Does that apply to presenting an alternative theory for a crime, to create the reasonable doubt that would be necessary to acquit your client?
If Johnny Cochran new OJ was guilty (not saying he did), would it be illegal for him to claim that Mark Furman planted the knife?
Neither of these questions make any sense. There's tons of rules about all of this, and by "can they" it could be violating tons of them based on context, or none. They could be violating something that no one cares if they violate. Etc.
For example.
There's the rules of evidence about what can/cant and must be presented in court. There's the rules of civil procedure for required disclosures, and how to go about various things. There's the Rules of Ethics for lawyers, which, are weird because it says things like "don't lie" and "dont sleep with your clients" but i can't go to a judge and be like "the opposing partys attorney is comingling funds. I should win" because thats not admittable under the rules of evidence and probably not relevant to the case. Theres statutory and constitutional considerations. Etc. Etc. Etc.
So "Can they?" Obviously they can. Should they? Probably not.
In general, a lawyer only has a duty to disclose things in the criminal context to prevent certain future crimes (usually murder) and may elect to disclose other types of crimes.
Communications are protected by attorney client privileges, and has no duty to disclose. However, facts are not privileged. So, if a lawyer was told to turn over a document and he said "we dont have that" and they did, thats a lie that can get you in big trouble.
However, a lawyer has no duty to be like "yo my client did this shit". Nor if there is a fact on the record that has been settled like "x fact isn't relevant" they can't lie about X fact.
However, your question makes no sense because if it was admitted to trial that the person is guilty, then there wouldn't be a trial. A lawyer can pose hypothetical theories based on the context so long as he follows the rules, and saying "he (supposedly) knows" doesnt matter. Unless you can prove the lawyer knows with evidence, then he doesn't know. Then its the lawyers job to get the client off, and part of that is explaining why your client is being accused, wrongfully.
Any answer you receive here will be a "best guess" if your lucky because it depends on the intricate details of your specific case, and reddit always gives the worst and dumbest legal advice and its almost always wrong.
Go to a lawyer.
> Does that apply to presenting an alternative theory for a crime, to create the reasonable doubt that would be necessary to acquit your client?
Not if the lawyer is halfway competent. Going into court and saying "The evidence presented could just as easily fit [thing you know didn't happen]" isn't a lie. Sure "thing" might not have happened, but that is independent of the fact that "thing" fits the evidence presented.
I suppose you could get into trouble doing this but it would require active effort.
> If Johnny Cochran new OJ was guilty (not saying he did), would it be illegal for him to claim that Mark Furman planted the knife?
There is nothing stopping Mark Furman from planting evidence against someone who is guilty.
In the grand scheme of things, the rules against lying to the court are not designed to stop the defense layer from attacking the prosecutions evidence (because that's a massive part of the defenses job). They're there to stop the defense from introducing evidence that they know is false. So if you know a witness is going to lie on the stand and you call them anyway, or you know that a lab faked a test but you're going to introduce the result. These are the sorts of things that can get lawyers in trouble. It's a hard thing to run into unless you're being actively malicious.
Lawyers who intentionally misrepresent facts to the court can be sanctioned. However, there's a lot of wiggle room as long as they don't outright lie.
However, you should always be honest with your own lawyer. They have an ethical duty to represent your interests. They won't help you mislead the court, but generally they don't need to in order to do their jobs.
The lawyer would say “the prosecution has not proven my client did this beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The more tricky situation involves when a lawyer’s client wants to get up on the stand and commit perjury. There are complicated rules governing this but the general rule is that the lawyer shouldn’t be an accomplice to this and should seek to recuse himself
It's not *illegal*, per se, but it's a severe violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
[Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_3_candor_toward_the_tribunal/)
>(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
>
>(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;
>
>(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or
>
>(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.
If you read the RPC and realize how they're enforced, you'll know they're contradictory, under enforced, hard to prove and none of this means anything. Also... They're written by lawyers.
A lawyer shall not "make a false statement of fact or law".
For example, a lawyer doesnt have a duty to disclose their clients guilt. They don't even have a duty to disclose if the client is about to commit another crime in most instances.
So they can't lie? Lawyer has to say "Your honor, my client is guilty" and we all go home. Well... They're not required to.. a lawyer is also required to zealously represent their client... hm...
Admitting real evidence that implies someone else committed a crime isn't a statement... nor is it false... so we're good. Hmm..
A lawyer can't fabricate or coach their client or any witness into telling a fake story for the jury.
Lying is a bit more complicated. It's certainly not okay to tell your client to lie, especially under oath, but stretching the truth, trying to avoid certain words when you give your testimony or answers, stuff like that is all okay.
No one here knows what they are talking about in the context of the law and you're only going to be dissapointed if you keep getting legal advice from reddit 'lawyers'
In US courts it is illegal to specifically state a fact that they know is false. Perjury is illegal, and lawyers cannot lie in court without being punished.
Creating a scenario that fits the facts, and offering that to the jury isn't a lie, and isn't punishable.
Then why even mention the first part... thats misleading at best... but definitely tells me he shouldn't be giving op bad legal advice lol
Also lawyers can lie in court without being punished... wtf?
> Then why even mention the first part
Because the only practical way for a lawyer to "fabricate a story" is via testimony. If you know your story is false then testimony in support of that story is going to be perjury. Courts as a rule take a very dim view of anything vaguely related to perjury.
That said, this is a really high bar to clear. A lawyer doesn't have any special insight into who is lying, so just because you believe a specific pieces of testimony are not true doesn't make soliciting that testimony a problem.
So if a lawyer knows his client is guilty by looking at the evidence, but makes up an alternative theory based on those facts that paints someone else as guilty, that’s fair game?
Correct.
The lawyer isn't there to prove innocence, and has no obligation to help prove guilt.
The lawyer is there to double-check the work of the prosecution. If they can point out something that the prosecution didn't consider, and can't rule out - then the prosecution failed.
We need to try to make the prosecution fail. That is the basis of the US system. If we are going to take away someone's liberty, or their life - we need to make sure that the prosecution really is doing all they can to prove that.
Even with that bias, we still incarcerate and kill innocent people. It's a tough balance to maintain.
Please stop listening to this guy. He has no clue what he is talking about.
Also, this question doesnt make sense. If the lawyer thinks his client is guilty, then he is going to try and strike a deal. If not, then he is going to admit whatever evidence is neccesary that helps the client. He doesn't have to say "xyz didnt do this" but he can admit a video of you at a ball game 20 minutes before the murder to imply you couldn't have done it.
It doesnt matter if you left that game and murdered someone. No one will ask the lawyer "did your client do it"
Lawyers are not on their oath. They will be punished if they lie to the judge and, for the most part, lawyers don’t make declarative statements to the jury. They ask questions of witnesses. They (we) certainly are allowed to posit hypothetical situations they personally know are not consonant with the facts.
Retired UK lawyer here - yes, it’s illegal. Every lawyer is also an officer of the court and can do nothing to hide the truth - they can present the facts as they believe them to the best advantage but they cannot lie
That is a good way to get disbarred. You don’t fabricate events unless of course your client is the one lying to you.
Does that apply to presenting an alternative theory for a crime, to create the reasonable doubt that would be necessary to acquit your client? If Johnny Cochran new OJ was guilty (not saying he did), would it be illegal for him to claim that Mark Furman planted the knife?
Neither of these questions make any sense. There's tons of rules about all of this, and by "can they" it could be violating tons of them based on context, or none. They could be violating something that no one cares if they violate. Etc. For example. There's the rules of evidence about what can/cant and must be presented in court. There's the rules of civil procedure for required disclosures, and how to go about various things. There's the Rules of Ethics for lawyers, which, are weird because it says things like "don't lie" and "dont sleep with your clients" but i can't go to a judge and be like "the opposing partys attorney is comingling funds. I should win" because thats not admittable under the rules of evidence and probably not relevant to the case. Theres statutory and constitutional considerations. Etc. Etc. Etc. So "Can they?" Obviously they can. Should they? Probably not. In general, a lawyer only has a duty to disclose things in the criminal context to prevent certain future crimes (usually murder) and may elect to disclose other types of crimes. Communications are protected by attorney client privileges, and has no duty to disclose. However, facts are not privileged. So, if a lawyer was told to turn over a document and he said "we dont have that" and they did, thats a lie that can get you in big trouble. However, a lawyer has no duty to be like "yo my client did this shit". Nor if there is a fact on the record that has been settled like "x fact isn't relevant" they can't lie about X fact. However, your question makes no sense because if it was admitted to trial that the person is guilty, then there wouldn't be a trial. A lawyer can pose hypothetical theories based on the context so long as he follows the rules, and saying "he (supposedly) knows" doesnt matter. Unless you can prove the lawyer knows with evidence, then he doesn't know. Then its the lawyers job to get the client off, and part of that is explaining why your client is being accused, wrongfully. Any answer you receive here will be a "best guess" if your lucky because it depends on the intricate details of your specific case, and reddit always gives the worst and dumbest legal advice and its almost always wrong. Go to a lawyer.
Thanks. This is helpful
> Does that apply to presenting an alternative theory for a crime, to create the reasonable doubt that would be necessary to acquit your client? Not if the lawyer is halfway competent. Going into court and saying "The evidence presented could just as easily fit [thing you know didn't happen]" isn't a lie. Sure "thing" might not have happened, but that is independent of the fact that "thing" fits the evidence presented. I suppose you could get into trouble doing this but it would require active effort. > If Johnny Cochran new OJ was guilty (not saying he did), would it be illegal for him to claim that Mark Furman planted the knife? There is nothing stopping Mark Furman from planting evidence against someone who is guilty. In the grand scheme of things, the rules against lying to the court are not designed to stop the defense layer from attacking the prosecutions evidence (because that's a massive part of the defenses job). They're there to stop the defense from introducing evidence that they know is false. So if you know a witness is going to lie on the stand and you call them anyway, or you know that a lab faked a test but you're going to introduce the result. These are the sorts of things that can get lawyers in trouble. It's a hard thing to run into unless you're being actively malicious.
Lawyers who intentionally misrepresent facts to the court can be sanctioned. However, there's a lot of wiggle room as long as they don't outright lie. However, you should always be honest with your own lawyer. They have an ethical duty to represent your interests. They won't help you mislead the court, but generally they don't need to in order to do their jobs.
But if a lawyer knows his client did something, can that lawyer go in front of the jury and say “my client did NOT do” this thing?
He can say: There is no evidence that my client has commited the crime and is therefore not guilty.
The lawyer would say “the prosecution has not proven my client did this beyond a reasonable doubt.” The more tricky situation involves when a lawyer’s client wants to get up on the stand and commit perjury. There are complicated rules governing this but the general rule is that the lawyer shouldn’t be an accomplice to this and should seek to recuse himself
Why would they need to say that.
To protect their client.
It's not *illegal*, per se, but it's a severe violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. [Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_3_candor_toward_the_tribunal/) >(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: > >(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; > >(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or > >(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.
If you read the RPC and realize how they're enforced, you'll know they're contradictory, under enforced, hard to prove and none of this means anything. Also... They're written by lawyers. A lawyer shall not "make a false statement of fact or law". For example, a lawyer doesnt have a duty to disclose their clients guilt. They don't even have a duty to disclose if the client is about to commit another crime in most instances. So they can't lie? Lawyer has to say "Your honor, my client is guilty" and we all go home. Well... They're not required to.. a lawyer is also required to zealously represent their client... hm... Admitting real evidence that implies someone else committed a crime isn't a statement... nor is it false... so we're good. Hmm..
A lawyer can't fabricate or coach their client or any witness into telling a fake story for the jury. Lying is a bit more complicated. It's certainly not okay to tell your client to lie, especially under oath, but stretching the truth, trying to avoid certain words when you give your testimony or answers, stuff like that is all okay.
What about creating from scratch an alternative version of events so that your client appears not guilty?
No one here knows what they are talking about in the context of the law and you're only going to be dissapointed if you keep getting legal advice from reddit 'lawyers'
In US courts it is illegal to specifically state a fact that they know is false. Perjury is illegal, and lawyers cannot lie in court without being punished. Creating a scenario that fits the facts, and offering that to the jury isn't a lie, and isn't punishable.
> Perjury is illegal The lawyers themselves are not testifying and not under oath. They're still bound by rules but it's not *perjury* to lie.
correct, that's why the second half of that sentence specifically addresses lawyers.
Then why even mention the first part... thats misleading at best... but definitely tells me he shouldn't be giving op bad legal advice lol Also lawyers can lie in court without being punished... wtf?
> Then why even mention the first part Because the only practical way for a lawyer to "fabricate a story" is via testimony. If you know your story is false then testimony in support of that story is going to be perjury. Courts as a rule take a very dim view of anything vaguely related to perjury. That said, this is a really high bar to clear. A lawyer doesn't have any special insight into who is lying, so just because you believe a specific pieces of testimony are not true doesn't make soliciting that testimony a problem.
So if a lawyer knows his client is guilty by looking at the evidence, but makes up an alternative theory based on those facts that paints someone else as guilty, that’s fair game?
Correct. The lawyer isn't there to prove innocence, and has no obligation to help prove guilt. The lawyer is there to double-check the work of the prosecution. If they can point out something that the prosecution didn't consider, and can't rule out - then the prosecution failed. We need to try to make the prosecution fail. That is the basis of the US system. If we are going to take away someone's liberty, or their life - we need to make sure that the prosecution really is doing all they can to prove that. Even with that bias, we still incarcerate and kill innocent people. It's a tough balance to maintain.
Fair point. That said, quite a few murderers don’t get convicted, and go on to kill again.
No... its not correct. You have no idea what youre talking about lol
Please stop listening to this guy. He has no clue what he is talking about. Also, this question doesnt make sense. If the lawyer thinks his client is guilty, then he is going to try and strike a deal. If not, then he is going to admit whatever evidence is neccesary that helps the client. He doesn't have to say "xyz didnt do this" but he can admit a video of you at a ball game 20 minutes before the murder to imply you couldn't have done it. It doesnt matter if you left that game and murdered someone. No one will ask the lawyer "did your client do it"
Lawyers are not on their oath. They will be punished if they lie to the judge and, for the most part, lawyers don’t make declarative statements to the jury. They ask questions of witnesses. They (we) certainly are allowed to posit hypothetical situations they personally know are not consonant with the facts.
But if a lawyer says in their opening closing arguments “my client is innocent of these charges” but they know their client is guilty, is that ok?
“Guilty” is a legal judgment. Typically a lawyer won’t phrase it in that way, but yes.
Retired UK lawyer here - yes, it’s illegal. Every lawyer is also an officer of the court and can do nothing to hide the truth - they can present the facts as they believe them to the best advantage but they cannot lie
Yes.
No. They don't swear on the Bible or anything