Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have not only read your link but I'm familiar with the adversarial position argument. For a defense attorney not to offer his client the best defense he can provide is unethical. It is not the job of defense attorneys to decide on the guilt or innocence of their client. If he or she believes a client is guilty and offers less than a best effort defense, then the attorney is not only robbing the client of a fair trial but is taking the decision of guilt or innocent away from the jury. The only way our judicial works is if both the prosecution and the defense do their best to prosecute or defend the accused, leaving the decision of guilt or innocents to the jury.Had you read the entire article you'd know the answer to that question.So are you saying she should have refused to defend the person?Wrong. Read up. Ethics is obviously not your forte', Flopper.Defense attorneys are ethically and legally bound to zealously represent all clients, the guilty as well as the innocent. It matters not how terrible the crime nor the belief of the attorney in the guilt or innocent of the accused. As Sir Thomas Moore said before going to the scaffold, "I'd give the devil the benefit of law, for mine own safety's sake." A vigorous defense is necessary to protect the innocent and to ensure that judges and citizens and not the police have the ultimate power to decide who is guilty of a crime.
http://www.lsuc.on.ca/media/sith_colloquium_asimow_michael.pdf
Everything you assume is wrong. I have a Juris Doctorate from one of the best law schools in the State of Florida and what I told you is what I was taught, which is: The duty to aggressively defend a client does not include lying in court. Lying in court is a violation of the Code of Ethical Conduct for attorneys and judges and can result in punishment. Most attorneys get away with lying because no one finds out about it. Hillary was just plain stupid for admitting she knew her client was guilty.
PS: Here is a link for you. I gave you the first one I found because I don't have that much sand at the top of the hourglass and am not going to waste my time convincing you of what I know to be true.
Lawyer Thinks Client is Guilty: Does It Matter? Criminal Law Process | Nolo.com
What should she have done ? Throw the case ? Then you'd say she ha no integrity and betrayed her oath to represent her client .
Blame the DA . If you really care . But you don't , you just want to slander HILLARY .
I have not only read your link but I'm familiar with the adversarial position argument. For a defense attorney not to offer his client the best defense he can provide is unethical. It is not the job of defense attorneys to decide on the guilt or innocence of their client. If he or she believes a client is guilty and offers less than a best effort defense, then the attorney is not only robbing the client of a fair trial but is taking the decision of guilt or innocent away from the jury. The only way our judicial works is if both the prosecution and the defense do their best to prosecute or defend the accused, leaving the decision of guilt or innocents to the jury.Had you read the entire article you'd know the answer to that question.So are you saying she should have refused to defend the person?Wrong. Read up. Ethics is obviously not your forte', Flopper.
http://www.lsuc.on.ca/media/sith_colloquium_asimow_michael.pdf
Everything you assume is wrong. I have a Juris Doctorate from one of the best law schools in the State of Florida and what I told you is what I was taught, which is: The duty to aggressively defend a client does not include lying in court. Lying in court is a violation of the Code of Ethical Conduct for attorneys and judges and can result in punishment. Most attorneys get away with lying because no one finds out about it. Hillary was just plain stupid for admitting she knew her client was guilty.
PS: Here is a link for you. I gave you the first one I found because I don't have that much sand at the top of the hourglass and am not going to waste my time convincing you of what I know to be true.
Lawyer Thinks Client is Guilty: Does It Matter? Criminal Law Process | Nolo.com
As a defense attorney, I may "know" that my client is guilty, but it is the prosecutor who must prove it, and I will throw out every legal roadblock available to me to keep him from doing so. In the meantime, I will still sleep at night, because I am really defending the law. If the prosecutor is a better attorney than I am, he will probably prevail. If not, he will not prevail, and that is his problem, not mine.
I have not only read your link but I'm familiar with the adversarial position argument. For a defense attorney not to offer his client the best defense he can provide is unethical. It is not the job of defense attorneys to decide on the guilt or innocence of their client. If he or she believes a client is guilty and offers less than a best effort defense, then the attorney is not only robbing the client of a fair trial but is taking the decision of guilt or innocent away from the jury. The only way our judicial works is if both the prosecution and the defense do their best to prosecute or defend the accused, leaving the decision of guilt or innocents to the jury.Had you read the entire article you'd know the answer to that question.So are you saying she should have refused to defend the person?
Everything you assume is wrong. I have a Juris Doctorate from one of the best law schools in the State of Florida and what I told you is what I was taught, which is: The duty to aggressively defend a client does not include lying in court. Lying in court is a violation of the Code of Ethical Conduct for attorneys and judges and can result in punishment. Most attorneys get away with lying because no one finds out about it. Hillary was just plain stupid for admitting she knew her client was guilty.
PS: Here is a link for you. I gave you the first one I found because I don't have that much sand at the top of the hourglass and am not going to waste my time convincing you of what I know to be true.
Lawyer Thinks Client is Guilty: Does It Matter? Criminal Law Process | Nolo.com
As a defense attorney, I may "know" that my client is guilty, but it is the prosecutor who must prove it, and I will throw out every legal roadblock available to me to keep him from doing so. In the meantime, I will still sleep at night, because I am really defending the law. If the prosecutor is a better attorney than I am, he will probably prevail. If not, he will not prevail, and that is his problem, not mine.
Every attorney would “throw out every legal roadblock available” to defend his client; however, knowingly and willfully lying in court is not legal. I suggest you read the link I provide. There are many more links on the subject and I suggest you go to Google. Would you lie in court to get your client acquitted? I would not.
By the way, you are not “defending the law” when you lie in court. You are instead violating the law by your dishonest and unethical conduct.
41 years ago today in the town of Springdale, Arkansas, a horrific crime was committed against a 12-year-old girl. But it was the injustice that followed that has defined her life. This is the true story Hillary Clinton hoped you would never hear.
This is who Hillary Clinton is. It is high time the American people found out the truth about her. Trump was right. Hillary Clinton is a "different kind of evil." Hillary Clinton's mentor was Satanist George McGovern. (for the truth about McGovern look up John Todd testimony)
Please copy this video link and mass email it to everyone you know. Thank you.
there has never ever been a case where Bill Clinton was found to be sleeping with underage women....ALL of the instances with him and his weewee's attraction, have been with adults and yes Monica was an adult....around 23-25....he's not a pedophile nor is he attracted to teens.What should she have done ? Throw the case ? Then you'd say she ha no integrity and betrayed her oath to represent her client .
Blame the DA . If you really care . But you don't , you just want to slander HILLARY .
You demoRATS are really a piece of heartless pedophile molesters like Hillary husband Bill Cosby Clinton which she also defended. I guess this is history repeating itself for how the Clintons were House of Cards.
I have not only read your link but I'm familiar with the adversarial position argument. For a defense attorney not to offer his client the best defense he can provide is unethical. It is not the job of defense attorneys to decide on the guilt or innocence of their client. If he or she believes a client is guilty and offers less than a best effort defense, then the attorney is not only robbing the client of a fair trial but is taking the decision of guilt or innocent away from the jury. The only way our judicial works is if both the prosecution and the defense do their best to prosecute or defend the accused, leaving the decision of guilt or innocents to the jury.Had you read the entire article you'd know the answer to that question.So are you saying she should have refused to defend the person?Wrong. Read up. Ethics is obviously not your forte', Flopper.Defense attorneys are ethically and legally bound to zealously represent all clients, the guilty as well as the innocent. It matters not how terrible the crime nor the belief of the attorney in the guilt or innocent of the accused. As Sir Thomas Moore said before going to the scaffold, "I'd give the devil the benefit of law, for mine own safety's sake." A vigorous defense is necessary to protect the innocent and to ensure that judges and citizens and not the police have the ultimate power to decide who is guilty of a crime.
http://www.lsuc.on.ca/media/sith_colloquium_asimow_michael.pdf
Everything you assume is wrong. I have a Juris Doctorate from one of the best law schools in the State of Florida and what I told you is what I was taught, which is: The duty to aggressively defend a client does not include lying in court. Lying in court is a violation of the Code of Ethical Conduct for attorneys and judges and can result in punishment. Most attorneys get away with lying because no one finds out about it. Hillary was just plain stupid for admitting she knew her client was guilty.
PS: Here is a link for you. I gave you the first one I found because I don't have that much sand at the top of the hourglass and am not going to waste my time convincing you of what I know to be true.
Lawyer Thinks Client is Guilty: Does It Matter? Criminal Law Process | Nolo.com
there has never ever been a case where Bill Clinton was found to be sleeping with underage women....ALL of the instances with him and his weewee's attraction, have been with adults and yes Monica was an adult....around 23-25....he's not a pedophile nor is he attracted to teens.What should she have done ? Throw the case ? Then you'd say she ha no integrity and betrayed her oath to represent her client .
Blame the DA . If you really care . But you don't , you just want to slander HILLARY .
You demoRATS are really a piece of heartless pedophile molesters like Hillary husband Bill Cosby Clinton which she also defended. I guess this is history repeating itself for how the Clintons were House of Cards.
STOP lying, pretty please.
And there are millions of women still married to husbands that have repeatedly cheated, for all kinds of different reasons, let alone their marriage vow of ''for better, for worse' until death do us part'.... it's none of my business nor will I or you ever truly know, why these millions of women have stayed with their husbands after they've repeatedly cheated on them....
I don't appreciate people straining a gnat (Trump's timing on releasing tax information) while swallowing a camel (Hillary is under investigation by the F.B.I., the story of how she handled this case and lied about a 12 yr. old rape victim in order to further her career - not to mention Benghazi) that never should have been permitted to run for president of the United States in the first place. She is a demon possessed deviant void of any conscience whatsoever.You don't appreciate how our judicial system works?If there is a hotter place in hell, Hillary Clinton will be there.
That is where your problem is. You admit you never looked at the links nor did you read the case. Yet you comment on this story as if you did. Go back and review independent sources on this case rather than the whitewash job Hillary's camp is hoping you'll accept.I have not only read your link but I'm familiar with the adversarial position argument. For a defense attorney not to offer his client the best defense he can provide is unethical. It is not the job of defense attorneys to decide on the guilt or innocence of their client. If he or she believes a client is guilty and offers less than a best effort defense, then the attorney is not only robbing the client of a fair trial but is taking the decision of guilt or innocent away from the jury. The only way our judicial works is if both the prosecution and the defense do their best to prosecute or defend the accused, leaving the decision of guilt or innocents to the jury.Had you read the entire article you'd know the answer to that question.
Everything you assume is wrong. I have a Juris Doctorate from one of the best law schools in the State of Florida and what I told you is what I was taught, which is: The duty to aggressively defend a client does not include lying in court. Lying in court is a violation of the Code of Ethical Conduct for attorneys and judges and can result in punishment. Most attorneys get away with lying because no one finds out about it. Hillary was just plain stupid for admitting she knew her client was guilty.
PS: Here is a link for you. I gave you the first one I found because I don't have that much sand at the top of the hourglass and am not going to waste my time convincing you of what I know to be true.
Lawyer Thinks Client is Guilty: Does It Matter? Criminal Law Process | Nolo.com
As a defense attorney, I may "know" that my client is guilty, but it is the prosecutor who must prove it, and I will throw out every legal roadblock available to me to keep him from doing so. In the meantime, I will still sleep at night, because I am really defending the law. If the prosecutor is a better attorney than I am, he will probably prevail. If not, he will not prevail, and that is his problem, not mine.
Every attorney would “throw out every legal roadblock available” to defend his client; however, knowingly and willfully lying in court is not legal. I suggest you read the link I provide. There are many more links on the subject and I suggest you go to Google. Would you lie in court to get your client acquitted? I would not.
By the way, you are not “defending the law” when you lie in court. You are instead violating the law by your dishonest and unethical conduct.
I have not read the links, nor even have I read about this particular case, so I am talking law as it pertains to American Justice in general. I had a case once, where my attorney asked me specifically if i had money due to me from my clients that my wife did not know about. I told him, "No". He knew that was not true, but it left him with a clear path to deny any such allegation from her attorney. If he had been of a lesser ethical persuasion, I could have told him the truth, and he could have argued that anything I had said was protected by attorney/client privilege. OR, he could have argued that I had told him that money was due to me from my client, but that he did not believe me, for any number of reasons.
One way, or another, it boils down to the same thing. the prosecuting attorney has the burden of proving guilt. The defense attorney would be disbarred for intentionally failing to defend his client to the utmost of his ability. The bar association wants him to follow their ethical guidelines. The law doesn't concern itself with such niceties. You can take that to the bank..
Affairs? Broaddrick was not an affair. She was a rape victim and Hillary Clinton intimidated her into silence while knowing that her husband had raped the woman. Trump isn't raping his campaign workers. You're defending the indefensible. Wake up.there has never ever been a case where Bill Clinton was found to be sleeping with underage women....ALL of the instances with him and his weewee's attraction, have been with adults and yes Monica was an adult....around 23-25....he's not a pedophile nor is he attracted to teens.What should she have done ? Throw the case ? Then you'd say she ha no integrity and betrayed her oath to represent her client .
Blame the DA . If you really care . But you don't , you just want to slander HILLARY .
You demoRATS are really a piece of heartless pedophile molesters like Hillary husband Bill Cosby Clinton which she also defended. I guess this is history repeating itself for how the Clintons were House of Cards.
STOP lying, pretty please.
And there are millions of women still married to husbands that have repeatedly cheated, for all kinds of different reasons, let alone their marriage vow of ''for better, for worse' until death do us part'.... it's none of my business nor will I or you ever truly know, why these millions of women have stayed with their husbands after they've repeatedly cheated on them....
Care4all,
How is it when Trump has affairs is it no ones fault.
When Bill Clinton has an affair it is Hillary's fault...
And this all from the christian boys...
Read the Professors first comment and let it sink in.I have not only read your link but I'm familiar with the adversarial position argument. For a defense attorney not to offer his client the best defense he can provide is unethical. It is not the job of defense attorneys to decide on the guilt or innocence of their client. If he or she believes a client is guilty and offers less than a best effort defense, then the attorney is not only robbing the client of a fair trial but is taking the decision of guilt or innocent away from the jury. The only way our judicial works is if both the prosecution and the defense do their best to prosecute or defend the accused, leaving the decision of guilt or innocents to the jury.Had you read the entire article you'd know the answer to that question.So are you saying she should have refused to defend the person?Wrong. Read up. Ethics is obviously not your forte', Flopper.
http://www.lsuc.on.ca/media/sith_colloquium_asimow_michael.pdf
Everything you assume is wrong. I have a Juris Doctorate from one of the best law schools in the State of Florida and what I told you is what I was taught, which is: The duty to aggressively defend a client does not include lying in court. Lying in court is a violation of the Code of Ethical Conduct for attorneys and judges and can result in punishment. Most attorneys get away with lying because no one finds out about it. Hillary was just plain stupid for admitting she knew her client was guilty.
PS: Here is a link for you. I gave you the first one I found because I don't have that much sand at the top of the hourglass and am not going to waste my time convincing you of what I know to be true.
Lawyer Thinks Client is Guilty: Does It Matter? Criminal Law Process | Nolo.com
From your own Article:
Defense attorneys are ethically bound to zealously represent all clients, those whom they think will be justly found guilty as well as those whom they think are factually innocent. (See Canon 7, ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility.) A vigorous defense is necessary to protect the innocent and to ensure that judges and citizens—and not the police—have the ultimate power to decide who is guilty of a crime.
What are you trying to pin on Clinton... Cause this looks weak as dishwater from where I am standing for.
The fact that Hillary Clinton has this story in her closet (and her closet is overflowing with such incriminating stories) makes it clear she is unfit for the office of president. I'm merely emphasizing the obvious. Look at her. She's a mess.So now you have morphed this thread into a campaign slogan..I see you really cared about the case of rape...
Affairs? Broaddrick was not an affair. She was a rape victim and Hillary Clinton intimidated her into silence while knowing that her husband had raped the woman. Trump isn't raping his campaign workers. You're defending the indefensible. Wake up.there has never ever been a case where Bill Clinton was found to be sleeping with underage women....ALL of the instances with him and his weewee's attraction, have been with adults and yes Monica was an adult....around 23-25....he's not a pedophile nor is he attracted to teens.What should she have done ? Throw the case ? Then you'd say she ha no integrity and betrayed her oath to represent her client .
Blame the DA . If you really care . But you don't , you just want to slander HILLARY .
You demoRATS are really a piece of heartless pedophile molesters like Hillary husband Bill Cosby Clinton which she also defended. I guess this is history repeating itself for how the Clintons were House of Cards.
STOP lying, pretty please.
And there are millions of women still married to husbands that have repeatedly cheated, for all kinds of different reasons, let alone their marriage vow of ''for better, for worse' until death do us part'.... it's none of my business nor will I or you ever truly know, why these millions of women have stayed with their husbands after they've repeatedly cheated on them....
Care4all,
How is it when Trump has affairs is it no ones fault.
When Bill Clinton has an affair it is Hillary's fault...
And this all from the christian boys...
Read the Professors first comment and let it sink in.I have not only read your link but I'm familiar with the adversarial position argument. For a defense attorney not to offer his client the best defense he can provide is unethical. It is not the job of defense attorneys to decide on the guilt or innocence of their client. If he or she believes a client is guilty and offers less than a best effort defense, then the attorney is not only robbing the client of a fair trial but is taking the decision of guilt or innocent away from the jury. The only way our judicial works is if both the prosecution and the defense do their best to prosecute or defend the accused, leaving the decision of guilt or innocents to the jury.Had you read the entire article you'd know the answer to that question.So are you saying she should have refused to defend the person?
Everything you assume is wrong. I have a Juris Doctorate from one of the best law schools in the State of Florida and what I told you is what I was taught, which is: The duty to aggressively defend a client does not include lying in court. Lying in court is a violation of the Code of Ethical Conduct for attorneys and judges and can result in punishment. Most attorneys get away with lying because no one finds out about it. Hillary was just plain stupid for admitting she knew her client was guilty.
PS: Here is a link for you. I gave you the first one I found because I don't have that much sand at the top of the hourglass and am not going to waste my time convincing you of what I know to be true.
Lawyer Thinks Client is Guilty: Does It Matter? Criminal Law Process | Nolo.com
From your own Article:
Defense attorneys are ethically bound to zealously represent all clients, those whom they think will be justly found guilty as well as those whom they think are factually innocent. (See Canon 7, ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility.) A vigorous defense is necessary to protect the innocent and to ensure that judges and citizens—and not the police—have the ultimate power to decide who is guilty of a crime.
What are you trying to pin on Clinton... Cause this looks weak as dishwater from where I am standing for.
The Professor wrote:
Good point.
Lawyers are not supposed to lie to get a client acquitted and can be punished by the Bar when they do. All I can say is what I was taught in ethics class in law school. If a lawyer knows his client is guilty (let's say the client admits it) the lawyer may still represent him. However, the lawyer can not tell the jury the client is innocent, nor can the lawyer allow his client to testify and lie on the stand. The lawyer may attack the evidence anyway he can, and may strongly assert that the State has failed to prove its case; however he cannot tell the jury that his client did not commit the crime.
For example, the lawyer may say, “The evidence fails to establish the defendant had a motive for killing Mr. Brown. In fact, the evidence fails to show that the defendant was anywhere near Mr. Brown's house the night he was murdered. You have taken an oath to base your decision on the evidence regardless of how you may personally feel about the defendant, and based upon the evidence you must return a verdict of not guilty.” The attorney, however, cannot say, “The defendant did not murder Mr Brown. He had no motive for killing him and he was nowhere near Mr. Brown the night he was killed. I ask you to find the defendant not guilty.”
Attorneys are not supposed to lie for any reason and that includes getting her client acquitted. This is part of the code of ethical conduct for attorneys; however, I know that there are those attorneys who violate this code.
