|
NoodleBaby posted:One of my classmates signed up for the Marine Corp after 1L year, so he spent his summers doing Marine Corp poo poo. He was all signed up for Marine JAG, just had to pass the bar and he was in. Not pity, everyone in the program gets two tries to pass the bar. and its Corps, not Corp  (We'd get paid better if we were a Corp.)
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 15:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:40 |
|
|
Lykourgos posted:Well I don't know what BU is, but if he's literally number 1 in the class, shouldn't he be able to get something? I mean, he can literally say "I have the highest GPA at my TTT, and I am on a TTT law review" BU is actually pretty good. I'd honestly push for a full ride and stay at BU. Just keep the grades up and apply to every job everywhere across the country.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 15:55
|
|
|
^^e: the full ride idea is good. BU 2L OCI had fewer than 10 firms last year
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 15:56
|
|
|
while we're on the topic, or at least we were earlier, do defence attorneys at least know they're supposed to quit the case or plead guilty if they know their client did it? Or do they not have that rule in America, idk
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 15:58
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:while we're on the topic, or at least we were earlier, do defence attorneys at least know they're supposed to quit the case or plead guilty if they know their client did it? Or do they not have that rule in America, idk No, no, and no. I'll let a practicing defense atty explain why.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 16:04
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:while we're on the topic, or at least we were earlier, do defence attorneys at least know they're supposed to quit the case or plead guilty if they know their client did it? Or do they not have that rule in America, idk DUH. How else would we have enough spare time for whores, poker and cocaine?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 16:05
|
|
|
NoodleBaby posted:No, no, and no. I'll let a practicing defense atty explain why. so your client can literally say "I did it, here's how, but I want to plead not guilty" and you can still go ahead without an ethical violation? Sounds dreadfully dishonourable/unethical
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 16:13
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:so your client can literally say "I did it, here's how, but I want to plead not guilty" and you can still go ahead without an ethical violation? Sounds dreadfully dishonourable/unethical You can't lie or allow your client to commit perjury, but you can for example sit back and make the government prove its case: if the government's evidence is illegal, then your client ought to go free even though he did it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 16:24
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You can't lie or allow your client to commit perjury, but you can for example sit back and make the government prove its case: if the government's evidence is illegal, then your client ought to go free even though he did it. This. If you know your client is guilty you don't let him take the stand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 16:26
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:^^e: the full ride idea is good. This year its a lot closer to 50 so at least its not going to be the horrendous slaughter that was last years OCI. I'm going to graduate school with no debt and am not really looking to do firm work. Definitely more of a clerkship -> PI/PD/Gov type goal. Overall I guess I'm dumb for not transferring but not totally screwed and will be able to find someone to pay me for my non T14 degree, hopefully. Probably not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 16:31
|
|
|
But you are lying, aren't you, if you just sit back and maintain your position of not guilty. Pleading no contest might be defensible, but if you sit back full well knowing your client is guilty, but maintaining to the court that he is not guilty, then that is flat out dishonesty.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 16:32
|
|
|
Comrades! We are in luck. "Brown University,... one of the nation’s top medical schools admits a small number of students every year who have skipped all three requirements. " http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/nyregion/30medschools.html?_r=1&hp
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 16:32
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:Comrades! We are in luck. NYT posted:The students apply in their sophomore or junior years in college and agree to major in humanities or social science, rather than the hard sciences. Too late, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 16:34
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:But you are lying, aren't you, if you just sit back and maintain your position of not guilty. Pleading no contest might be defensible, but if you sit back full well knowing your client is guilty, but maintaining to the court that he is not guilty, then that is flat out dishonesty. You are not maintaining to the court your client is not guilty. You are maintaining to the court that your client, as he has the right to, has chosen to plead not guilty. You are also arguing to the court that the prosecution has failed to prove your client is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with the evidence it has legally obtained.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 16:37
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:Well I don't know what BU is, but if he's literally number 1 in the class, shouldn't he be able to get something? I mean, he can literally say "I have the highest GPA at my TTT, and I am on a TTT law review" He said section, not class. Still, I think a ~top 5% person at BU should be in good shape.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 16:44
|
|
|
MoFauxHawk posted:He said section, not class. Still, I think a ~top 5% person at BU should be in good shape. Yeah, but not as good as being at Harvard, I'd think.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 16:46
|
|
|
What/where is BU?evilweasel posted:You are not maintaining to the court your client is not guilty. You are maintaining to the court that your client, as he has the right to, has chosen to plead not guilty. You are also arguing to the court that the prosecution has failed to prove your client is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with the evidence it has legally obtained. Right, and you are appearing on his behalf, entereing or maintaining a plea of not guilty. Despite knowing full well that he is guilty; that is a lie, or if you just discovered half-way through the trial, it is a lie by omission for the time being until you make some affirmation to the court of your client being not guilty. You are either personally lying, maintaining a lie you unwittingly made, or assisting somebody in lying to the court. That is to say, defence attorneys who persist in maintaining that plea to the court in defiance of the truth, are lying. You can try and jumble words around, but you're going to continue to be unsuccessful. Either change your plea to no contest, which is effectively what you're pretending to do, or drop the case and preserve your honour as a member of the bar. There is no honour in defending a lie knowingly made, or actively deceiving the honourable judge presiding. Lykourgos fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Jul 30, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 16:48
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:Right, and you are appearing on his behalf, entereing or maintaining a plea of not guilty. Despite knowing full well that he is guilty; that is a lie, or if you just discovered half-way through the trial, it is a lie by omission for the time being until you make some affirmation to the court of your client being not guilty. Nonsense. That's not what a plea of not guilty means: it means your client does not wish to admit to committing the crime and demands the government prove it. The burden of proof is not on the defendant - you have no obligation to have a prima face case: you can sit there through the prosecution's presentation, not say a word in your defense, and demand a verdict of not guilty because the prosecution has not carried its burden. A plea of not guilty is not a statement under oath that you are not guilty, it is a shorthand for exercising your right (and it's a right: you have a clear right to plead not guilty even if you are guilty) to demand the government prove your guilt. Lykourgos posted:Either change your plea to no contest That's not what a plea of no contest means. A plea of no contest means you're not admitting guilt but you consent to the entry of a judgment against you. A plea of not guilty is refusing consent to the entry of a judgment against you. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Jul 30, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 16:52
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:Well I don't know what BU is, but if he's literally number 1 in the class, shouldn't he be able to get something? I mean, he can literally say "I have the highest GPA at my TTT, and I am on a TTT law review" Ironically enough, far from being a TTT, the colonists seem to rank his school five places above yours.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 16:58
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Nonsense. That's not what a plea of not guilty means: it means your client does not wish to admit to committing the crime and demands the government prove it. The burden of proof is not on the defendant - you have no obligation to have a prima face case: you can sit there through the prosecution's presentation, not say a word in your defense, and demand a verdict of not guilty because the prosecution has not carried its burden. That's a very creative position; let's literally say "not guilty" while knowing full well that the client is guilty, because not guilty doesn't mean not guilty. Are you even reading your own words? It comes off as ridiculous. If your client is willing to maintain his innocence, or is quiet, then fine; you can honestly say you don't know if he's guilty or not, and enter that plea and test the People's case. But if you know he's guilty, then you are literally going out and willfully working against the conclusion that ought to be reached, and maintaining a deception the whole time. Demand a verdict of not guilty, sure; but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about maintaining a plea of not guilty. Which is what apparently defence attys do in full knowledge, admitted by their client, that it is a lie. So when somebody says "do you defend rapists and murderers," you ought to literally say, "yes, I knowingly take a rapist or murderer as a client, because I know they did it, and I then attempt to avoid their conviction by verbal deception so they may be free." This is not the way a gentlemanly profession operates; word tricks and deceptions against your fellow lawyer. Disgraceful; if you can't bring yourself to pick up the phone and tell the judge/prosecutor about the guilt, then just drop the case and maintain your dignity. Even defence attorneys should have standards.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 17:00
|
|
|
billion dollar bitch posted:Ironically enough, far from being a TTT, the colonists seem to rank his school five places above yours. Mine? I've graduated old boy, but nice try. Have another go when you actually get your degree
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 17:01
|
|
|
Nonsense, you're merely being tripped up by the terminology. You are representing to the court that your client does not consent to judgment being entered against him. Of your options for expressing that, only 'not guilty' works - both guilty and nolo contendere fail to exercise your client's rights. Given that your client has an absolute right to refuse consent to judgment being entered against him, assisting your client in exercising a valid legal right is your duty as his lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 17:03
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Nonsense, you're merely being tripped up by the terminology. You are representing to the court that your client does not consent to judgment being entered. Of your options for expressing that, only 'not guilty' works. Given that your client has an absolute right to refuse consent to judgment being entered against him, assisting your client in exercising a valid legal right is your duty as his lawyer. Yes, the terminology is painful to hear, but at the same time it is the way it is presented. Surely you'd want to say, not guilty for purposes of hearing the People's case; because then you'd be making clear that you literally don't intend to move or say anything. I don't even know why you're there; you don't need counsel if counsel doesn't have a role to play. And if you have the intent to examine and be bothersome, then you are actively working to avoid a verdict you know to be true. You'd be standing before the bench saying words that would lead to the wrong verdict, and you'd know it too. If a prosecutor has a defendant in his claws that he knows full well is innocent, then are you going to argue that he should go ahead and see if he can't make a good show of it? Lykourgos fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Jul 30, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 17:05
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:Yes, the terminology is painful to hear, but at the same time it is the way it is presented. Surely you'd want to say, not guilty for purposes of hearing the People's case; because then you'd be making clear that you literally don't intend to move or say anything. I don't even know why you're there; you don't need counsel if counsel doesn't have a role to play. Of course you intend to move or say something: you intend to challenge potentially illegal or otherwise inadmissible evidence. A person who is guilty but whom the prosecution has not proved is guilty, with admissible evidence, has a right to a not guilty verdict. Someone who the government is only inditing based on illegal evidence has a right to their not guilty verdict. Lykourgos posted:If a prosecutor has a defendant in his claws that he knows full well is innocent, then are you going to argue that he should go ahead and see if he can't make a good show of it? A prosecutor has a burden of proof. To attempt to prove something false is an attempted fraud on the court: merely stating that an attempted proof is insufficent is not. There are many incorrect proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem and your math teacher does not decieve you when he marks your proof as incorrect. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Jul 30, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 17:08
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:
Wrong. We are gentlemen who contest with each other to prove our intellectual superiority and refined virtues. The peons involved in the individual cases are merely our game pieces. I would sooner wear women's panties than concede the contest to my distinguished opponent! Defending the guilty client is one of the highest forms of competition for our kind; it is akin to playing goalkeeper against the entire Manchester United team at the same time. We are the privileged elite who play by the rules of a game of our devising. It is a competitive game, and there is no room for those who would throw the game. When you concede defeat before the contest has even begun, you dishonor yourself, your opponent, and the contest itself. Shame on you for suggesting such weakness.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 17:09
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Of course you intend to move or say something: you intend to challenge potentially illegal or otherwise inadmissible evidence. A person who is guilty but whom the prosecution has not proved is guilty, with admissible evidence, has a right to a not guilty verdict. Someone who the government is only inditing based on illegal evidence has a right to their not guilty verdict. No, because every time you do that, you are leading the court to the wrong conclusion. That's deception, or at least a form of ill-will towards the bench. Also, lol at the idea that a guilty person has a right to a not guilty verdict.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 17:12
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:No, because every time you do that, you are leading the court to the wrong conclusion. That's deception, or at least a form of ill-will towards the bench. Also, lol at the idea that a guilty person has a right to a not guilty verdict. Of course they do, otherwise the 4th Amendment and the 8th Amendment mean nothing. And the Court knows that a Not Guilty verdict is not a pronouncement of the fact that a person is factually not guilty, but that they are legally not guilty and the prosecution failed to prove they were factually guilty. We are not scots, we don't sully the name of men who we can't prove are guilty through such nonsense as "not proven" verdicts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 17:15
|
|
|
entris posted:Wrong. We are gentlemen who contest with each other to prove our intellectual superiority and refined virtues. The peons involved in the individual cases are merely our game pieces. I would sooner wear women's panties than concede the contest to my distinguished opponent! Most people will think you are a troll, but I know that this is literally how defence attys think. I have read enough reasonable doubt arguments to know this fact. Lykourgos fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Jul 30, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 17:16
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:What/where is BU? Brown University school of law. It's very prestigious. Speaking of which, why is it that everywhere there are depressed lawyers you find comparisons to doctors? Half the people here seem to believe that they would have gone to med school in retrospect. Well if you wanted to go to med school and went to law school you're a retard, but if you didn't have any particular desire to do either and just thought both were stable professions with lay prestige and oh boy will mom be proud of me you would probably be about as miserable as a doctor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 17:17
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Of course they do, otherwise the 4th Amendment and the 8th Amendment mean nothing. And the Court knows that a Not Guilty verdict is not a pronouncement of the fact that a person is factually not guilty, but that they are legally not guilty and the prosecution failed to prove they were factually guilty. We are not scots, we don't sully the name of men who we can't prove are guilty through such nonsense as "not proven" verdicts. No, they don't mean nothing, because you'd still have to accord with those amendments in the absence of the defendant literally saying "I DID IT". Also why do you care if we can't prove they're guilty, if they're literally admitting they're guilty. If you know they're guilty beyond any doubt, then that's the end of the question. That's why you need to quit the case so that someone with clean hands can take over, or submit yourself to the requirements of honesty and keep faith with your learned friends.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 17:19
|
|
|
Omerta posted:you would probably be about as miserable as a doctor. Except you can actually self-medicate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 17:19
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:No, because every time you do that, you are leading the court to the wrong conclusion. That's deception, or at least a form of ill-will towards the bench. Also, lol at the idea that a guilty person has a right to a not guilty verdict. There are really two types of guilt. Legal guilt is whether factually the accused did what he is accused of doing. But that isn't enough for a conviction. There also has to be legal guilt, which is whether the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and where the police need to follow rules regarding things like Miranda and other consitutional safeguards regarding things like search and seizure. So a not guilty plea can just mean you (the prosecution) cannot legally prove I am guilty. You can't take the words "not guilty" literally. It has a specific legal meaning, which basically is "you can't prove it." Remember, not guilty does not mean innocent. We don't have an innocent plea in this country.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 17:20
|
|
|
quepasa18 posted:There are really two types of guilt. Legal guilt is whether factually the accused did what he is accused of doing. But that isn't enough for a conviction. There also has to be legal guilt, which is whether the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and where the police need to follow rules regarding things like Miranda and other consitutional safeguards regarding things like search and seizure. So a not guilty plea can just mean you (the prosecution) cannot legally prove I am guilty. Remember, not guilty does not mean innocent. We don't have an innocent plea in this country. yes, and legal guilt goes through a process where the people involved need clean hands. Not some def atty who has shown himself unsuitable by still being present despite knowing his client is guilty. If he's guilty, then tell the judge and prosecutor, or go away. The prosecutor will tell the def atty and judge if he knows the defendant is innocent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 17:22
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:while we're on the topic, or at least we were earlier, do defence attorneys at least know they're supposed to quit the case or plead guilty if they know their client did it? Or do they not have that rule in America, idk The role of a defense attorney and a prosecutor are very different (I've done both). The prosecution is subject to additional ethics rules that dictate that they are not zealous advocates. Their goal is (supposed to be) to seak justice. Defense attorneys have different rules. They are to be zealous advocates. It is worth noting that a client is innocent until proven guilty. This means even if there are 12 videos, 5 eyewitnesses, and a confession, the defendant is innocent until 12 people say guilty. It is not a lie to plea a client "not guilty" because they are "not guilty" according to the law until that jury says guilty. The constitution trumps any applicable ethics rules (though most ethics rules are now tailored in compliance with these rules) An attorney cannot suborn perjury. If you know a witness will lie, you should not call him. However, it is different if the defendant wishes to testify. The defendant, once again, has a constitutional right. He can be allowed to testify. The actual questioning when you know he will lie is different by jurisdiction. Mine basically says you ask to non-perjured questions and then say "is there anything else you want to say?" (The prosecution is not supposed to object to this question) Lykourgos posted:
Please also be aware that thinking your client is guilty or committing perjury is not knowing those things. If an attorney knows his client to be guilty and this will negatively impact his ability to handle the case, he should withdraw. However, he does not need to withdraw even if he knows his client to be guilty. Honestly, if you have these biases against defense attorneys, you should seriously consider civil law. nm fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Jul 30, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 17:24
|
|
|
nm posted:Are we trolling the law school thread? Ah, like upper class lawyers, a kind of cream of the crop? I suppose we could make a deal; def attys can continue to say not guilty, but they need to bear a mark on their clothing, or maybe have perpetually shifty eyes, to indicate that they play fast and loose with the truth. quote:An attorney cannot suborn perjury. If you know a witness will lie, you should not call him. However, it is different if the defendant wishes to testify. The defendant, once again, has a constitutional right. He can be allowed to testify. The actual questioning when you know he will lie is different by jurisdiction. Mine basically says you ask to non-perjured questions and then say "is there anything else you want to say?" (The prosecution is not supposed to object to this question) I'm well aware of that difference, that's the point; if the client says he's not guilty, or does anything short of saying he's guilty and exhibiting enough to show that he really is guilty, then you're fine. But otherwise, step down, or at least disclose the reality while you perform your defense. quote:If an attorney knows his client to be guilty and this will negatively impact his ability to handle the case, he should withdraw. However, he does not need to withdraw even if he knows his client to be guilty. Honestly, if you have these biases against defense attorneys, you should seriously consider civil law. Defence attorneys might be fine, I'm sure there's some good ones, but they are required to lower themselves to the level of their client, and create appeals and arguments that have no place existing. Civil attorneys are similarly afflicted. nm posted:Please also be aware that thinking your client is guilty or committing perjury is not knowing those things. Also be aware that if you read the last number of posts, you'd know that that has always been stated openly in this discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 17:30
|
|
|
nm posted:Honestly, if you have these biases against defense attorneys, you should seriously consider civil law. Nah, this super cool dude is (wants to?) working for a Prosecutor's office somewhere. He's just trying to take out the opposition through a very backwards and inefficient way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 17:30
|
|
|
Vander posted:Nah, this super cool dude is (wants to?) working for a Prosecutor's office somewhere. He's just trying to take out the opposition through a very backwards and inefficient way. welcome to the lawgoons thread
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 17:33
|
|
|
Lykourgos, are you trying to argue that the defense attorney, if he knows his client is guilty, has a moral duty to inform the court that his client is guilty, or are you trying to argue that he legally must do so (or at the very least withdraw from the case)? You know what the answer is in the latter case, and the former is subject to debate. It would save a whole lot of time if you made your argument clear.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 17:33
|
|
|
Dr. Mantis Toboggan posted:Lykourgos, are you trying to argue that the defense attorney, if he knows his client is guilty, has a moral duty to inform the court that his client is guilty, or are you trying to argue that he legally must do so (or at the very least withdraw from the case)? former, heh
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 17:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:40 |
|
|
"Know" is a really tough word in legal ethics. When exactly do you "know" something, rather than suspect it, or have a pretty good idea? Even if someone says "I did it," does that mean you know he did it? How do you know he's not lying? MRPC 1.0(f) showcases how hard the word "know" is to define: MRPC 1.0(f) posted:(f) "Knowingly," "known," or "knows" denotes actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person's knowledge may be inferred from circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 17:46
|
|
