[Dead Dog]

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.

[Stone Mountain]

Casting a shadow of doubt where none exist is reaching beyond the duties of competent legal counsel, and criminal. IMO.

Again, this kind of begs the question. If no shadow of doubt exists, then it is impossible to cast this shadow. If a doubt exists in the minds of those the lawyer brought it up to, then it clearly exists. It is the lawyer's job to bring up doubts in the minds of the jurors that they may previously have not thought of.

[Dog Gone]

manipulating the system

The police break your door down some night, storm your bedroom shooting you and your wife, killing her and paralyzing you. They find a couple of marijuana cigarettes in your sock drawer.

It turns out that they had no warrant or even a hint of probable cause because they had the wrong address.

Your attorney files a motion to throw out the evidence based on the the Fourth Amendment.

There's not the slightest doubt in your attorney's mind that you were guilty of possessing marijuana illegally.

Is he manipulating the system?