<p>^That is disgusting, as well. Poor kids. (assuming that they are telling the truth, I mean)</p>
<p>Let us get back to some basics. Sorry to bore those in the know!
If a prosecutor thinks the person he is defending is guilty, should he take the case?
What if he has incontrovertible proof the person is guilty- what are his obligations?
If he discovers that he is or that he thinks he is guilty while he is defending the person what should he do?</p>
<p>questions, performersmom that were asked many pages ago. Some respond that all have a right to a defense. Some respond that an atty should have the integrity only to take cases he believes in. This dilemma -whether fair or not- is one reason attys have such a low reputation. The feeling that an atty may know of guilt, yet still try to get an innocent verdict. Theoretically, the prosecutor’s job is to seek the truth, and theoretically, the defending attys job is to advocate for his client.
But I think performersmom has a typo- the prosecutor never defends the accused.</p>
<p>Everyone deserves a defense. And attorneys defend guilty people. Thankfully we have a system that requires, for legal punishment, the state to provemits case. That’s the legal side of this mess.</p>
<p>Morally and socially, these guys are guilty. Hopefully, the victims will get the chance to tell their stories. </p>
<p>I am not surprised Sandusky hired such oddball attorneys. Sandusky thinks he can work the legal system lke he and paterno worked the psu system. After years of being a molester and so many letting it slide, he thinks the restnofthwnworld works the same way.</p>
<p>I agree seahorse, he believes he is above the law and can work it and get away with it as he has all these years. he was pathetic saying he’ll fight for four quarters, as if this is a game.</p>
<p>Everyone not only deserves a defense, they are constitutionally entitled to one. If no one wants to defend a particular accused, the court will appoint a public defender free of charge. Whether high-powered private attorney, or public defender, the defendant’s attorney has the obligation to do everything he legally can to get the client acquited. </p>
<p>In Amendola’s case, let’s not forget he is getting paid a lot of money to defend Sandusky. If he has a conscience, bags of cash may be quieting it.</p>
<p>Ok, what if the defending lawyer figures out DURING the case, after he/she accepted it thinking the client was not guilty, that the client IS guilty, what does he/she do?</p>
<p>Constitutionally, everyone is entitled to legal representation and a defense. So that means that there can be techniques and interpretations and explanations to try to remove known legal guilt??</p>
<p>(You are right, younghoss, I totally did not mean prosecutor in #3561, and thank you for pointing that out so patiently.)</p>
<p>Even if a person IS guilty, under US law, they are entitled to be defended by an attorney and the government MUST prove beyond a reasonable double that the person IS guilty. It can get tricky where midway through the case/trial the defendant and attorney have differences of opinion about how the case should proceed. ALL attorneys are officers of the court and cannot LIE but must represent their client. It can get awkward. Sometimes a defendant will INSIST on testifying against the strong recommendation of the attorney. </p>
<p>Often, it is in the best interests of all parties if a reasonable plea agreement can be worked out, especially to the extent it can help spare witnesses the trauma of reliving the pain, as well as time and expense for all involved. When there are multiple counts involved and would be VERY LONG prison and/or other sentences, pleas can be much tougher to negotiate as there is much less to be gained by the defendant.</p>
<p>performersmom, nowhere is it written that a defense attorney must believe that his client didn’t commit the crime. </p>
<p>The defense attorney’s job is to force the prosecutor to prove the case. I served on a jury where we thought the guy probably did the crime. But going carefully through the evidence, we just could not see that the DA had proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Given that, we had a duty to find the defendant not guilty.</p>
<p>^ performersmom,</p>
<p>States have detailed codes of legal ethics for criminal defense lawyers, as they must because it’s a very difficult line defense lawyers need to walk. The lawyers can perhaps tell us better, but it’s my understanding that in most states it’s very difficult for a criminal defense lawyer to withdraw from a case in progress; it usually requires court approval, and that is very difficult to get except in very narrowly circumscribed circumstances. And that makes a lot of sense to me. Our adversarial criminal justice system is predicated upon the idea that we’re more likely to get to the truth if each side has an opportunity to make its strongest case, and an impartial jury decides. If the defense attorney could just drop the client in the middle of a case, it would signal to the jury that the defendant’s own lawyer is throwing in the towel; case closed. So in a lot of cases, we’d have defense lawyers effectively deciding the outcome of criminal prosecutions, instead of juries weighing the evidence and deciding by their own lights, which is the way the system is supposed to work. Allowing the lawyer to withdraw would prejudice the case against the defendant. And what if the lawyer is wrong? If you were wrongly accused of a crime, how would you feel about your lawyer throwing in the towel and effectively signalling to the jury, “I don’t believe my own client”? </p>
<p>The defense lawyer has an ethical obligation to the client to mount an effective defense, regardless of whether the lawyer believes the client to be guilty. If the lawyer has ethical qualms about defending people who are guilty (or who might be guilty, because that’s always a judgment call), then the lawyer ought to take up another line of work; there are plenty of other kinds of jobs that lawyers do. But the integrity of our adversarial criminal justice system depends upon defense lawyers not selling out their clients.</p>
<p>I see what you are all saying.</p>
<p>The clearest way to see how it works from the defense attorney’s point of view in defending a guilty client:
“The defense attorney’s job is to force the prosecutor to prove the case.”
So that makes having a really good lawyer very important in the legal system, so I do not think everyone is really going to get what they are entitled to! </p>
<p>Himom- Yes, the plea bargain is also an interesting play. Does it say that the defense attorney is feeling he is losing the case, or that he thinks the client is guilty? !</p>
<p>BTW, victims should have rights, too. Unfortunately it is hard to balance all the rights that all the different parties have…</p>
<p>“we’re more likely to get to the truth if each side has an opportunity to make its strongest case”
Yes, I see this now. The strength of each side of the case is what ends up counting, but there has to at least be a good faith effort to make the case, and we are asked to believe that each side is making the best case possible for such a comparison to be leading to the truth.</p>
<p>Again, I do feel that the legal system is not really all that effective in meeting its goals of fairness in seeking the truth, given that lawyers vary is their skills and ability to make good cases. In theory, it makes sense, but in practice, well…</p>
<p>True, the judicial system has all the failings of any system made up of humans. There have been people who’ve sat on death row for years because their court-appointed public defenders did not provide an effective defense – for example, sleeping through the trial.</p>
<p>ETA – I’m not sure that it’s the function of the judicial system to find the “truth”. A trial is the forum for testing the prosecution’s evidence, and deciding whether it has met its burden. Remember that the defendant is presumed innocent. If the prosecution fails to produce evidence proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then our constitution says that the defendant must be acquitted – yes, even if he really did the crime. The prosecution bears a heavy burden; as it should, since it also wields great power.</p>
<p>ETA2 – Which is why I fervently hope that the prosection has its act together in the Sandusky case.</p>
<p>Or this, performersmom:
The clearest way to see how it works from the defense attorney’s point of view in defending a guilty client:
A defense atty is a hired hand and his job is to get a not guilty verdict. Failing that, his job would then be to minimize consequences of a guilty verdict.
Although a lawyer is “white collar” and has certains skills and education, the principle is no different than if a Baptist church hired an atheist to paint their church. They simply pay whoever they think will get the job done well, and he performs his service for whoever pays him.</p>
<p>But let’s all remember that if one atty chooses not to represent a client because he does not like the client’s position, that does not mean the client goes without representation.</p>
<p>Here’s what I think about “the truth”. In theory, the prosecutor has seen evidence that a person is guilty; enough to convince him the evidence is true, and so has charged him with a crime, and is now in court. The prosecutor’s position is that he is trying to prove what he believes to be true to the judge(or jury). The defense atty however has a different job. His job is to convince the judge that the prosecutor’s evidence might not be true. The defense has to go no farther than that.</p>
<p>Very helpful, thanks^^^
Good to review all this in such a crazy case, so I appreciate it.</p>
<p>Just a note about criminal defense attorneys:
A defense attorney who only represented innocent clients would starve to death.
A defense attorney who declines to take clients because they are accused of unsavory crimes is (in my opinion) a punk.
A defense attorney who knowingly presents perjured evidence is unethical.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is what McQueary is saying at the perjury hearings, under oath.</p>
<p>[Live:</a> McQueary testifies he saw Sandusky with boy in shower](<a href=“http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/12/tim-curley-gary-schultz-penn-state-/1]Live:”>http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/12/tim-curley-gary-schultz-penn-state-/1)</p>
<p>Wow. Not much gray area there for Paterno et al to hang their hats on.</p>
<p>And again, IMO McQueary is highly credible, for the reason that there’s no possible benefit to him to make this up.</p>
<p>Updated 10:47 a.m.: McQueary said in his mind he dealt with police when he told Gary Schultz. He wants to make that clear, Audrey Snyder reports for USA TODAY.</p>
<p>So he has an explanation for the email. He knew Schultz was the head of police department so he thought he has told the police. It is a little weak and maybe he should have done more but he has a consistent explanation for his statement in the email. I wonder if Dranov is going to testify?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lame, but it does explain the discrepancy between his words and police records to the contrary.</p>
<p>EDIT: Oops, posted before reading ttparent’s post.</p>
<p>“A defense attorney who knowingly presents perjured evidence is unethical.” by Hunt
THAT!</p>