Plea Bargains And Ethics

David Sklansky · #1 09-19-2007, 05:45 PM

Follow this closely please:

You are a defense attorney whose client is arrested for a felony. He tells you he did it and you think the proper punishment for the crime is ten years. A plea bargain is offerred by the prosecutors. They also believe tha fair sentence is ten years and that is their offer. Your client says five years, or no deal. The prosecutors tell him that if he doesn't take the deal they will try to put him away for twenty years. Your client still isn't swayed.

You now go to trial knowing that your client faces an "unfair" sentence if he is convicted. (I put unfair in quotes because some may claim he deserves the extra time for not cooperating) But your only hope of preventing this is to get him acquitted completely. And to do that you must assert thet he didn't do the crime at all. Even though you know he did. Ethical?

RoundGuy · #2 09-19-2007, 05:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And to do that you must assert thet he didn't do the crime at all. Even though you know he did. Ethical?

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course it's ethical. It is not a defense attorney's job to prove his client is innocent -- he is there to make sure the prosecuters do their job, if they wish to convict his client. That is, prove that his client is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

hitch1978 · #3 09-19-2007, 06:02 PM

ANSWER 1.-

EV neutral.

+10 vs -10, we have been put in a position that Jesus (the ferguson kind) would be proud of. What do we feel is the chance of conviction if we say no?

I think if you change the prosecutors' threat to 21 or 19 years then we face a decision. Or am I missing the point?

ANSWER 2-

(As I have said previously.) It is ethical insofar as we did not set the framework within which we operate. As such we don't really have a decision at all. The decision has been made by the lawmakers, and we are simply following the rules of the game.

I will repeat a question here.

If you don't like this system, which one would you prefer? I cannot think of one that is not ridiculously corruptable.

David Sklansky · #4 09-19-2007, 06:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And to do that you must assert thet he didn't do the crime at all. Even though you know he did. Ethical?

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course it's ethical. It is not a defense attorney's job to prove his client is innocent -- he is there to make sure the prosecuters do their job, if they wish to convict his client. That is, prove that his client is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that it has been stated elswhere that if the client ADMITS the crime to the attorney it is unethical for him to flat out clim he didn't do it (and I believe he can get in trouble if he allows his client to say it on the stand (perjury))

Given that, is my scenario an exception?

knowledgeORbust · #5 09-19-2007, 06:12 PM

This is why I could not be a lawyer. It's permittable to defend this man within our legal system, and can be presented as morally acceptable, but you're still trying to let a guilty criminal go free. It depends on the crime. As is, I think I need more information.

Questions I ask myself:
Is the law broken a just one to begin with?
Any unusual circumstances in the crime itself?
If I find that the man has committed an inexcusable crime, the next question is "can any good come out of this, besides money for myself?"

Side question: what % of guilty persons tell their lawyer/attorney about their guilt? Or plead innocent the whole time?

Case Closed · #6 09-19-2007, 06:14 PM

Why the hell would you let your client admit guilt to you before trial?

hitch1978 · #7 09-19-2007, 06:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why the hell would you let your client admit guilt to you before trial?

[/ QUOTE ]

as relevant to this discussion as what I had for breakfast.

hitch1978 · #8 09-19-2007, 06:30 PM

OK, think I may have missed something.

What is my other option?

If I say I cannot defend this guy, doesn't that 'out' him a sguilty?

If so, then by not defending him I am basically finding him guilty of something I KNOW he HASN'T done.

Is that worse? I dunno?

I think it stil comes down to the Question I raised in point 2 of my first reply.

andyfox · #9 09-19-2007, 06:33 PM

Unethical for me. Because if I felt his crime was serious enough to warrant ten years, I could not in good conscious act to get him off. That is, I would likely feel that twenty years, while an injustice, was a better outcome than him getting off without punishment.

PairTheBoard · #10 09-19-2007, 06:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But your only hope of preventing this is to get him acquitted completely. And to do that you must assert thet he didn't do the crime at all. Even though you know he did. Ethical?

[/ QUOTE ]

As an officer of the court I don't think you can ethically make statements you know to be untrue. But there is no need for you to make the above assertion. You can assert that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You can assert that the evidence to be presented by the prosecution does not meet that standard. And you can present whatever true evidence exists which you believe will cast further doubt. The evidence you present speaks for itself. This amounts to the adequate defense to which your client is entitled.

PairTheBoard