To: Michael2001
What if the lawyer doesn't know whether the client is guilty? Most lawyers won't ask, at least not directly.
3 posted on
07/25/2002 12:46:45 PM PDT by
Dog Gone
To: Dog Gone
What if the lawyer doesn't know whether the client is guilty? Most lawyers won't ask, at least not directly. Sorry, Dog, but, in most cases, they know, no matter what their client says. That's why there are so many pleadings.
O'Reilly's got a point: OJ Simpson is guilty as hell of two murders, and the scumbag Johnny Cochran used race to prejudice a jury. And Cochran KNEW he was guilty.
Criminal defense attorneys are quickly joining their brethren in the class-action category as the bottom-feeders of society.
8 posted on
07/25/2002 1:00:53 PM PDT by
sinkspur
To: Dog Gone
What if the lawyer doesn't know whether the client is guilty? Most lawyers won't ask, at least not directly. Sorry, Dog, but, in most cases, they know, no matter what their client says. That's why there are so many pleadings.
O'Reilly's got a point: OJ Simpson is guilty as hell of two murders, and the scumbag Johnny Cochran used race to prejudice a jury. And Cochran KNEW he was guilty.
Criminal defense attorneys are quickly joining their brethren in the class-action category as the bottom-feeders of society.
9 posted on
07/25/2002 1:00:53 PM PDT by
sinkspur
To: Dog Gone
What if the lawyer doesn't know whether the client is guilty? Most lawyers won't ask, at least not directly. Approximately 90% of all defendants who appear in court are guilty of the crime for which they are accused. Every lawyer in America knows this.
18 posted on
07/25/2002 1:32:29 PM PDT by
jpl
To: Dog Gone
Not only won't most ask, they don't want you to volunteer guilt/ innocense info to them. They certainly don't want you telling them you did it, and they don't want you to lie to them.
33 posted on
07/25/2002 1:59:52 PM PDT by
discostu
To: Dog Gone
What if the lawyer doesn't know whether the client is guilty? Most lawyers won't ask, at least not directly. O'Reilly misses his own point by getting into "known" guilt debate. But even if innocence is assumed, manipulating the system, lieing, and generally trying to override common sense and reason with emotion is the problem. Casting a shadow of doubt where none exist is reaching beyond the duties of competent legal counsel, and criminal. IMO.
55 posted on
07/25/2002 2:52:09 PM PDT by
Dead Dog
To: Dog Gone
Re your Post No. 3. It's a hard question. And even if the lawyer asked his client "Are you guilty", I don't think the client is going to give an honest answer. As for O'Reilly, I can understand where he's coming from, but folks are entitled to a trial by jury and the defending lawyer who accepts the case must do the best he can to defend his client. Me, if I were a lawyer, in good conscience, I could not accept such a case. So if all lawyers who feel the same way I do decline to accept a case of child molestation, what happens?
To: Dog Gone
True, but an imbecile, given enough time and asking enough questions, can usually figure out whether a person is guilty or not. For example, did you think OJ was guilty? And you probably did not have to ask him any questions to ascertain that. It was obvious. And an attorney should be able to do the same thing unless he is in full denial ala Cochrane, Scheck, Shapiro, Bailey, et al.
209 posted on
07/27/2002 9:30:15 AM PDT by
DennisR
To: Dog Gone
Right. The lawyer's job is to defend the client. The lawyer doesn't ask because he doesn't want to know. Knowing the client is guilty would influence the job the lawyer does for the client - unless the lawyer is a total bottom feeder in which case he doesn't care. Do I hate that these baby killers even have legal counsel? Of course! But to protect the innocent who are charged, we have to defend all who are charged.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson