- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Casey Anthony's lawyer admits she killed daughter Caylee, investigator says
Posted on 5/26/16 at 4:17 pm to SabiDojo
Posted on 5/26/16 at 4:17 pm to SabiDojo
Just looked more into it. I guess my confusion is on that the defense lawyer can not lie to the court about what the defendant did, to his knowledge. I guess that's what you mean by changing how the defense is presented.
I know that lawyers seem to avoid that specific line of questioning though with their clients.
I know that lawyers seem to avoid that specific line of questioning though with their clients.
This post was edited on 5/26/16 at 4:18 pm
2
Posted on 5/26/16 at 4:21 pm to Peazey
i mean your most active defense in most criminal prosecutions is to attack the means that the state gets the evidence. often this will be arguing against the warrant or a car stop. so in this case, you can know 100% your client is guilty and still try to attack the prosecution's case. you won't have to withdraw if you're just attacking the actions of the state. so it's not an absolute bar (i mean if you're dealing with a drug case, your client being found with the drugs means he/she is guilty almost assuredly so this would create a system where they couldn't have counsel)
Posted on 5/26/16 at 4:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i was always told to never ask this question. it opens up a can of worms
I never knew this. I always thought attorney's told their clients to tell them EVERYTHING, and then they would formulate the best plan to defend them.
Then, I guess I assumed they would poke holes in the State's evidence, etc. So, if client said they didn't do it, all theories are in play. If client said they did it, poke holes in the evidence, but without crossing a line such as introducing a theory that you know is false.
Makes more sense to not ask the question, I guess. Learn something new every day.
Posted on 5/26/16 at 4:26 pm to Festus
to be honest, i don't even like getting into a discussion until i have all the discovery. i give the client a copy and set a meeting in a week so we can discuss the state's case. this assumes my client is out of jail, but i don't deal with many clients who are incarcerated these days.
i try to keep my preliminary discussions as broad as possible. i get an idea of what happened at the arrest and some possible witnesses or avenues for possible documentary evidence. but until you get that discovery from the state, you're just guessing at how they're going to prosecute you. they have to reveal their hand to you and you have to respond accordingly.
i try to keep my preliminary discussions as broad as possible. i get an idea of what happened at the arrest and some possible witnesses or avenues for possible documentary evidence. but until you get that discovery from the state, you're just guessing at how they're going to prosecute you. they have to reveal their hand to you and you have to respond accordingly.
Posted on 5/26/16 at 4:33 pm to Bondombie
Damn this thread...it somehow has me wanting to bang Casey Anthony.
Posted on 5/26/16 at 4:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
That makes a lot of sense.
I assumed that in many cases, the clients confess to their attorney, but absolutely no one else, and the attorney wants to know, to prepare. And that's the reputation hit that many assume against attorneys.
But not asking the question directly makes more sense. And I would think you would defend more vigorously not knowing for certain.
Do you think OJ ever admitted to any of his attorneys that he did it?
I assumed that in many cases, the clients confess to their attorney, but absolutely no one else, and the attorney wants to know, to prepare. And that's the reputation hit that many assume against attorneys.
But not asking the question directly makes more sense. And I would think you would defend more vigorously not knowing for certain.
Do you think OJ ever admitted to any of his attorneys that he did it?
Posted on 5/26/16 at 4:34 pm to Peazey
Yeah, just don't lie or put on false evidence. That doesn't mean you can't poke holes in the State's evidence and how they obtained it. It only changes your questions and your theme.
This post was edited on 5/26/16 at 4:38 pm
Posted on 5/26/16 at 4:36 pm to Festus
quote:
Do you think OJ ever admitted to any of his attorneys that he did it?
yes
and let me add that i don't do like murders or anything that serious. 90% of my cases are drugs or DWI cases. DWI cases have some subjectivity in what the cop observes (assuming no BAC testing) so there is some grey area to argue the merits. drug cases pretty much always involve drugs being present, so your attack is going to be how the cops got there.
your client can tell you his story all he wants but until you know what the state has, you have nothing to argue
Posted on 5/26/16 at 4:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
Serious question.
You're sitting in your office, this chick walks in and asks you to defend her.
She ends the conversation with, "I don't have the cash needed to put down for a retainer, but I promise I'll get it eventually. I find you extremely attractive, and find myself wanting to climb onto my knees under your desk, and show you how much I appreciate you". She then Sharon Stone Basic Instincts flashes you.
Do you:
A. Tell her thanks, but you cannot take her on as a client.
B. Tell her you will take her on as a client, but ethically cannot engage in any type of sexual activity with her.
C. Lean back in your chair, look at the ceiling, and not say a word.
You're sitting in your office, this chick walks in and asks you to defend her.
She ends the conversation with, "I don't have the cash needed to put down for a retainer, but I promise I'll get it eventually. I find you extremely attractive, and find myself wanting to climb onto my knees under your desk, and show you how much I appreciate you". She then Sharon Stone Basic Instincts flashes you.
Do you:
A. Tell her thanks, but you cannot take her on as a client.
B. Tell her you will take her on as a client, but ethically cannot engage in any type of sexual activity with her.
C. Lean back in your chair, look at the ceiling, and not say a word.
Posted on 5/26/16 at 4:42 pm to Festus
I plead the fizifth
Posted on 5/26/16 at 4:42 pm to GRTiger
quote:
"No no, sweetie. I don't want a retainer. I said take out your retainer."
how does this not have more up votes
Posted on 5/26/16 at 4:44 pm to SabiDojo
Assume your only choices are A, B, or C.
Posted on 5/26/16 at 5:07 pm to Festus
B if she comes up with the $$$$
Posted on 5/26/16 at 5:08 pm to Festus
quote:
Do you:
A. Tell her thanks, but you cannot take her on as a client.
if she's trying to pull that off top, she's going to be a trouble client
Posted on 5/26/16 at 5:09 pm to SabiDojo
Liar
Posted on 5/26/16 at 5:10 pm to StealthCalais11
Posted on 5/26/16 at 5:36 pm to Bondombie
I bet the jury feels real smart hearing this.
Posted on 5/26/16 at 5:42 pm to texag7
I hope she dies in the worst possible.fashion.
Posted on 5/26/16 at 5:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
if she's trying to pull that off top, she's going to be a trouble client
You're a much smarter attorney than that Sabidojo.
Posted on 5/26/16 at 6:00 pm to Festus
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News