Murder defendant slips restraints in court, stabs his lawyer with pen. All good, attorney says
Murder defendant slips restraints in court, stabs his lawyer with pen. All good, attorney says
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.
You're viewing part of a thread.
OK, but your previous post says:
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?
From your link:
For several reasons, lawyers should defend their clients vigorously regardless of whether or not they believe them to be innocent.
From your previous post:
Many defense attorneys aren't there to get their clients out of trouble
Their job is specifically to get their clients out of trouble.
It's to provide the best defense possible, there's a difference.
If you kill someone and are filmed while doing it, no one will ever be able to get you out of trouble. However, they could get you a lighter sentence.
It's completely clear what they meant.
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.