legal type question (I know we have some lawyers here :))

[jessica31876]

So I was wondering after being bombarded by info on Casey Anthony since the trial started...it is on every news station some stations all day since I do not have cable. It got me thinking/wondering about something. I know that whatever you tell your attorney is confidential and cannot be disclosed right? Well if Casey (or anyone accused of a crime for that matter) tells their lawyer outright "I did exactly what I am being accused of" and the lawyer goes into court and says this is what happened and basically makes up a fictional event to take the blame off his/her client wouldn't that be perjury? If you are/were a defense attorney would you rather just not know whether or not your client actually did what they are accused of? And what happens if your client is guilty and tells you yes I did exactly what I am accused of are you still required to represent them?

So ok I guess more then one question. So anyone feel like explaining how that works? LOL

[Traci Reed]

i think it's then the defense attorney's job to try and get them off on a technicality. I don't think lawyers are under oath, only those who testify.

[BrattyMeg]

I'd say it's the lawyers job to legally prove they didn't do it. (even if they did) I couldn't ever do that morally though (hence why law school wasn't for me lol)

[carriesmom]

Okay, as an attorney you are held to certain ethical rules by the State Board. One of those rules is that you can't suborn perjury, meaning you can't make someone or allow some to lie on the stand, if you know they are lying. That's where it gets tricky. Knowledge can be defined really narrowly. Also, as an attorney you have a duty of loyalty to your client and as a criminal defendant, you have the absolute right to testify in your own defense. So generally, an attorney is torn. In some states, you can try to withdraw from the case without letting anyone know why. In other cases, your client can give narrative testimony (the attorney does not participate in the questioning or asking questions).

And usually, you can breach attorney/client privilege if you have knowledge that a client is about to commit egregious bodily harm to himself or others in the immediate future. In some cases, you are under a duty to report those kind of crimes.

So in a nutshell, if a lawyer knows someone is going to lie and they are not the defendant, they simply don't allow them to testify. If it's a defendant, you try to convince them to either not testify or tell the truth, and if they continue to assert that they will lie on the stand, then try to withdraw or have a narrative done. But it all comes down what a person knows as opposed to believes. Crazy believe me.

[Jengerbread88]

Originally Posted by FlirtatiousBrat

I'd say it's the lawyers job to legally prove they didn't do it. (even if they did) I couldn't ever do that morally though (hence why law school wasn't for me lol)

Typically, the burden of proof says this:

-The prosecution (the ones who want the person to go to jail) have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it happened.

-The defense only have to cast doubt on whether or not it actually occurred with the defendant being guilty.

The burden of proof for the defense is less than the burden for the prosecution. The prosecution have to really make sure that there is NO doubt about it, but the defense only have to weave some sort of seed of doubt in everyone's mind.

At least, that's how I understand it. I'm not a lawyer. My experience is limited to mock trial, and my dad working court security for the Sheriff's office.

[carriesmom]

Originally Posted by Jengerbread88

Typically, the burden of proof says this:

-The prosecution (the ones who want the person to go to jail) have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it happened.

-The defense only have to cast doubt on whether or not it actually occurred with the defendant being guilty.

The burden of proof for the defense is less than the burden for the prosecution. The prosecution have to really make sure that there is NO doubt about it, but the defense only have to weave some sort of seed of doubt in everyone's mind.

At least, that's how I understand it. I'm not a lawyer. My experience is limited to mock trial, and my dad working court security for the Sheriff's office.

That's right. Generally, the prosecution's burden is first, meaning they have the initial burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant committed the crime. Reasonable doubt is whether a reasonable person would believe that the facts could have happened a different way. It's one of the highest burden of proof to meet. This is why the prosecution goes first and if they don't meet their initial burden, then defense never has to put on a case and the case is dismissed. It's only after the prosecution puts on its case, that the defense presents its case which is as I say, to punch holes in the prosecution's case.

[jessica31876]

Liz in general does an attorney want to know what his client did if they are guilty? For me it would seem like knowing they are guilty would make it harder to defend them then easier.

[carriesmom]

Originally Posted by jessica31876

Liz in general does an attorney want to know what his client did if they are guilty? For me it would seem like knowing they are guilty would make it harder to defend them then easier.

Um...that's a hard question. I generally did misdemeanors so that is the perspective I work from. I usually want my clients to be honest with me. If I know where we are starting from it makes my job easier rather than getting surprises as the case goes along. And guilty is a hard word to define. There are often extenuating circumstances that can justify a crime. So telling me that they hit the person but he was coming after my kid is not saying you're guilty.

And sometimes people do admit guilt to me and then my job shifts to getting them the best deal I can and minimizing their consequences. The job of an attorney to effectively represent your client's best interests. Sometimes that means going to trial and going for the acquittal and in other cases that can mean avoiding jail/prison time and getting probation.

[jessica31876]

ok that makes a little more sense to me. I do kinda wonder if Casey Anthony's attorneys have asked her if she was involved or knows what happened but I guess we will never know really what she has said to them.