Johnny Cochran dead

[Imran Siddiqui]

Nice to know Kid doesn't believe the accused have rights either. Really puts his statements as being for the poor in context, doesn't it? He supports the powerful when it suits him.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
So all defense attorneys are, by definition, unethical?

It's a good think you're not one, I suppose. I would hate for your strenuous definition of "unethical" to screw a client.

Did you even bother to read what I responded to?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
you can't be serious.

Even when you think he's guilty?

[Drake Tungsten]

There's no ethical problem with defending someone you think is guilty. If you know they're guilty, OTOH...

[Ned]

Well Cochran, or his people, said the following:

1) That drug dealers killed Nicole.

2) That Furman planted the glove.

3) That Vanatter (or one of the other detectives) planted the blood at Nicole's residence.

4) That there was a conspiracy among the police to frame OJ.

Now, I don't believe any of the above was true. The question, though, is did Cochran know that all of this was untrue at the time?

Just a thought. It is possible to frame a guilty man.

[Boris Godunov]

Offering alternative theories for the crime and explanations for the evidence isn't remotely unethical. That's part of what the defense is supposed to do. I don't see how what Cochran did in that trial is any different than what any other (competent) attorney does in the course of a criminal case.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Did you even bother to read what I responded to?

Yeah, and it's rubbish. As DT said, even if you think your client may be guilty, it's not "unethical" to defend them. I suggest studying the Bar Association's code of ethics a bit before saying such things.

Besides, we don't know what Cochran thought about OJ's guilt, so making such claims is just unsubstantiated speculation.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Nice to know Kid doesn't believe the accused have rights either. Really puts his statements as being for the poor in context, doesn't it? He supports the powerful when it suits him.

You have a reading comprehension problem. I explicitly stated that even the accused (even the guilty) have a right to a scumbag lawyer like Cochran.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Dissident
all lawyers are sob's. it just goes with the territory.

Thanks dude. Don't ever forget it !!

[Flubber]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel



The job of a defense attorney is to zealously represent the interests of his client, even if you think he is guilty.

A prominent Canadian criminal lawyer talked about this defending the guily question this way. he said that:

Guilt is for the jury and judge to decide, not the defense lawyer. If a judge says that a person is "not guilty" who is he to say otherwise? This stands even if the client admits that they took the ax and murdered the spouse. Maybe his client was lying or deluded when he said that.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


Its better not to know. That way your client can take the stand and you won't be positive that he is perjuring himself (you can't put someone on the stand who you know is going to lie)

Sort of . ..


The reality is that if you attempt to get excused at a late stage in a trial, the judge will say no way and the result is that your client gives their story in the narritive form. The lawyer is then not assisting in a prejury but has thrown up a huge red flag for the judge that they are about to hear a pack of lies.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ned


It is unethical to lie to the court,

Agreed

Originally posted by Ned

or permit your witnesses to lie.

You might not have a choice. Clients often lie to their own lawyers or choose to testify against the advice of their lawyer.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Offering alternative theories for the crime and explanations for the evidence isn't remotely unethical. That's part of what the defense is supposed to do. I don't see how what Cochran did in that trial is any different than what any other (competent) attorney does in the course of a criminal case.

Bingo! There is a VAST difference between lying to the court and offering possible alternative theories of what happened.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
There's no ethical problem with defending someone you think is guilty. If you know they're guilty, OTOH...

Even then the defense bar say there is no ethical problem.

The argument goes that the state should not be able to imprison people without following the proper procedures and attaining sufficient proof for conviction. Since defendents are entitled to a zealous defence, the defence attorney feels ethicallly in the clear.


Or would you folks like a situation where the defense attorney decides who gets a decent effort from them and puts themselves in the role of judge and jury

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Offering alternative theories for the crime and explanations for the evidence isn't remotely unethical. That's part of what the defense is supposed to do. I don't see how what Cochran did in that trial is any different than what any other (competent) attorney does in the course of a criminal case.

You have to have some evideniary support for your alternative theories.

I was involved in a case where the a theory of explanation was proffered. This theory was later contradicted by evidence that the people who proffered it had no factual basis for proffering the explanation. The judgment obtained was revoked on the theory of fraud on the court.