Is it unethical for a defense attorney to knowingly try to get a guilty person found "not-guilty"?

blue317

unethical and dishonest but they still do it....I refer you to the OJ Simpson trail

wizjp

In the legal system, every one has a job. The accused are entitled to a determined defense. That atty is charged with any and all legal means to have his client found not guilty.

Anything else, and this might as well be Iran.

folklore

My guess is that they don't ask about guilt or innocence. Might be better that way to not know.

No. It's his job to represent his clients interest. It's not the attorney's job to determine guilt or innocence.

He has an ethical duty not to ask a witness a question at trial if he knows the witness will lie.

MrKnowItAll

No. The way the system is set up, everyone has a right to a fair trial. That means assistance of counsel. The theory is that if one side has a vested interest in finding evidence of guilt and the other wants to find evidence of innocence, and between them they will bring all important evidence to the attention of the jury.

I've talked to a defense attorney, and she said that it is actually rare for her to handle a case where what she does results in the guy getting "let off". Usually the issue is, what EXACTLY is the defendant guilty of, and what penalty should he get?

army_of_muffins

Its unethical yes,but its the job they went to law school and traine dto do.

The D.A is no different except he has absolutely no problem conviciting a man he knows is innocent as long as he get to do his job.

beverly

It is not strictly 'unethical' for a defense attorney to defend a person they know is guilty.

A person can be guilty, but the means with which the prosecution is attempting to prove them guilty may have been obtained illegally or may violate the defendant's civil rights in some fashion. While it may seem expedient to simply overlook that on the basis of the fact that the defendant is factually guilty, the problem would be that this would set a precedent for future actions - and eventually you would be faced with a factually *innocent* defendant trying to defend themselves against 'evidence' that was illegally obtained or represented a violation of the defendant's civil rights.

The defense attorney's job is to represent their client as best as they are able. In doing so, they are representing the *criminal justice system* as well. None of us are safe unless ALL of us are safe. That is the basis of the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty', and having defense attorneys selectively decide whether or not to defend their clients based upon their belief of innocence or guilt would completely undermine that system.

If a private defense attorney truly cannot defend someone that they believe is guilty, they are free to let the client know that in advance and decide which cases they will take and which cases they will not. Public defenders, however, do not have this luxury.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: