As a Contra Costa County jury watched, an Oakland man accused of killing his ex-girlfriend attacks his lawyer with a pen and tries to attack a prosecutor.
There could be issues with witnesses or evidence that wasn’t handled properly. The attorney could point out all of those flaws in order to best defend their client. That of course would leave the defendant with nothing to try to apply with. A less thorough attorney might not find those issues.
Many defense attorneys aren’t there to get their clients out of trouble, especially in high profile cases, they exist to make sure that the law is applied fairly.
Do stand by what you said about defense attorneys not “there to get their clients out of trouble?”
Yes, they are there to present eveey possible defense to the alligatons even if the client is clearly guilty. Reasons for appeal could include improper handling of evidence, interviewing witnesses improperly, or jury issues. If the attorney catches those and brings them up at trial, then they can’t be used during an appeal in order to get the client of on a technically.
You’re really arguing that a defense attorney’s job isn’t to get their client out of trouble (or in other words, defend them)? Do you realize how ridiculous that is?
The police find that man A kills man B. A is now the defendant in a criminal trial. The job of A’s lawyer is to introduce facts that improve the outcome of the trial. Sometimes, that’s fighting because there isn’t enough evidence available to assert that man A actually killed man B. Other times, it’s getting their client to plead guilty because it’s the easiest thing to do in a case that they’re guaranteed to lose. Other times, it’s to get a lesser sentence because B was abusive to A and A couldn’t escape. It could be that A was acting in self defense.
Removing all nuance and saying that the one and only goal is to get their clients out of trouble is incorrect. Not every defendant is guilty, and not every criminal needs the maximum punishment.
There could be issues with witnesses or evidence that wasn’t handled properly. The attorney could point out all of those flaws in order to best defend their client. That of course would leave the defendant with nothing to try to apply with. A less thorough attorney might not find those issues.
OK, but your previous post says:
Do stand by what you said about defense attorneys not “there to get their clients out of trouble?”
Yes, they are there to present eveey possible defense to the alligatons even if the client is clearly guilty. Reasons for appeal could include improper handling of evidence, interviewing witnesses improperly, or jury issues. If the attorney catches those and brings them up at trial, then they can’t be used during an appeal in order to get the client of on a technically.
You’re really arguing that a defense attorney’s job isn’t to get their client out of trouble (or in other words, defend them)? Do you realize how ridiculous that is?
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/defending-guilty-people
From your link:
From your previous post:
Their job is specifically to get their clients out of trouble.
It’s to provide the best defense possible, there’s a difference.
deleted by creator
This should not be hard to understand.
The police find that man A kills man B. A is now the defendant in a criminal trial. The job of A’s lawyer is to introduce facts that improve the outcome of the trial. Sometimes, that’s fighting because there isn’t enough evidence available to assert that man A actually killed man B. Other times, it’s getting their client to plead guilty because it’s the easiest thing to do in a case that they’re guaranteed to lose. Other times, it’s to get a lesser sentence because B was abusive to A and A couldn’t escape. It could be that A was acting in self defense.
Removing all nuance and saying that the one and only goal is to get their clients out of trouble is incorrect. Not every defendant is guilty, and not every criminal needs the maximum punishment.