Stubby Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 15 minutes ago, karaddin said: To be clear, my rage was at the guys douchey attitude around it not that he defended his client. I understand the very important role that defence attorneys play in the legal system. Yeah I figured that. I was responding largely to Nil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 9 hours ago, Stubby said: So here's the thing. If your client tells you a story that matches the facts as alleged, your ethical obligation is twofold: First you advise your client to plead guilty; or Second, you defend the claim (like Scot said) by making sure that your client is only convicted "in a properly constructed court by admissible evidence only". In these circumstances, you may NOT lead a 'positive' case, like saying "Bloggsy did it" or "my client wasn't there". If the evidence fits a statutory defence, like mistake, insanity, self-defence etc, then you can lead a positive case. And that's where it's at. Scot, we have the presumption of innocence as well. Stubby, In an Anglo legal system I assumed you had the "presumption of innocence" what I didn't know is whether there is a right against self-incrimination in Australia or whether you can force a criminal defendant to testify in a criminal trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Winged Shadow Posted March 16, 2016 Author Share Posted March 16, 2016 Thanks for the answers. I totally forgot I asked that question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.