I'm learning that right now. Because your mind is closed.
So there it is.
You'll have to take responsibility for that.
You don't ask your clients if they're guilty. They're presumed innocent. You ask questions and prepare a defense in light of that. You look at the other side's case through discovery (and vice versa) and determine the best course. Most clients capable of criminal activity will lie to their attorneys in any event. The ones who will tell you they did it will also usually run to the plea. Because criminals don't tend to be smart, will often leave behind sufficient evidence to put themselves in serious jeopardy.
Legal technicality and loophole are mostly things people pick up watching the distorted hyperbole of television or movie courtroom drama and/or comedy. There's the presumption and there are the rules of evidence. There are very clear and good reasons for those rules and both sides are to follow them...Chain of custody relating to evidence is one of those that might be considered a technicality, but for the defense attorney it's mostly about making sure the state, with its disproportionate power and resource, stays within the written letter of the law. And the state examines and objects and makes sure the defense does also.
No, it doesn't, not inherently or for the most part. I'm sure there's an exception to any rule, so I won't say it doesn't happen. But juries get it wrong too, both ways. We've put innocent men to death and let guilty men go free. Those are the tragic exceptions to the rule and no process in this world is perfect.
No thanks - I'm quite happy stomping around in here.
Post one and we'll discuss it.
Post one and we'll discuss it.
Nah, cowardly would be challenging someone, making a big show of it and then, when met on issues, running away and sniping at a safe distance.
lain: But you mostly begin with the mocking and baiting and your idea of fun is defamatory and malicious. Though you do post a lovely bit of scripture in your signature, so all's well that ends well in a peculiarly literal sense must be your position here.
You should repost this and laugh at it. I've noticed you like to do that, which is peculiar since you only just finished saying you don't like to discuss things with a closed mind.
I doubt that. Plus you had my handy link to refresh your memory and everything.
I've been here four years, and I hope and pray I haven't and won't learn how to mock like you.
Right. I'm sure it happens. Mostly as a matter of a step toward plea bargaining, where the accused will have to stipulate, on the record, to his or her actions. But if your client does admit guilt you can't let him take the stand and proclaim innocence. And the crime they admit to has to be in the past. Any present or planned criminal activity would obligate the attorney to act against the client as an officer of the court.
With respect, you aren't in a position to know that, aren't an attorney, aren't familiar with the cannon of ethics and so can't speak to it meaningfully in relation to moral law. I will tell you that some of the best Christian examples I know of are attorneys, that the rap my profession receives is mostly born out of misunderstanding or confusion of the exception with a rule and no more a faithful picture than it would be to suggest that all or most pastors are tainted because some cheat and steal and seduce parishioners. That sort of thing.
| ... | |
artie said:
With respect, anyone can read a book. A lawyer is versed in the law and process of the law and understands the relation between various aspects of the discipline, their integration and the foundation of the law by black letter. He is first weeded by introductory examination on his fitness to enter into the study, then tested on his understanding both in the classroom and, having successfully navigated that rigorous first and second weeding process is then subject to an additional and remarkably particular and difficult examination from the each state in which he desires to practice.
