Replies

The defendant has a constitutional right to representation by counsel. The attorney is required by law and by ethical rules to be the defendant's advocate.

This has nothing to do with whether the attorney personally believes the defendant's story or personally champions the cause of the defendant.

The jury decides the facts of each case. It is up to it to determine the credibility of all witnesses and other evidence, and to decide what actually happened.

The jury decides whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty, based on the evidence presented by both sides and on the laws it is instructed to apply by the judge.

Sometimes juries make mistakes.

The judge decides what the sentence will be. Sometimes judges make mistakes.

The defense attorney presents a defense and introduces only the evidence s/he is legally permitted to introduce (the prosecutor objects otherwise, and if the evidence is not allowed, the judge sustains the objection).

Laws are made by the government, LE upholds the laws, judges interpret them, and juries apply them to specific cases. Laws have "elements", all of which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury's satisfaction, before a defendant can be convicted.

That's the way the system works. It is not a perfect system. The defendant's attorney is only one part of it -- the prosecutor, the witnesses, the evidence, the jury, and the judge have a lot more to do with the outcome of a case than the defense attorney does.

Personally, I would refuse to take this case, even though in my state it is unethical for me to do so -- not that I have the option! :-) Someone has to take it though, and his/her job is to be a zealous advocate for his client.