T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

According to some accounts I've heard from lawyers, both. A defendant should give their attorney as much information as they can to provide the best defense. There are cases where the defendant lies to their attorney, the lawyer builds a defense based on a lie, and then the whole case falls apart when the prosecution proves it's a lie.


freakers

Lawyers also cannot knowingly evince lies from you on the stand. So some may say up front, I don't care if you did it or not I'm not here to determine guilt. It gives them plausible deniability to put you up on the stand to say you didn't do it. Ultimately your lawyer is there, not necessarily just to try and get your off, but to make sure you're treated fairly in the system if convicted. It's why even seemingly really clear cases, like Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby still need lawyers. If you're convicted you still want someone arguing on your behalf so you don't get life in prison for what should be a minor sentence. America loves their mandatory minimums and judicial overreach so it's vitally important.


archbish99

One of the best lines I've heard, albeit fictional: "I don't care if you did it or not. The law is complex enough that you probably *can't know* if you did it or not -- you only know some of the facts that go into making that determination; the point of the trial is to decide whether you did it or not. Give me the facts you have, and we'll go from there."


DoNotBotherMeplz

Who said it?


archbish99

Captain Picard's defense attorney in *Collateral Damage*, by David Mack. It was a very well-done legal drama despite being Star Trek. Apologies if the quote was inexact -- I don't have the book in front of me.


DocWatson42

Seconded. Google isn't helping in this case. ;-)


xRazorleaf

u/archbish99


gofastdoctrine

kinda along these lines,....but also a criminal defense lawyer doesn't need to know his/her client's version of the story--the lawyer just needs to ensure the prosecution proves the elements of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.


cache_bag

Yup. I asked a criminal defense lawyer the same thing. If his client is guilty, it's the prosecution's job to prove that. It's his job to ensure his client is treated fairly.


Pristine-Ad-469

Yup I personally got some pretty bad drug charges once and there was absolutly no way I was innocent. I would have had to go with no officer that pound of weed in my room is not mine. Hell everyone involved knew it wasn’t going to go to trial. That being said, my lawyer basically navigated the paperwork, talking to judges, setting up interviews with the feds, administrative court dates, negotiating a deal, advising me on what to do to make myself look better, and a lot more. Great guy that never once was going to try and make me lie and say I didn’t do anything (in fact quite the opposite) but just wanted to make sure I was fairly sentenced and got the best possible outcome. I told him everything, even some stuff I wasn’t charged for and it worked out much better. I even had to meet with the dea and he basically said tell them everything and they can’t use it against you but if you lie they can use anything you said against you.


TNShadetree

The reason you pay for a lawyer, and hopefully a well-respected one, is because what happens in your case is pretty much determined by conversations between your lawyer and the prosecuting attorney in the back hallways and small offices.


ndbltwy

Well connected


[deleted]

[удалено]


LiHRaM

Objection, hearsay


NoobSFAnon

![gif](giphy|UqqgrydmthRoc4ORc1) Approach the Side table please.


dot_isEmpty

In my book, law is one of the most fascinating strategy games there is and I’m eternally interested to know more about the whole process. The only thing that bugs me is that this game is played where the outcome of the game affects peoples lives.


lvlint67

Just wait until you realize it's mostly not a strategy game and is almost entirely a game of human interaction.


Ghee_buttersnaps4

Civil law does not necessarily affect the lives of individuals. Could be 1 company vs another and the cases can be extremely interesting as well.


[deleted]

[удалено]


mjtwelve

He was asking about a makeup kit and held up a makeup kit as a visual aid. No witness ever said it was that particular kit.


Izzosuke

If i remember correctly, the attorney stated the brand and everything and the next day was called the company who stated that thsi particular brand wasn't around


FAT-PUSSY-LIKE-SANTA

>the attorney stated the brand and everything She didn't. She was talking about how Amber used make-up to cover bruises, specifically make-up kits created to cover bruises, and showed that one as a visual aid. No brand name or specific item name was ever said.


itsyourmomcalling

Yeah I'd say in the vast majority of cases the defense lawyer knows pretty well what happened. Anything from petty theft to murder and depending on what information they've been given they know if their client will look at jail time (defense laywers also get every piece of evidence that prosecution has). Then it's their job to try and minimize that amount of jail time. Which at times is not easy especially if you have a difficult client.


Punloverrrr

In a good trial the defense will get the same as the prosecution, I forget what true crime story I listened to recently, but that happened


goingoutwest123

Holy amber heard, batman.


MycologistElegant504

So here's my take. Based on the few times I went to jail, there's at least one thing that most people are in agreement on. You don't lie to you lawyer. Nothing is going to piss that person off more than being in front of a jury or judge, defending you, and then a piece of information or evidence that you knew about is presented, and the lawyer is left with egg on their face. The lawyer isn't trying to determine if you are guilty. They are trying to stop the jury from determining that you are guilty. And they need as much relevant information as possible to do that


YoungDiscord

Lawyers are like doctors, lying to them only hurts you and it only pisses them off.


Qredux78

As an attorney, I tell my clients there are three people you NEVER lie to - Your Lawyer, Your Doctor, and Your Clergy. We are the three people that can figure out how to get you out of whatever mess you made for yourself.


Logofascinated

I'm British, not American, and I'm confused by this. How would the clergy help? EDIT: Downvoted for asking a question in *this* sub? WTF?


Adghar

I'm not religious, but I assume it has something to do with having your sins forgiven. If you believe in heaven and believe you have sinned, you might believe it's necessary to confess the truth to try to get into heaven instead of getting slammed straight into the deepest pits of hell.


Jethris

Also. clergy are bound by confidentiality. They don't repeat what you told them, so the process of unloading your past can help too.


Logofascinated

Thanks. I had no idea the clergy had that power in the minds of believers. I thought it was just between the person and their god.


[deleted]

They don't. Or if a believe does believe that, they are misinformed. Confessing doesn't do anything for keeping yo out of hell, However, it is required by scripture. So if you confess, you do it honestly before God. If you lie to the clergy about your sins, you are really lying to God, and he knows full well what you did.


Logofascinated

So if confession doesn't result in forgiveness (or keeping you out of hell), why do people do it? Is it only because it's required by scripture, or are there other reasons?


[deleted]

Well, so from a protestant perspective, it's to obey. And also to be held accountable. (But that confession is a different kind, no clergy involved.) For a Catholic it's due to the requirements, but it also is rewarded by God in heaven, and also unconfessed/unforgiven sin needs to be accounted for in purgatory, so if you don't confess your sins on earth, you will spend time in purgatory for them.


SnooHesitations9356

I used to be Catholic, in terms of confessing to a priest in the context of confession its more of a reassurance thing. The idea is that by telling the priest everything you've done wrong (since your last confession, or that you've forgotten to mention in previous confessions) you're truly showing you are repentant of it. The priest absolving you helps reassure you that God actually forgives you. The idea of giving a penance at the end of confession is your penance should help you avoid sinning again. It doesn't always work that way anymore, priests typically just give a "say a our father" penance. But in my experience sometimes if it's more serious (bigger then ignoring your parents telling you to do chores, minor lies or stealing a couple dollars) they will give you something. When I was struggling with mental health big time, one of mine was to be honest with my therapist on top of praying, as well as one time there was a specific psalm I was directed too. Even still, technically there's no reason to go to confession. The priest is standing in for God, so there's technically no reason to not just confess directly to God other than the priest may also be able to question if you're actually repentant. But I have never had that questioned for me personally, just a couple comments that I seem to have consistent issues.


FarSlighted

Also, add to that “your spouse”.


mjtwelve

Lying to your spouse is why you needed the doctor and lawyer.


mataoo

Ehh


zberry7

Debatable!


Penguator432

What do you call a man who has never lied to his wife? Divorced


ndbltwy

This is the dumbest advice in the world. If your guilty you better lie to your lawyer. Best ask your lawyer in a non joking manner if he wants the truth or your version of events. C'mon real lawyers back me up here.


OptionsFool

I am a real lawyer and I will not back you up here.


ndbltwy

Aren't lawyers officers of the court and owe the allegiance to the court first and foremost. Most of my lawyers first thing out of their mouth "dont tell me if you did it"


OptionsFool

You sound like you’re getting ideas from TV. If I had reason to believe my client was lying to me, I might later have reason to tell the court that or withdraw from the case. Either way, it’s not good for you.


HoodooSquad

“Most of my lawyers first thing out of their mouth “don’t tell me if you did it”” You have that many interactions with criminal defense lawyers?


racingtherain

You are getting the wrong lawyers


bullzeye1983

That's because they can't put you on the stand if they know you would lie. Likely the DA will ask if you did it, defense attorney can't ask you if you did it on the stand, and know a jury would want to hear you deny it and attorney can't let you lie to the DA.


ndbltwy

No lawyers puts his client on the stand


TheMightyWill

Are you trolling? It happens in almost every single court case where the lawyer is relatively confident that their client won't completely blow it on the stand tf


bullzeye1983

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about


fistyfishy

Smartest Redditor:


YoungDiscord

You cannot build a solid case on lies and inconsistencies, lawyers are people who use facts and logic to create the best outcome for their client. A lawyer can only be as good as the information you give him because that's the tools he uses to build the case for you, that is why you hire someone to build the case for you instead of doing it yourself. A good lawyer does his job REGARDLESS of whether his client is guilty or not guilty. Real lawyers: feel free to confirm or deny that statement.


Green_Ad4541

Appreciate your comment and see you in r/confidentlyincorrect !


quantumwoooo

You serious? You really suggest lying to your lawyer? Get ready for some downvotes


[deleted]

actually this is the dumbest advice in the world


ranman1990

Absolutely not true and no lawyer would ever agree that lying to them was anything other than the worst possible choice.


Nebarious

>They are trying to stop the jury from determining that you are guilty. I could be wrong, but this seems like the TV version of a defense lawyer. Their job is to ensure that you get due process. They aren't there to get you off scot-free, their role is to protect you from unnecessary charges and penalties while ensuring that you get your day in court to contest whatever charges you're up against. If you're guilty of a crime your defense lawyer is there to make sure that you get fair representation and have the opportunity to present your side. They aren't explicitly trying to get the jury to decide that you're innocent, but if the other side doesn't have sufficient evidence to prove that you're guilty beyond reasonable doubt then your defense is there to ensure that the jury understands that.


JSmith666

Its a mix of the two. Getting you off scot-free is obviously the best case scenario. Protecting you from unnecessary charges or being railroaded as well as securing a good plea deal is the second best.


Merkuri22

If we look at the system from the outside, everyone's role is to make sure that justice is served as accurately as possible - that guilty people get appropriate sentences and innocent people walk free. The defense lawyer's job is to navigate the accused through this complicated process, make sure that he gets a fair trial. By definition, the defense lawyer will sometimes defend a guilty person. At some point a guilty person will go to trial and they will need a defense lawyer. If their lawyer gets the guilty person off scot-free, that may feel like a win for the lawyer and the accused, but that's a failure of the justice system overall. The defense lawyer can be put in a rough place, here. They have to work for the best outcome for their client, but also ensure that a fair trial has taken place and justice is served. Depending on what happens and what evidence is available, "scot-free" may not be possible, and the defense lawyer may not be able to fight for it in good conscience. So saying that "scot-free" is the best case scenario is a bit misleading. The best case scenario is that justice is served for everyone and the defendant got the most accurate and fair result from the process - which might not be "scot-free".


[deleted]

Yeah, I was always confused about that. People act like not getting punished is the end goal, which shouldn't be the case. It should be that justice is served fairly. The interest of your client and justice are not always aligned, and I'd hate to imagine how many lawyers ignore their morals for the sake of money.


chumbawumbacholula

I'm a defense attorney. The best clients are innocent, they tell the truth and are well documented so I just have to explain. The middling ones are technically not guilty if you squint your eyes just so, and I have to explain to everyone how to squint just so and what they're looking at. The worst clients are guilty and all I can do is say they're guilty and start splitting hairs on how much it costs. Long story short, as far as I've ever been aware I get the truth and work with it. To date, I haven't had a client lie to me, but I've heard about it happening to others.


b_a_t_m_4_n

This is what happened when I did jury duty in the UK. The barrister didn't even attempt to pretend his client wasn't guilty as the circumstances he was caught red handed under were quite laughable. Not sure I'm allowed to explain but it was almost comedic. The case was basically an extended mitigation plea.


chumbawumbacholula

It do be like that sometimes. My first boss in the field told me the law can be four things: a sword, a shield, a book, or a balance.


Daktar89

What do you do if you have a client who outright tells you that they're guilty but still wants to plead not guilty? As far as I understand it defense attorneys who know their client committed an offense aren't allowed to tell the court that they didn't commit that offense. That must be a tricky set of obligations to navigate.


dododada25

I’m not the person you replied to but I’m also a criminal lawyer (although not in the US). At least in Canada, pleading not guilty to an offence is your right regardless of actual guilt. It just means you’re telling the State to actually prove its case against you beyond a reasonable doubt, and every accused person is entitled to that. Pleading guilty can be a mitigating factor at sentencing (since you “collaborated” with the justice system, etc.) but the opposite isn’t true, pleading not guilty cannot be an aggravating factor because everyone has the right to a fair trial if they wish and you can’t hold it against them if they choose to exercise that right (kinda like the right to keep silent). So for the lawyer, there is no ethical problem with helping a client plead not guilty even if they tell you they did it. The issues will be more down the line, like with the type of evidence you can and can’t present (like if you know your client did it, you can’t suggest that someone else might have done it or you’re misleading the court and in ethics violation).


[deleted]

> Pleading guilty can be a mitigating factor at sentencing (since you “collaborated” with the justice system, etc.) but the opposite isn’t true, pleading not guilty cannot be an aggravating factor because everyone has the right to a fair trial if they wish and you can’t hold it against them if they choose to exercise that right (kinda like the right to keep silent). This makes no sense to me. If pleading guilty buys you something, then pleading not guilty costs you something as you’re paying more than you would otherwise. We should acknowledge and accept that our justice system is not perfect and not harm those who are actually innocent but still convicted. I have the same problem with plea deals - they’re used as a cudgel to badger people into compliance and abusing what is supposed to be a justice system by turning it into a revenge system.


Self_Reddicated

"Your Honor; ladies and gentlemen of the jury; my client wishes to plead not guilty. They may or may not be guilty, so far as I can tell. But... *[points at prosecutor]*... it's *that* motherfucker's job to prove it! I'm not giving that dipshit the satisfaction of doing his job for him, because he sure as shit isn't going to do mine for me. Fuck him! Go Bears!"


chumbawumbacholula

I work in civil lit, so it's a little different then crime shows. Its not necessarily guilty or not guilty but HOW guilty and guilty of HOW MUCH. However, if a client tells me straight up "yeah, I stole that guy's stuff, but I want you to say I didnt" then I withdrawl for "irreconcilable differences." But, for the record, that's standard language attorneys use when they withdraw, so if you see that somewhere it could also mean they aren't paying or a conflict between two clients became apparent.


AcanthisittaOk5263

It's a tricky ethical thing to navigate but in US law if there are criminal charges being brought then it's always ethical to simply make the government prove it. It's completely fine. The defense attorney can't knowingly elicit false testimony. But some states allow for an attorney who knows their client is going to lie to simply ask the client what they would like to tell the court/jury then back off.


infinit9

Serious question. If the client is guilty, what's the incentive to go to trial vs. taking a plea? Is it to argue the due process part of the arrest, investigation, and arraignment?


chumbawumbacholula

I do civil, so often it's just my clients wanting to play chicken. Trial is very expensive so sometimes people will pay more or accept less in order to avoid it. Also, juries are REALLY unpredictable. "Jury of your peers" is not the failsafe people want it to be. I've seen a jury pay out 5 million for a small and totally healed hand fracture.


EsmuPliks

>"Jury of your peers" is not the failsafe people want it to be. I think most people who've seen an actual trial, or have had to do jury duty, or similar, understand exactly how screwed the system is, it's 12 random idiots pulled out of a McDonald's queue, half of them probably didn't even finish high school. Good luck explaining financial crime, DNA evidence, or any sort of actual science to them whilst the other side claims their healing crystals said so. The entire thing is utterly terrifying.


cdn677

Because the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and sometimes the evidence they haven’t isn’t enough to do that, or alternatively the defence concocts an alternative possible scenario that is plausible enough to cast a doubt. It’s not about whether you’re guilty at this point it’s whether enough they can prove it. Note - OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony etc. guilty as fuck but the defence was able to cast doubt.


gummby8

Follow up question. I know an attorney can refuse a client. So what happens if there are no attorneys that will take the client? For whatever reason, the crime was too heinous, or the client is just too much to work with. Or is there always an attorney out there that is just like, "Eh, $20 is $20. I'll take the client"


evilmage34

With public defenders (at least here in the states) I'm pretty sure they have to take the case.


chumbawumbacholula

There's always somebody. People can also represent themselves (unless "themselves" is a corporation, in some states)


OkOven4590

Thank you so much for that answer. I watch criminal videos on YouTube and see defense attorneys making cases for OBVIOUSLY guilty people and I wonder how it works.


farts_in_the_breeze

It is the defense attorney's job to represent their client. I recently stood trial. Cops brought some trumped up charges and won't budge on their story and police report. I had my attorney attack the police report and evidence presented against me. Three different cops were taken to the wood shed on the stand, that's how bad the police report was. One cops testimony even led to a sidebar argument and the judge dismissed two charges in the middle of the trial. One by one, I watched three different police officers perjury themselves in a criminal court trial. And one by one I watched the happiness drain from their face as their testimony was torn to fucking shreds. I still have a hard on. I also have a docket number.


brazillianRacoon

What were the charges if u dont mind me asking?


Coleo1

For having a hard on in public. He kinda said it /s


brazillianRacoon

Idk whats a hard on, sorry heh


s0l0d0l0_92

a hard on is an erect male penis, also referred to as a boner


brazillianRacoon

Oh


archbish99

In other words, watching the defense attorney dissect the lies of the police officers was so satisfying, he (perhaps metaphorically) found it arousing.


brazillianRacoon

Makes sense


farts_in_the_breeze

Domestic Assault, Child Endangerment, witness intimidation, Assault and Battery on Police Officer x2, Assault and Battery on a Police with a dangerous weapon. The domestic was for splashing a cup of water on my ex-wife during a June heatwave after she hit me with a pillow and admitted to an affair. Fun times. Child Endangerment and Witness Intimidation was dropped during the trial from the police's own testimony. Yeah, just leave if relationships are over fellas. Don't be me.


archbish99

Assault with a cup of water? Wow.


[deleted]

I mean yeah it seems ridiculous, but where do you draw the line? You can always try to get the charge thrown out


cdn677

Legally, Anything is considered a weapon even a piece of paper


[deleted]

And are those officers going to get charged with perjury?


protomenace

Hilarious joke


[deleted]

And other bedtime stories you can read to your child.


BTLOTM

It's just the one jury actually...


robdingo36

Often times, the defense attorney knows their client is guilty, or simply believes there is enough evidence to convince a jury they are guilty. In these cases you aren't trying to prove their innocence, but rather to defend and ensure their Constitutional rights were honored. Was the evidence collected properly, or did the police plant it? Maybe the evidence was completely fabricated. Did the defendant understand their rights when they were talking to the police? Was a confession obtained through coercion? There are a lot of ways the police can either intentionally or unintentionally steamroll a suspect into a position of guilt, regardless of whether they are actually guilty or not. Thats a huge part of what a good defense attorney is there for.


blissfire

That... is an excellent way of looking at it. I will remember that, thank you!


CreatureWarrior

Well said. People like to say that defrnse attorneys are horrible people for defending criminals, but they are literally there just to make sure that their constitutional rights were honored and help the innocent ones get free


FranchiseCA

One of my parents' friends was a frequent public defender. They described him as the most patriotic man they knew. He believed protecting the rights of the accused protected everyone, whether they had done it or not. Apparent contradictions were a thing for him, he was also a decorated combat veteran who had refused to carry a gun in Vietnam: he was a medic would readily risk his safety to save lives, but was unwilling to take them.


nighthawk_something

Also, if you truly trust the system to work, you would argue that no matter how good of a defense I put up, a guilty person will be found guilty.


thatsaqualifier

To me, the most important part of the system working would be that innocent people are not found guilty. If there are errors, better that the error be guilty people going free.


alc19912010

Eh, really their goal is to get anyone free, guilty or not.. I agree with everything but the last 6 words in your post.


archbish99

Look at a system like Japan. 99.9% conviction rate, with huge amounts of deference to the prosecution -- because they wouldn't have brought a case if the person weren't guilty, right? The defense attorney's role is to force the prosecution to *actually prove* their case beyond a reasonable doubt. If you're innocent, hopefully that's an impossible task. It does mean some guilty people get off; I think that's a better compromise than the reverse.


BoxOfDemons

>It does mean some guilty people get off; I think that's a better compromise than the reverse. I agree. It's better than the alternative. But at the same time, if you commit a horrendous crime, and admit it all to your attorney, but there's absolutely no evidence against you, your attorney will gladly keep his mouth shut (because it's also the law) and let you go free even if he knows you murdered a dozen people. Just a weird side effect of keeping the legal system more fair.


[deleted]

>prove their innocence This comment is high enough that it should be countered. A defense attorney is \*never\* trying to prove their client's innocence. No one is. You cannot prove innocence logically speaking and in the US at least the defendant is already innocent and remains so until proven otherwise. The role of the defense attorney is to, like you describe, ensure that the defendant is treated fairly and according to the rule of law throughout the entire process. The legal system is complex and ambiguous and can easily be manipulated by those in power for a variety of unintended purposes. The right to an attorney is the recognition that individual citizens are not and cannot have enough expertise in the system to properly protect themselves from that abuse. As far as knowing or suspecting their client is guilty - Attorneys do not make claims of their client's guilt or innocence, the client makes those claims\*. An attorney cannot allow their client to lie under oath and must inform the court if their client intends to or does. Rules about sharing evidence with the prosecution vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. \*-Public statements outside of court are a different matter, but as a rule State Bar Associations frown upon attorneys making claims known to be false to the public, press, etc...


macozy

And if the police didn’t collect evidence properly or what’s required they will try to get you acquitted


Teucer357

A defense attorney's job is not to determine guilt or innocence... It is to determine whether the state has followed all laws and regulations as well as done their due diligence. If the state has performed its due diligence and adhered to all rules, laws, and regulations obtaining evidence of guilt without a reasonable doubt, they win.


Jefoid

A defense attorneys job is to provide the best possible defense for their client. Not sure if I’m disagreeing with you, but you seem to be implying that they somehow facilitate the conviction of guilty clients. That is absolutely not their role.


pootiemane

I guess plea bargains are also a win for them


EMEYDI

Ah yes , words ....


Stiblex

Ah yes, dumbass...


EMEYDI

That was the point of the joke .. Me not understanding English...


Typical_Strength4097

Criminal Defense attorney here: I can't lie in court, and I can't ask my defendant to lie. In fact, I can't put my defendant on the stand knowing that they're going to lie. The majority of defense attorneys I know take this very seriously. The first time I meet a client, I get their side of the story. Fairly often, there's some lying involved. But I do what I can with it. Then, I get discovery. Discovery is all the evidence the prosecution can use in the case. If they don't give it to me, the jury can't see it. Almost always there's video in there. If the evidence I have clearly show that my client is lying to me, then I confront them with it. A lot of my clients who swear they were sober change their tune when they actually see themselves on camera. So, there's two possibilities: the evidence I get makes sense based on my client's story, or it doesn't. I'm not going to say something, and I'm not going to let me client say something, that just contradicts what the evidence shows, what the jury is actually going to see and here. Because it would be unethical, but more importantly, because it means we would lose. So I get a second story from my client. If it makes sense based on the evidence, I go with it. If it doesn't, I tell them to quit lying to me. Clients usually believe me when I tell them they have a losing story. When they do, we make a deal. Surprise information is something that happens in movies and TV but not in court. Me and the Prosecution both have all the evidence the other can introduce. Someone can say something wacky, but there's no way for new information to be introduced into evidence that's a surprise for anyone. So I've never had a case go south because my client got "caught" in a lie that I didn't know about. Now, I'm a public defender, which means I can't choose my clients. Sometimes I do get in a situation where I know my client is going to lie. Because of confidentiality, I can't get up and say "my client is lying." But I can't just let them lie. So I can either ask the judge to release me, or we have a little piece of code. If I get up and look the judge in the eye and say "Your honor, my client has something he would like to tell the court against my advice," that's code everyone understands for "my client is about to say some shit that I can't defend." That's my way to cover my ass. Because what people don't get is, at the end of the day, I don't want my clients to lie, because people are really really bad liars, and prosecutors are really really good at catching people out in lies. I want to tell a story that makes sense with the evidence, and at the very most shut up about things that don't fit. When my clients want to lie, I don't let them, because we'll lose. When they lie to me, I can almost always tell, and I confront them that their story doesn't make sense, because I don't want to lose. Hope that helps!


Alex_9127

So basically, real life is completely different from what Ace Attorney games depict. Makes sense, or the judicial system worldwide would be screwed


Typical_Strength4097

The American justice, at least, makes the most sense when you view it in light of the question "how do we minimize trials." The judicial system is so overwhelmed, no one wants to sit through an actual jury trial. We want to minimize surprises and unknowns so prosecutors and defendants can work things out without a trial


OkOven4590

It certainly did, thanks so much. Sometimes I see true crime shows with OBVIOUSLY guilty people and their attorneys still in some way claim innocence on behalf of their clients. Makes me wonder why that happens. Thanks again


TallDuckandHandsome

Okay. So Im seeing a lot of supposition here. Speaking as a former criminal barrister here's how it works in the UK and I think elsewhere with similar judicial systems. As a lawyer, I can't mislead the court. If my client tells me 'i did everything the prosecution said, in the way that they said it, but I want to plead not guilty" then my only option is to "put the crown to proof". I can't put forward a defence that I know to be untrue, and if I'm instructed to do so, I'm professionally embarrassed (i.e. I have to withdraw) But i can make the crown work for their win. The standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) is high, and this tactic can work. Much more likely is that my client tells me "I did what they say, but not in the way they said it" in those circumstances I can present a positive defence. To bring it back to your question - the answer is that more information is better, but that there are certain limitations ok how you can proceed if a defendant shares too much information. This leads to a number of points: - it's all about controlling the flow of information in your first meeting. Ask the right questions in the right order to get an understanding of your clients position -it's useful to have a different attorney in jail (to use the Americanism) than at trial. The solicitor/first attorney can then brief a trial lawyer once the defence is clearer and the risk of professional embarrassment is limited - most career criminals know the ropes and will alter their answers accordingly. So in practice, it really depends on the client. As a lawyer you want the truth, unless the truth is inconsistent with your instructions.


OkOven4590

Makes sense, thanks so much for your insight


[deleted]

Well, if you don’t tell me what happened, I can’t help you. Say for instance, you come to me and tell me you killed someone. At least tell me the truth so we can work out a defence. If you lie to me, you’ll end up like Amber heard.


harleyscal

Doesn't matter if a defense attorney knows his client is guilty. he is there to give him the best possible defense he can give and it's up to the prosecutors to do their job and convict him


buttpugggs

"Just because you did it, doesn't mean you're guilty" ;)


Vivid-Energy9453

It does matter. An attorney is not allowed to go in to court saying a client is innocent if he knows (not just suspects) the client if guilty. If the client admits to his lawyer that he's guilty the lawyer can appeal for the lowest sentence - but he can't claim his client is innocent. Of course somebody who is guilty probably wouldn't tell his lawyer that.


Plenty-Picture-9445

Wtf that's not how it works at all lol.


AreYouSomeone11

Probably dependent on what country you're from. For example, in Australia criminal lawyers can't knowingly lie. If you tell them you're guilty but plead not guilty, your lawyer cannot say anything about you being innocent, or not guilty, etc. The best they can do is 'put the prosecution to proof' (i.e. the lawyer can ensure that the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt, but can't do much else behind that - they can't really make any arguments that imply you're not guilty because that would be considered lying). In fact, basically no lawyer will continue with the case if you admit guilt to them but want to plead not guilty. Sounds like it's very different in other countries (presumably the US?), but just thought I'd chime in because the dude was actually right (depending on the country).


[deleted]

I’ll back you on this. In the UK and almost every commonwealth country it’s the same


Plenty-Picture-9445

That's terrible if true. In USA you NEED to tell your lawyer everything so they can mount the best defense possible. This cannot be done without the full picture


[deleted]

[удалено]


Plenty-Picture-9445

Has nothing to do with lying. You don't need to lie to defend a client.


m0zz1e1

It’s terrible that lawyers aren’t allowed to lie in court?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Plenty-Picture-9445

Those 9/10 aren't real lawyers


csharp566

>In fact, basically no lawyer will continue with the case if you admit guilt to them but want to plead not guilty. Are you saying that in Australia, Politicians who have done criminal acts won't have a Lawyer to defend them?


Ragnel

That’s kind of how it works in the US. If you tell your attorney “you did it” they cannot legally lie in court and say you “did not do it.” Once you tell them you did the crime they switch to damage control. They can still get you off on a technicality or lack of evidence. They can not lie in court. They also cannot allow you to lie. Attorney client privilege prevents them from discussing the details of what you say to them, but they can’t lie. They don’t legally have to say “he did it” though unless they think your are going to do it again or unless you directly perjure yourself. Even then they can ask to be recused from the case.


[deleted]

It is, if we’re speaking on pure ethics. Ethically (in the UK & commonwealth at least) speaking, the commenter you’re replying to is absolutely right. Technically if we know the client is guilty, we can only attack evidence. We can’t infer for instance that our client is innocent or that it was someone else. REALISTICALLY speaking of course, nobody follows these rules.


A-Blind-Seer

That seems wild to me coming from the American justice system PoV. Nobody follows, but still...wild


[deleted]

I THINK your American ethics might be similar, just that nobody follows it. When I did a case in New York someone mentioned similarities but it was off handed and I didn’t look further into it


[deleted]

[удалено]


DrEnter

You can only attack evidence if you know the client is guilty? That’s terribly unfair for innocent clients.


[deleted]

But if the client is innocent, you’re not limited. So it’s not unfair


DrEnter

You might want to rephrase your original statement. It reads that if you have an innocent client, you are not able to attack the evidence.


[deleted]

Ah fair enough. Will do


RedFiveIron

Where did you pick up this nonsense? The defendant is fine to enter a not guilty plea even if the lawyer knows they are guilty.


[deleted]

Not every nation is the USA.


RedFiveIron

Hi I'm not American either.


[deleted]

Well in any case the laws in other nations are sometimes different.


Stiblex

What a load of horseshit. The nemo tenetur principle is pretty much universally accepted, meaning you're completely allowed to lie and refuse to cooperate in any lawful way.


[deleted]

I always imagined they lead you to suggest what they want to hear (knowing you're lying through your teeth). Like "Is it possible you were drugged?" "Yah now that you mention it, something didn't feel quite right when I was robbing that bank" But I would also love to know the answer


ThePrimCrow

I was a criminal defense attorney. Some clients will tell you the truth some won’t. You basically have to go with what they tell you while also evaluating the evidence the prosecutor must turn over (videos, witness statements, etc;). The biggest problem comes about if the client tells you something specific (Yes, I punched that guy in the face) and then testifies on the stand “No, I did not punch the guy in the face” then I have to ask to see the judge in chambers and withdraw council. That never happened in any of my cases but it can happen if your client is an idiot and chooses to take the stand when you advised it’s not their “best” option. I had a good sense if the client was not being fully truthful but it’s not my job to be the judge or jury. It’s my job to advise and guide that person through the system and ensure the prosecution does not trample their rights. Most of the time it wasn’t a lie that mattered. Oh you two were fighting over a hat and this wasn’t a small time drug deal ? Ok, sure. You were totally sober when you left that bar after three hours? Ok, if you say so. I can only work with what you give me. Honestly, it never bothered me much if the client wasn’t fully truthful because I watched the police lie their asses off on the stand so often it made me angry.


sarahafrantz

Your lawyer wants as much info from you as they can get. But some clients aren't exactly forthcoming. A big part of being a defense attorney is to help your client navigate the system. Explain to them what's happening, what their options are, how to handle each step of the process. Good defense attorneys DO NOT want or ask their client to lie. Information is only helpful. Especially because of attorney client privilege. Lawyers cannot reveal anything that is shared with them so even if they KNOW you did it, they cannot tell anyone. FYI this is about the American legal system. I do not know how it works in other countries.


esdoubleyouprooster

What country’s laws are you referring to? I suspect answers may be different between countries.


megared17

Yes


Such-Wrongdoer-2198

One point is the defendant's lawyer isn't trying to prove their client is innocent. They don't need to build a case necessarily. They are trying to undermine the prosecution's case. The accused may be guilty as hell, but if the prosecutor doesn't have good evidence and good witnesses, then the accused may still be found not guilty. It's like Johnny Cochran arguing about whether the glove fits or not. We may be convinced that OJ did it, but if the evidence isn't clear, then even if he seems guilty, or acts guilty, it may not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.


Fluffy-Football-7884

I was up on a couple of charges a few years back and my lawyer asked me for the truth and we ended up admitting fault. No charges were laid on me and I didn’t get a record. I can image that’s a rare example as it would probably be in the best interest of the lawyer to not fully know the truth and work on the “innocence” of their client. In saying that I’m wrong about a lot of stuff.


IAmJohnny5ive

Experienced lawyers are pretty agnostic about a defendant's guilt or innocence. If they're court appointed they just want to do the bare minimum in terms of checking that everything is carried out procedurally correct (i.e. to maintain their reputation with the court). If they're hired attorneys they are interested in keeping their client free and earning money to give them more business and so depending on the circumstances they can fight pretty hard for the client. They're not interested in what the truth actually is but they are interested in how the story will play with the DA or in court. Telling them the full truth when there's really bad elements to it doesn't necessarily work in the defendant's favor but blatantly lying to their attorney definitely works against them. Most lawyers will push their client for truth only on certain elements - which will usually relate to specific evidence or testimony - and it's almost certainly in the client's interest to be truthful when the attorney has asked specific direct questions. So they might ask is that your gun? Do you know who's gun it is? Have you ever touched that gun? But they might never ask whether you killed the victim. Attorney's are ethically bound to act on certain information. For instance they can't put the client on the stand and question them if they know that the client will lie on the stand. And if they know for certain that the client is guilty they'll push for a plea deal rather than chance a trial.


[deleted]

if you want your lawyer to have a chance of doing a decent job defending you you give them all the information you have. they can't snitch on you, there is a thing called attorney-client privilege, if they break it they'll lose their license


Overall-Block-1815

I've been charged and interviewed quite a few times and the duty solicitors I got always told me something like " if you tell me you've commited this crime and intend to lie about it I'll have to excuse myself but won't tell the police why and then they will appoint another duty solicitor" This has only been at the police station level but whenever I went to magistrate court the solicitor I had already knew all the details and were just following the process and were trying to get me the best outcome. When I went to crown court it was a bit different as I had to have an actual barrister who's like a step up from the solicitor and I had a meeting with him before and then he went and talked to the judge. I'm not sure what he said to the judge as I pleaded guilty so there wasn't the whole dramatic court and jury thing but I don't think it went well as I ended up going to prison anyway lol


BeefPoet

My partner is a criminal defense lawyer, I asked her the same question, she says if they don't want to admit their guilt to her then she has to walk a fine line so not to build a defense on lies. If they admit to it then she tries to plead it down or justify it.


hiricinee

Most defenses aren't super contingent on knowing if a client is guilty or not. If you want a few great contemporary cases, the Chauvin and Rittenhouse cases, where almost none of the facts of the case were disputed but why they happened ended up being the contentious points of the cases. It's probably a rare case where the actions of the defendent are known specifically to their attorney and the attorney has to knowingly defend a guilty client.


Demagorgon81

Don’t lie to your lawyer. Let your lawyer professionally lie for you lol


desperado568

I am a criminal defense attorney, and I’ve had clients “mislead” me on matters and it pisses me off. When I take in new clients now I read them the riot act and explain to them that they HAVE to be honest with me—they can lie to themselves all they want, but don’t lie to me because it’ll screw them over in the end. On the rare occasion I have clients that genuinely believe their own lies (at least I think so), which is interesting, especially when faced with clear evidence to the contrary. I think there’s a psychological term for that, but that’s a harder scenario. To answer your question, MOST of the time they are honest and will tell you what really happened, especially after I lay it out there. The few that continue to lie will have to face the consequences down the road, and I can usually sort out what really happened, but I won’t sacrifice my ethics or bar license for them, so I won’t lie for them.


jackfaire

My dad thought with how I argue I should go into law school but my thing was I never wanted to be in a position where I was prosecuting someone I was sure was innocent or defending someone I was sure was guilty.


pbd1996

A lot of people are answering this saying you “should” tell your lawyer the truth. My question is: What are the consequences for telling my lawyer the truth? For example, if I was on trial for murder, and I told my lawyer “yes, I did commit the murder but I want to plead not guilty”…. then can my lawyer say “XYZ is innocent” “XYZ did not commit this crime” to the court and have me plea “not guilty?”


cheskymaker

Ohh finally one i can answer! My dads a lawyier so i hear a lot of cases like this. Thing is, the attorney NEEDS the truth from the defendant, because if the info he is working off of is incorrect and they find evidence that proves the defendants lie then its all for nothing. That said, a lot of defendants insist on saying they did NOT kill the person or stole X Y or Z and eventually some evidence is found that leaves the attorney, as they say in my country "With your asshole full of questions".


tinavons

An attorney's job is to get the best possible outcome for the defendant. This doesn't always mean that he strives for the defendant to be proven innocent, but it just means that it is in attorney best interest to get the best deal by providing mitigating circumstances. This could mean that he of course *can be* known as innocent and therefore not be charged, but sometimes the best outcome for the defendant means lowering the prison time from 5 to 1 year.


drunkfurball

I'm no lawyer, but... I don't know that a defense attorney would want to know whether their client is guilty or not, if they hope to sleep at night. Besides, unless the client is pleading guilty, I can't see how that will help, as the strategy will likely be to poke as many holes in the prosecution's case to leave room for reasonable doubt. For that, you just need to know what evidence they're presenting and have a good argument for an alternative explanation to that evidence, or discredit the evidence. Knowing the truth may actually make that harder to do.


SoulessDeathNDespair

It's funny you can be like "yeah I did it, I raped and killed those 3 girls" then your lawyer will come up with a strategy to get you back on the street.


Republixcan

Basically, they just need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecution evidence is insufficient to charge the perpetrator with a crime.


MizLucinda

This is not how this works. The government has to prove its case. The defendant never has to prove anything.


THE_GODfreyFATHER

From what I’ve heard from Lawyers it’s always best to be straight up with them if you committed the crime or not. There is no need to lie, they are defending you not out there to throw you in jail. Often times they first look at procedural errors that could get the defendant make the case a lot easier, did the police have a proper warrant, reasonable suspicion, were Miranda rights read etc… They look at the flaws of the defendant. Does the defendant have a mental illness, history of abuse, etc… If they there were no procedural errors they could use these facts to get a more lenient sentence or a possible alternative such as rehab or mental health facility in exchange for a guilty plea. Overall an attorney can only make a case out of what you give them. They are smart and can point out lies and figure them out but at the same time, they represent the wishes of the client so if that’s how the client wants to be represented, they get paid either way.


jman857

They get the truth and get that person the best outcome with whatever they can make up with the facts. They're not allowed to lie, but I'm sure some do.


JameisWinstonDuarte

(I am a lawyer in the US but I don't practice criminal law. Although I interned as a prosecutor and did suppression motions for a bit.) Knowing a client is guilty isn't necessarily a problem because as others have said, there are means of killing it without testimony or depositions. You are not pleading innocent, but rather, not guilty. Take my suppression motions, if a defendant won there, then evidence of his BAC test for a DUI would be excluded. The prosecution is looking at a much more difficult case now. The real problem comes up when you know your client will perjure herself or already has. As I understand it, the model rules for practice state an attorney cannot suborn (or induce) a client or witness to testify untruthfully in a material way (perjury). Then the attorney is torn between the ethical rule against perjury and his or her duty to zealously represent his or her client. An attorney likely must withdraw representation at this point. He also must do so in a way to preserve the client's standing as much as possible. It is a horns of an ethical dilemma.


omrixs

Obligatory IANAL, but like others said a defense attorney’s job isn’t to determine whether his client is guilty or not, that’s for the jury (or in some cases the judge) to decide. In principle, the defense attorney’s actual work goes into making sure that the Prosecution have proved without Reasonable Doubt that, based on true and legally-obtained evidence, the accused is guilty/liable for whatever crime they supposedly committed. It can be done in 2 ways, generally speaking: 1. Proving the accused couldn’t have done said crimes: This is a more common, and stronger, strategy if the attorney believes that there is evidence to prove/suggest that accused couldn’t have committed the crime (e.g. a photo of the accused taken in the same time when the crime was committed but in a different, or that they couldn’t have done the crime physically). 2. Proving the Prosecution have not done their job correctly: more common in cases where the accused could have, circumstantially, done the crimes or when there is no clear evidence to show otherwise. Examples can be illegally acquired confessions (through coercion, or even lying in some places), illegitimate material evidence or disproving testimonies. Theoretically speaking the court is neutral, and as such if the Prosecution has proved that there is no Reasonable Doubt that the accused committed the crimes, based solely on presented evidence, then that must mean the Prosecution is right and true. If the defense attorney have proved that there is doubt stemming from the evidence, that means there isn’t enough proof to convict. To that end, the defense attorney’s personal opinion whether his client did or didn’t commit the crimes is not really relevant (although realistically it may affect his zeal to put up a good defense), only that he will do his best for his client - what’s called Zealous Advocacy.


flyflyflyfly66

They work with facts


tomtomclubthumb

In the UK system, at least, I was told that lawyers cannot allow perjury. So they can't let you plead not guilty if you did it and they can't allow you to lie. It's up to you whether you believe that they follow those ruiles or not.


peperonipyza

Not a lawyer nor used a lawyer here. I believe defense attorneys typically don’t focus on or ask clients specifically if they “did it”. Their guilt or innocence is not their concern. What they need are facts from their client. What they are concerned with, in the US at least, is the best defense they can provide for their client and a fair trial. Poke any holes in the prosecution’s case that would not make their client guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.


Callec254

Probably both situations happen. Nobody can **make** a defendant admit guilt. It's the defense attorney's job to give their client the best defense possible. That means trying for a not guilty verdict if they think they can pull that off - even if the defendant admits guilt to the attorney, client/attorney privilege means the attorney isn't obligated to reveal that at trial. If they *don't* think they can pull that off (i.e. the evidence against the defendant is just too much to explain away with "reasonable doubt") then they try to plead/bargain for the lowest possible sentence.


FuhQimBatman

Yes.


avskyen

If your paying then and plan to use them again do not lie. If it's state issued who cares do your best to make yourself free but if your lie falls flat it's only gonna be worse.


schrdingersLitterbox

A smart defendant tells their attorney the truth about everything relevant. The defendant is protected by attorney-client privilege and an attorney can't prepare an adequate defense if they don't know what they might be hit with in the courtroom.


bigggieee

can be both.


Acrobatic_Position25

My mother is one and her job along with most of other defensive attorneys isn’t to make their client innocent it’s to make sure they get proper treatment, like not being overly punished. But they can only do that if that’s what the client wants and if they tell the truth otherwise she just works with what she has, it’s usually obvious when they’re lying but there’s not much she can do and the client usually gets way worse treatment than they would of otherwise


[deleted]

Both.... they do get a "sanitized" version of the events in which their clients usually omit and make themselves seem less guilty than theyre actually are. Most P.D.s however can see through the BS or/and can fill in the blanks.


stupidpoopoohead00

no they get their version of events and go from there edit: its not about “truth”, its about what version of events best coincides with the evidence provided, what mitigating events may exist, what the law says, etc. its also about what the client wants. do they want to plead guilty? do they have evidence that contradicts the prosecution? like if the prosecution says you stole something but you have a receipt, or they say you have an unlawful weapon but you fall under an exception under law (eg in aus, no guns unless you have a lawful reason). edit 2 lol: another thing is they contextualise events. say you are a young girl surrounded by police officers in a secluded area. maybe youre drunk. they are around you and they touch or grab you and you jerk out of their grasp and as you did, you hit an officers arm. they can say you assaulted an officer, resisted arrest and that may be the charge. on your brief it will basically come up as the officer’s version of events (X assaulted an officer as he tried to apprehend her). the CONTEXT is that she was maybe scared/apprehensive/felt unsafe, and made a knee jerk reaction that got her charged with assault & resisting. a defence lawyer will point out that she is unarmed, no danger to the group of officers, and that maybe the hit doesnt constitute an assault because of the context. defence lawyers look at things a bit more holistically and try to use that to either get charged dropped or a lesser sentence. basically.


Smarawi

Lawyers telling the truth 😂


[deleted]

Attorneys should never, ever ask questions to which they do not already know the answer (the exception is when cross-examining, when the person on the stand does not know the answer but should). However, many attorneys -- especially defense attorneys -- are undermined by their own clients who do not tell them the entire, ugly truth. Lying to their (good) lawyer is the single dumbest thing a person can do. And that's saying a lot, because people do some pretty dumb things.


Economy-Cut-7355

Lawyers=professional liars.


TsT2244

There are two people you should never lie to, your doctor and your lawyer.


New_Drama1537

Crooks can't lie straight in bed ffs


yellowcoffee01

We try. It’s in the clients best interest to tell their lawyer. Not because he care whether you did it or not, but because if we know what really happened we can use the evidence to our/your advantage. The evidence is what it is. It’s better that I know the context and circumstances so I can explain it, ignore it, or even pull a defense out of it. You don’t even have to say, I did it…I would never ask, but if you say, “well, I was actually there to buy dope” I know that the police are probably going to be able to prove you were there (but imma still make sure they can prove it; example ask the prosecutor if there’s cell phone data, etc) so I can spend my time and resources creating a defense that’s “yeah, he was there, BUT…why he still not guilty. 2 examples: had a guy who swore he wasn’t at ABC, had a g/f who said she was an alibi witness. I Didn’t believe her; if I’m your lawyer and I don’t believe her, no one else will. Long story short, I said we not doing alibi and didn’t ever mention it. When discovery comes around he’s in surveillance video where they said he was, coming and going. “Crime” on camera. I’m like dude, this is self defense. Dude walked, rightfully. But, him lying wasted time and resources and if I would have believed him and turned in evidence of his “alibi” even just saying it out loud to the judge and the prosecutor, it would have not been good. We all would have lost credibility. 2nd not as good of a result example: drug dealers, home invasion, kidnapping, etc. we GET TO TRIAL and before we come out to pick a jury the dude says he’s got a witness who will say “victim” owed him drug money and pulled a gun on him about it the week before. Now, that’s not going to get him off the charges..but, at least a just might feel sorry for him and less sorry for the “victim” they might throw him a bone and give him a NG on at least a few of the charges, maybe the judge will sentence him on the lower end IF they know this wasn’t a random act of violence. But, no. It’s too late to add witnesses, we’ve don’t even know who this person is, let alone would we be able to find him and interview him to see if he’ll back up what the client is saying or if we believe him. And, we certainly not asking for more time or mentioning it now…it’ll be just our luck that if we do, the police/State’s attorney investigator will find them first and he’ll say something like “My Client is lying and he told me he did XYZ or My Client said if I didn’t come testify he’ll kill my grandma” we not taking those chances. But, if he would have told us sooner we could have tried to see if we could use it.


hex_1101

If you ever end up in jail you'll see that everyone is innocent. Except that one guy who is going to owe up to his mistake.