Legal experts argue that a lawyer should not back down during court proceedings if such withdrawal would harm the lawyer's client. Likewise, it is considered unscrupulous for a lawyer to enlighten the judge specifically that his client is a liar. the lawyer should ask that he be dismissed from everything related to this matter for "moral reasons". if the judge denies this request, the lawyer should continue talking to the client. what would you have done if you were a lawyer, you had confidence that your client would prevail, and the judge instructed you to continue representing your client. It's about public duty versus personal values, when you represent a client, you know that the defense attorney is guilty of the crime. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay This is the explanation behind Lawyer Client Benefit. One of the main things a better than average lawyer will advise another client is to tell him his side of the story and not lie. Protection lawyers are legitimately obligated not to disclose any data identified with the client's private concern or dispositions. You can be disbarred for ignoring this. This applies to future customers, current customers and previous customers/upcoming customers. There are special cases, particularly if the client is looking for a legitimate lawyer identified with an organized but unexecuted tort. From here, defense counsel will ask his client about the best way to prosecute the case if the client pleads guilty. If the client actually committed the crime and 10 spectators, a surveillance camera, a group of media reporting on a different event and the police officers found him with the evidence still conclusive and the victim's blood all over his hands. If you witness the crime, counsel must explain to the jury why the client "didn't do it." Much of this depends on the accusatory capacity of the evidence. The more you can screw up, the more you can escape. This is problematic, but not feasible. Think of the Kasey Anthony (Casey) where the prosecution attempted to prove that a mother killed her baby girl and dumped the body. Here the way the young woman had died and Anthony's underlying statements were astonishing, the lies were suspect from the start... however, the stories of the statements and confirmations and the media were so strange and out there, that it was difficult to tell by any means the correct course of events or occasions. The mother got away with it even though much of the country was sure she had because no one could make sense of what had really happened. The “Verify Beyond Reasonable Uncertainty” sentencing standard implies that every single imaginable clarification contrary to the prosecution story can be reduced because the corroboration does not strengthen the elective occurrence. In any case, if you can't trust one side over the other, at that point the jury is told to argue purely, regardless of whether there is conviction in the way they did it in one of two different ways . Attorney Janet Portman from Nolo Press, says she represents a client who is known to be guilty “'The key is the difference between factual guilt (what the defendant actually did) and legal guilt (what a prosecutor can prove). A good criminal defense lawyer doesn't ask, “Did my client do this?” but rather, “can the government prove that my client did this?” with this statement the lawyer Janet Portman concludes that, regardless ofwhat he did, the defendant is not legally innocent until the point a prosecutor offers sufficient corroboration to convince a judge or jury to convict. Attorney Portman illustrates his example of a lawyer who puts duty above personal values: “Sam is accused of shoplifting. Sam admits to his lawyer that he took a watch, as accused. Sam's lawyer realizes that the videotape from the store's hidden camera is confusing and virtually useless as evidence for the prosecution. Additionally, Sam's lawyer learns that the store's security guard was at the end of a long overtime shift and had been drinking alcohol. Sam's lawyer can use these facts in an argument for Sam's acquittal. Before trial, Sam's lawyer may argue to the DA that the DA's case is too weak to prosecute. At trial, Sam's lawyer can argue with a judge or jury to acquit him. Whatever Sam did, Sam is not legally guilty unless the prosecutor can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. But Sam's lawyer cannot ethically state in his argument that Sam "didn't do it," only that the DA hasn't proven that Sam did it. While the line between ethical and unethical behavior may seem thin, it is, and it is a line that criminal defense lawyers walk every day in their work. (Portman) In any event, defense counsel may not mislead the judge or jury by specifically stating that the defendant did not accomplish something that counsel knows the litigant did. (On the other hand, counsel cannot admit guilt against the client's wishes.) Rather, counsel's strategies and preliminary arguments must highlight the prosecutor's failure to prove each of the components of the wrongdoing . Example of a case where the defense attorney knew that his client had committed the crime, but put duty before personal worth. Westerfield v. San Diego County Superior Court (2002). Westerfield was accused of kidnapping and executing a young woman named Danielle Van Dam, but her body had not been found. While processing the request, the prosecutor offered not to seek capital punishment if Feldman discovered the body part. Because Feldman had that data, he knew without a doubt that Westerfield was guilty. Before an agreement could be reached, the police found the body and the required agreement crumbled. The case ended in pretrial, and Feldman organized a full-scale resistance. Interviewing Danielle's parents, Feldman highlighted how they arranged sexual encounters in their home, suggesting that a visitor to one of these encounters could have killed the young woman. Clearly, this was doing exceptional damage to the guardians' notoriety, but Feldman knew that the derivation he was trying to raise was false. Westerfield has been indicted and is awaiting the death penalty. (Westerfield v. San Diego County Superior Court) In the popular film The Devil's Advocate (1997), arrogant legal counsel Kevin Lomax (Keanu Reeves) wins every case, because he is the son of the devil and therefore has heavenly power. From the beginning in the film he effectively protects a teacher, Mr. Getty, from accusations of sexual abuse of a student named Barbara. He crushes Barbara during the interrogation, even though he is sure that she is telling the truth and that Getty is guilty. Later Lomax goes to work for John Milton (Al Pacino), an accomplice supervisor of a Money St. company, who is Satan. After more powerful shenanigans, Lomax ends up attempting to.