEFENDANT: President TFG instructed me to have him erase the 8-track cassette tape because Who’s gonna know?

INVESTIGATOR:Does Mar A Lago have cassette tape records?

DEFENDENT: No. It’s all saved to timestamped and indexed digital footage, saved to cloud drives. We made the switch on his his orders back on January 7, 2021. He wanted to review it for peaks down dresses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top