fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3471 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3471 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Brooklyn Nine-Nine]

__________________________________________________

04.

[1931: Scheherazade at the Library of Pergamum]

__________________________________________________

05.

[outlander, ontd-sassenach]

__________________________________________________

06.

(Voltron: Legendary Defender)

__________________________________________________

07.

[Michael Kamen]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Captain America (MCU), Daredevil (MCU), Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, and Bleach]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 27 secrets from Secret Submission Post #496.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I think our system is pretty fucked up if defense attorneys are required to play the jury or seek technicalities to get someone off when the evidence is clear

Yes, that is exactly what defense attorneys are required to do. They aren't victim's advocates; defense attorneys are advocates for the defendant. That's the way our system functions, and it'designed that way because people charged with a crime are entitled to a fair trial. If their defense lawyer is more concerned for the victim than they are for the client they're representing, then the trial isn't fair.

And you can blame the vast majority of these technicalities on shitty police work. If police departments did their jobs by the book and didn't obtain evidence illegally or forget to follow procedure, there wouldn't be an open door for a defense attorney to walk their client out through.

But I don't really think it's ok to require the defense attorneys actually lie to try to get their client off.

No, it's not. You can be disbarred for that shit, too. And nowhere have I suggested that defense lawyers lie and cheat to get clients acquitted, so how you got to that conclusion is beyond me.

And going back upthread to what I was originally replying to, do you think after a case is closed it's ok for a defense attorney to laugh at someone they won a case against?

No. I think it's unprofessional as fuck to for a lawyer -- any lawyer -- to directly discuss their clients' cases in any way. Even after the case is over, attorney-client privilege is still in effect, and should be taken as seriously as if you were still at trial.

From the above subthread:

In a rape case, if it's clear to everyone involved that the defendant is guilty - and that the plaintiff is going through a great deal of trauma - is it required or acceptable for the defense attorney to say to the plaintiff, "my client is innocent and you are lying"?

Yes, it is. That's exactly what a defense attorney does. That's your job; to discredit the prosecution's case in any way you can, by providing reasonable doubt.

That would be lying.

What do you mean by "clear to everyone?" Because a story can be "clear to everyone" and still be a flagrant, bald-faced lie (the Rolling Stone piece on UVA is a prime example; it was "clear to everyone" until it turned out to be 100% fabricated -- campus rape is an epidemic, but publishing irresponsible pieces of fabricated tripe isn't helping anybody).

Until there is irrefutable evidence of your client's guilt or you are providing an affirmative defense, you are required as a defense attorney to maintain that your client is innocent. Full stop. No exceptions.

[ SECRET POST #3471 ]

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.