Do defendents admit their crime to their lawyers? (school, worst, case)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It undoes a few hundred years of precedence for an adversarial system?
You place the defendant in the situation of either testifying against himself or giving up the right to a meaningful defense. The defendant doesn't know the law in great detail and won't know whether the court would consider any extenuating circumstances. The defense lawyer does, but if the client can't tell him the details without self-incrimination, how can the lawyer mount a defense?
I'm stealing an example from another board: Lets say there's a jurisdiction out there that has two crimes, mopery and dopery.
Mopery is defined as "Walking down a public street with no clear destination". Dopery is defined as "Walking down a public street with no clear destination between the hours of midnight and 5 am" - dopery being the less serious offense.
The defendant, not being a lawyer, has no idea of the distinction. He's probably even unaware of the legal definition of "clear destination". But he knows that he's in trouble and that one careless word could put him in way more trouble. So he clams up (wouldn't you?), and his lawyer never gets to ask him the very pertinent question of when he actually walked, what the circumstances were, nor does the lawyer get to challenge the precision of the arresting officer's watch.
So even if the defendant is only factually guilty of dopery, a tough-on-crime DA stands every chance of locking him up for the more severe crime of mopery.
It's not as cut-and-dried as "Did you pull the trigger?" - the court very often knows that. The case then turns into "What was the defendant's state of mind when he pulled the trigger?" - was he justifiably scared for his life (self-defense) or was he executing the final step in a long and complex scheme to get revenge on a hated enemy (premeditated murder)? That's the sort of thing defense lawyers have to suss out, and if the defendant stands to lose big on admitting anything, he won't.
In this case the defendant is guilty of both mopery and dopery so the right thing for the prosecutor to do is seek a conviction on both mopery and dopery.
Also realize, the defendant isn't admitting this to the court. The objective is to make the law such the the defense must make known the the court the defendant's acknowledgment of the charge. If there are extenuating circumstances, those can be processed either way.
In this case the defendant is guilty of both mopery and dopery so the right thing for the prosecutor to do is seek a conviction on both mopery and dopery.
What brings you to that conclusion?
Of course the prosecutor will seek conviction on the most serious offense, that's his job. The defense lawyer will try to argue that the less serious offense should apply, that's his job. And one of the tools he uses to do his job is attorney-client privilege.
Quote:
Also realize, the defendant isn't admitting this to the court.
De facto, he is.
Quote:
The objective is to make the law such the the defense must make known the the court the defendant's acknowledgment of the charge. If there are extenuating circumstances, those can be processed either way.
You're seriously loading the deck in the prosecution's favor, here. An attorney can't mount a proper defense without the facts. And a defendant ignorant of law won't know what fact could condemn him, nor which one could be a point in his defense. With the defense lawyer part of the prosecution, there's no reason for anyone to talk to their lawyer at all.
The defendant can either witness against himself or de facto abandon the right to counsel - in other words, he can pick between the protection of the Fifth or the Sixth, but not both.
Wow this is a really hard one to answer so on this one I am going to back out cause I just dont know how to answer this one . I mean there are all kinds of factors here and too many to make a really good answer . Factors folks everything is all about factors ..
Let's say I am a client - it is my understanding that if I call my lawyer and say "I am going to...[whatever the crime]", then as an officer of the court, my attorney has an obligation to notify police; if I call my lawyer and say "I did such and such", we are then in an attorney-client privilege relationship and my attorney cannot say anything.
Now, I am charged with that crime [let's make it murder]; I am arraigned and I enter a plea of not guilty. There will be lots of motions, discovery, perhaps even depositions before even obtaining a trial date. Now we begin our trial.
I have murdered someone, there is no dispute about that - the prosecution's position is to prove that I am an evil, monstrous horrid person who did this crime -perhaps even premeditated - my attorney knows what I did; however, my attorney also knows why I did it.
My attorney's job is to represent my side and to defend why I did commit that crime AND it is to either to get me acquitted of that particular crime and/or a lesser offense.
I believe that the only way that a criminal defense attorney can do his/her best is in fact to know ALL of the facts - no surprises - I would think there is nothing worse than a criminal defense attorney working really hard, based on what his client has told him, and then upon receipt of all of the discovery AND depositions that the client lied. Not good. A defense attorney should not have any surprises thrown his way.
The system does not always work, for sure; however, it is the only system we have and I think it is a whole lot better than in other places such as no system at all.
Of course the prosecutor will seek conviction on the most serious offense, that's his job. The defense lawyer will try to argue that the less serious offense should apply, that's his job. And one of the tools he uses to do his job is attorney-client privilege.
Simple, you wrote he is factually guilty of dopery (so therefore he is guilty of mopery, since mopery is dopery without the time restriction; dopery is a subset of mopery). Mopery and dopery are not mutually exclusive. No where is it written that mopery only applies between 5AM and midnight. Mopery is any time, including midnight to 5am.
And yes, the prosecutor should seek conviction of the most serious crime of mopery: "Walking down a public street with no clear destination".
I don't see the connection of how attorney client privilege plays into this.
You're seriously loading the deck in the prosecution's favor, here. An attorney can't mount a proper defense without the facts. And a defendant ignorant of law won't know what fact could condemn him, nor which one could be a point in his defense. With the defense lawyer part of the prosecution, there's no reason for anyone to talk to their lawyer at all.
The deck isn't changing in favor of the prosecution at all in any case that the defendant committed no crime.
The defendant's attorney can mount a proper defense if the defendant tells him the truth. A person who has committed no crime will tell his attorney the truth, therefore a person who has committed no crime will have an attorney mounting a proper defense.
No facts can condemn a man who has committed no crime.
If a man didn't commit the crime then he has nothing to fear in speaking the truth to his lawyer.
I believe that the only way that a criminal defense attorney can do his/her best is in fact to know ALL of the facts - no surprises - I would think there is nothing worse than a criminal defense attorney working really hard, based on what his client has told him, and then upon receipt of all of the discovery AND depositions that the client lied. Not good.
Not good for who? The guy who committed a crime? Or society?
I think it is good in this case you described. Ideally the defendant tells his attorney the truth, and by my suggestion, the attorney must now disclose this to the court and the court now is aware of this confession. This assumes everyone is rational (people aren't admitting to crimes they didn't commit.)
By lying to his attorney the defendant has a greater chance of being found guilty - which is what should happen to someone who commits murder.
Not good for the client and the defense attorney does not tell the Court what the client [me] told my attorney --however depending upon the strategy planned by the defense attorney [and me], I might take the stand in my own defense; my attorney might bring in expert witnesses to defend and explain [professionally] why I did what I did; my attorney might ask the Court [judge] along with the prosecutor [in chambers] to be able to charge the jury with additional options instead of first/second degree murder; to be able to argue with the Court [judge] and prosecutor [again in chambers] not to give the jury additional options of choices/charges, i.e., involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, etc. believing that if the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt that my crime was NOT premediated, then they would have to acquit....
An example of why, I believe, a client should NOT lie to their attorney. I believe a client will have a far better defense representation if they are straight with their attorney.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
