How can lawyers defend the indefensible?

**Jack of Kent** · 18th March 2009, 09:06 AM

Excellent piece in today's Guardian by Marcel Berlins on the ethics of defending those charged with the worst crimes: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-fritzl-lawyer

As Berlins says:

It's no mystery why lawyers are happy to defend men the public regard as monsters. It's called a fair trial...

It is one of the hallmarks of criminal trials in democratic countries that a defendant - however heinous the crimes he's charged with - is entitled to a competent and fearless lawyer to defend him.

I couldn't agree more strongly.

**Mulder** · 18th March 2009, 09:17 AM

Plus, they're lawyers after all.

**polomint38** · 18th March 2009, 10:37 AM

I defend lawyers, everyone deserves a defence

shark.jpg

**Mojo** · 18th March 2009, 11:13 AM

From the Guardian article:

The question most asked of lawyers who act for unpopular defendants is: "How could you?"

To which they answer: "Because it is my job."

"Even if you know he is guilty?"

"It is for the prosecution to prove his guilt; my job is to do the best I can for him, dispassionately, with my skills of advocacy and within the law of evidence."

Isn't it the case that if a lawyer knows his client is guilty (rather than merely suspects this), he isn't allowed to run a defence on the basis that the client is innocent?

**Trinoc** · 18th March 2009, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

Isn't it the case that if a lawyer knows his client is guilty (rather than merely suspects this), he isn't allowed to run a defence on the basis that the client is innocent?

When a questioner like this asks "Even if you know he's guilty?", they don't mean having actual conclusive evidence of guilt, they mean "Look at all the lurid press reports - he MUST be guilty!"

There is a public perception that the probability of a defendant being guilty goes up with the severity of the crime. This is the justification for making it easier to put away suspects in terrorist offences, often without trial at all. The assumption is that someone must pay, and they don't give a damn whether it is the right person or not.

**Legaleagle** · 18th March 2009, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by Mojo

From the Guardian article:
Isn't it the case that if a lawyer knows his client is guilty (rather than merely suspects this), he isn't allowed to run a defence on the basis that the client is innocent?

I don't think that is quite right. The principal as I understand it is that if a client admits his guilt to you you must advise him to plead guilty and if he then refuses to do so you must cease acting for him.

If he tells you he is not guilty, then you can represent him even if you privately suspect that he may be guilty. Although practically speaking, if it was fairly obvious he did it, you would probably try and convince him admit that he is lying and to plead guilty.

As to Knowing the client is guilty, well, unless he admits it, how can you know?

I have never practiced criminal law, but I suspect, from what limited experience I have of it, that the whole "bent brief" scenario beloved of the TV detective stories is a bit of a myth.