The part where a lawyer, with knowledge of the guilt of his client, seeks to hide or obscure the guilt, such that the jury cannot make a decision based on ALL the facts or evidence, and the guilty are freed. I did not say to convict him/her without a trial. You know the old routine, "just answer yes or no," which can completely change the actual answer. Don't get me wrong, both sides do it. Let's append your sentence to read "innocent or guilty by reason of ALL the evidence." No more O.J. debacles.
My point is that the truth, and ALL the truth should be revealed for the jury, be it DNA evidence, prior convictions etc.
Any lawyer who gets a client off that is demonstrably (during the trial) guilty of a crime on a trivial technicality, is scum as far as I am concerned. You know the types, the ones that represent a murderous drug crazed intruder, helping him sue a women acting in self defense when she shot him. The kind that advertise on the tube for people like the old broad the spilled hot coffee on her lap and sued the company that made it. Any lawyer that degrades the legal system for his/her own personal gain, and tears down the country in the proscess.
Judges should throw out frivolous lawsuits, as they bog down the system, which, in turn, lawyers use to get settlements etc. due to the time it takes to get to trial. A vicious cycle at best, and ruining the country at worst.