They can defend them, but cannot purport or maintain their clients as innocent. They can try to present mitigating factors or plea bargain to lesser charges (there was some talk that this is what was going to happen with the Rs). However, some defense attorneys, KNOWING their clients are guilty, will lie about it (which is why they would rather not know and won't ask their clients about their guilt). The R lawyers defended the Clintons in the Whitewater scandal. Plenty of lies went down there. Some defense attorneys have raised to to an art.
James Kolar's New Book Will Blow the Lid off the JonBenet Ramsey Investigation
- Thread starter Tricia
- Start date
They can defend them, but cannot purport or maintain their clients as innocent. They can try to present mitigating factors or plea bargain to lesser charges (there was some talk that this is what was going to happen with the Rs). However, some defense attorneys, KNOWING their clients are guilty, will lie about it (which is why they would rather not know and won't ask their clients about their guilt). The R lawyers defended the Clintons in the Whitewater scandal. Plenty of lies went down there. Some defense attorneys have raised to to an art.
No.
If they lie on the stand, and it can be proven they have lied, they can be charged with perjury.
No. The attorney can believe you are guilty and still defend you, and still plead you innocent.
No. I don't know where these ideas come from, but they are not correct. There is no reason at all an attorney cannot defend you even if you tell him you are guilty. It is for the prosecution to prove your guilt. You can walk into a lawyers office and say "I killed my wife. Shot her the head. I'd like you to represent me." They lawyer can take your case and doesn't have to tell the police/prosecutor/court what you told him. He can let you plead Not Guilty to the charge. Attorney client privilege protects confidential communications between a client and an attorney.
Only the client may permit attorney client privilege to be waived.
There is no miscarriage of justice. The burden of proof (of guilt) is entirely on the prosecution.
Maybe it helps to look at the pleas. Basically there are two (there are actually more, but let's not confuse the issue) "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". Pleading guilt will of course end with the client going to jail. Pleading not guilty will end with the client in jail if the prosecutor can prove guilt. If the prosecutor can't convince a jury that the defendant is guilty, the defendant walks, even if he really did the crime, and even if he told his lawyer he did the crime.
No. Not correct. The attorney can believe his client is guilty and still let him plead Not Guilty. There is no need for the attorney to "lie" to the court. It is for the prosecution to prove guilt. If the prosecution can't prove guilt to a jury then the prosecution has failed to make it's case. That's why the findings of the jury are described as "Guilty" and "Not Guilty". It isn't "Guity" or "Innocent". People are not found "Innocent" at trial, they are found "Not Guilty" meaning the prosecution couldn't make it's case.
The attorney does not "know" someone is guilty, guilt is determined (or not) at trail. All the attorney knows is what his client tells him, which is protected by atty/client privilege.
I'm not sure where these ideas are coming from, but they are flat out wrong. An attorney may be told point blank by his client that his client did the crime, and the lawyer may still enter a plea of "Not Guilty".
I have friends and relatives who are lawyers. They all tell me they'd rather know everything possible. They don't want the client to keep anything from them.
Thanks for the info. To be clear though, a defense lawyer can't lie to the judge or jury about something they know you did though. They can try to poke holes in the prosecutions arguments and steer the case in a different direction, but they can't lie and say you didn't do something that you actually did do. Therefore, if the R's told their attorneys that BR killed JBR and they helped stage the crime scene, their attorneys could never lie about those elements. They could only try to poke holes in the prosecution's assertions by positing alternative theories for the evidence.
First, the lawyer isn't going to be testifying, so he can't lie or tell the truth. The jury is supposed to decide based on testimony of witnesses, not on what the lawyers say. The lawyers are involved in the trial process, not in testifying.
Well, yes, in fact they can say you didn't do something, even if you told them you did. But again, the lawyers are not testifying. But there
really no reason why your lawyer can't say to the jury "my client is innocent", even if the client told him otherwise.
If you are determined to believe this to support your theory of the case, there is probably nothing I can say to make you face reality. However, yes, the lawyer may "lie" about those elements, if he wishes, but the lawyer doesn't need to lie. He isn't testifying. And he can't testify against his client, due to Attorney-Client Privilege.
So, the idea that the Rs couldn't tell their attorneys everything that actually went down, just exactly the way it really went down, is just not true.
Did they tell their lawyers everything? Who knows. If they didn't, they are fools. If it was BDI and JR/PR told their lawyers that it was BDI their lawyers not only did not have to tell that to the police/prosecutor/judge/jury, but they are absolutely prohibited from doing so.
You misunderstood me. Of course, a guilty client can plead not guilty even if it is public knowledge they committed the crime. Then it becomes really a sham in a way- getting a guilty person acquitted by trying to get a jury to believe the state has not proven its case. What I meant was that even in cases where the client has admitted guilt to his lawyer, an unscrupulous lawyer will still try to blame someone else or portray his client as innocent.
Your link proves exactly what I was saying. The lawyer won't be testifying. It doesn't matter if he knows the client is guilty, what matters is can the prosecution prove it.
We aren't concerned with whether the Rs lawyer asked them if they were guilty or not. We're concerned with whether the lawyer knows they did all the things they did. If they say they didn't strangle JB and they did, then the lawyer is at a disadvantage in defending them. If they say the did, he can at at least prepare for it. If they don't say, he will need to ask about the garrote, otherwise how will he prepare for that? By the time he asks enough questions he's going to know what happened even if he doesn't ask "Did you kill her?" Of course if BR put the garrotte on her - thus is the actual killer, the Rs lawyer will need to know that to defend the Rs.
For about the thousandth time, people aren't going to take a murder rap to protect their 9 year old who can't be charged.
But by all means, if you want to pretend there is some reason the Rs wouldn't tell their lawyer if it was BDI, then go ahead and believe that.
ziggy
Active Member
Chrishope you are bringing some good information on the duties that attorneys owe to their clients. Also the duty of confidentiality is forever - even if the clients die the attorney must keep confidential all matters related to their case or even consultation.
You all might watch Lincoln Lawyer again if you have - and think about all the ethics quandaries there are. I'm studying for the CA Bar and watched it to get me thinking about the professional responsibility issues there are for the bar questions.
If you haven't seen it - it's a GREAT movie. Loved it.
There are also the ABA Model rules and then each state has either adopted the ABA rules or a version of them. CA has some big distinctions, don't know about Colorado.
I'm still waiting for an answer in this case. So far NO theories have really convinced me but I would tend to be an IDI.
You all might watch Lincoln Lawyer again if you have - and think about all the ethics quandaries there are. I'm studying for the CA Bar and watched it to get me thinking about the professional responsibility issues there are for the bar questions.
If you haven't seen it - it's a GREAT movie. Loved it.
There are also the ABA Model rules and then each state has either adopted the ABA rules or a version of them. CA has some big distinctions, don't know about Colorado.
I'm still waiting for an answer in this case. So far NO theories have really convinced me but I would tend to be an IDI.
The point I am making is not about whether or not the defense knows guilt, I understand that part, the point I am making is that they can't argue something that they know in court to be false. They have to try and inject reasonable doubt into the prosecution's theory, but they can't argue directly that their client didn't do something they know they did.
READ:
ziggy
Active Member
On the topic of this thread - I do not believe, have never believed in the staging. I could not get past the autopsy photos of her hair wound up in the ligature and the deep marks on her neck. Someone strangled her, ruthlessly. Whoever that was is serious ******ed up. The same person also cracked her little precious skull - this was a kill and no staging.
In this day and age when we see how sick some people are and I'm talking about sickos who target kids - this is not so surprising. Intruders have murdered, kidnapped children in their homes before and the note means someone could have been in the house prior. We don't, however, see parents with no mental or drug problems doing such things to their children. Your first reaction is to call 911, not overkill them.
I don't give a fig about a cobweb. I think the R's were lax in locking doors - a false sense of security in Boulder. It wouldn't be the first time people have made that mistake.
I probably won't respond to your posts or replies because I usually try to steer clear of this forum. It's been too many years of anguish and it's an open wound still.
In this day and age when we see how sick some people are and I'm talking about sickos who target kids - this is not so surprising. Intruders have murdered, kidnapped children in their homes before and the note means someone could have been in the house prior. We don't, however, see parents with no mental or drug problems doing such things to their children. Your first reaction is to call 911, not overkill them.
I don't give a fig about a cobweb. I think the R's were lax in locking doors - a false sense of security in Boulder. It wouldn't be the first time people have made that mistake.
I probably won't respond to your posts or replies because I usually try to steer clear of this forum. It's been too many years of anguish and it's an open wound still.
As I've repeatedly said, the lawyer will not be testifying. There is no issue with him lying. Hopefully the lawyer had something more in mind than standing up and saying "My client didn't do it". He's going to put on witnesses who may in effect say the client didn't do it. He can do this. It is not the lawyers job to decide what the facts are. He's going to try to discredit the prosecution witnesses. That's his duty.
He will be injecting reasonable doubt whether he know his client is guilty, don't know for sure, or think he's innocent. To do less is to fail to give zealous representation.
So I'll ask, on what basis do you think the Rs lawyers would not want to know if BDI? The lawyer cannot tell anyone else what his client told him in confidence. The lawyer cannot prepare a good defense w/o knowing as much as possible. If BDI the lawyer won't be lying if he says his client didn't do it - not that the lawyer will be testifying anyway.
Does the lawyer want to know if JR put the garrotte on? Sure, because how else can he prepare for the questions that will come up? If the Rs don't tell their lawyer everything they are being very foolish. How will the lawyer defend against something he is unaware of?
So, let's take one example - JR put the garrotte on JB and strangled her (we're supposing, for the moment) The lawyer can't say to the jury "My client did not put the garrotte on JB's neck", but he wasn't going to do that anyway. He is not going to testify. He is going to ask whether JR ever learned to make a garrotte while in the Navy (but he's not going to ask if the answer is yes) He's going to try to discredit the prosecution expert who testifies about ropes and knots. He's going to do everything he possibly can to make the jury disbelieve that JR could have made and applied the garrotte, even though JR told him that he made and applied the garrotte, and the lawyer will not be lying, because he is not testifying. So why would the lawyer not want to know if JR really applied the garrotte? The obvious answer is that the lawyer would want to know because then he can anticipate what the prosecution is going to do.
Why couldn't one person have cracked the skull and another applied the garrotte?
Well certainly that would play well to a jury. But we do in fact see parents doing things to their children, and there are not always warning signs, or they are not always noticeable to people outside the family circle.
Don't you think you should give a fig about a cobweb? Since it makes it very unlikely someone came in that window?
If the Ramseys were lax in locking doors, why did JR tell the police all the doors and windows were locked?
We can always use more perspective.
Nom de plume
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2011
- Messages
- 730
- Reaction score
- 24
BBM Good point! JR went out of his way that morning to convince LE there was no way someone got in the house. He said that he broke the window the summer before, and that all doors and windows were locked, that he'd checked on them the night before.
I've never understood why he did that. It's almost like he was pointing to the family by claiming no one else could have gotten in.
gramcracker
Indentured Cat Servant
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2010
- Messages
- 1,693
- Reaction score
- 100
maybe he hadn't been thoroughly counseled at that point
IMO he did it for this reason - the broken pane of glass makes the window look like an entry point. It would seem to require further investigation. Further investigation reveals that the grate over the window well is still in place (why would an intruder who left via the window turn around and replace the grate?) and there was a spider web attached in part to the window and in part to the grate. (How could the web be intact if an intruder came in/out that way?)
The broken pane made it look like a staged entry point. A badly staged entry point. Or perhaps an incompletely staged entry point. Put a badly/incompletely staged window together with an obviously fishy RN, then hours later add in a dead body, and you've got a murder committed by a family member who cooked up a phoney kidnap scenario to cover up the murder.
If JR and/or PR were trying to blame JBs death on kidnappers, why not point to the window as the place where kidnappers came in/got out? It would be perfect, except that the grate and web make it unbelievable.
Months later of course, the story changes. JR couldn't take back the claim that he had broken the glass, but he claimed he'd been down the basement early in the morning and saw it open about an inch. Of course this slipped his mind, and he forgot to mention it on the morning of the 911 call, despite having a conversation with the police about the security of the windows and doors.
He would also "remember" finding the suitcase oddly positioned under the window, and thinking that it doesn't belong there. This too slipped his mind on the morning of the 911 call, despite a conversation with the police about windows and doors.
In subsequent interviews, he could not recall if the window had been repaired after he broke into the house when he forgot his key. So, on the morning of the 26th it's clear the "intruder" didn't break the window, JR did, by his own admission. But later when he and LS are pushing the intruder through the window theory he isn't sure if the window was ever fixed or not, so now it's not certain if the window was broken because JR did it back during his summer break in, or if it's broken yet again, by the "intruder".
If we couple JR's faulty memory, with a couple fresh glass fragments in the basement (One of which FW picked up and placed on the suitcase) and LHPs claim that she (as housekeeper) doesn't remember cleaning up any glass, we can be pretty sure the window wasn't broken that past summer.
On the morning of the 26th JR didn't expect anyone to believe an intruder had come through that window. Yet he had broken glass, a fake RN, and within a few hours he knew there would be a dead body. It would look like he was in the process of staging a break in. IMO, that is exactly the case. He was staging a break in (after all the kidnappers had to get in some way) but had not completed all the details.
If he and PR were working together of course he finishes the window staging, then, and not before, PR calls 911.
He wasn't pointing to the family, he was desperately trying not to have the police recognize an incompletely staged entry point for the fictitious kidnappers.
My thinking was that JR, from the first, had planned to put the blame on an "insider"- someone with access to the house ( a key) and intimate knowledge about the family. This "insider" would be presumed to be familiar to JB, and the family's vacation plans, habits, etc.
The first word JR uttered upon bringing up the dead body of his little girl were "This is an inside job". No tears, no anguished cries. I feel he meant to implicate LHP from the beginning. She was the perfect "patsy". (no pun intended). She had a key, was familiar with the house, knew the family intimately. JB was comfortable with her.
She was uneducated and did not have the financial resources to fight back.
Fortunately for her, there was absolutely nothing to link her to the crime.
The first word JR uttered upon bringing up the dead body of his little girl were "This is an inside job". No tears, no anguished cries. I feel he meant to implicate LHP from the beginning. She was the perfect "patsy". (no pun intended). She had a key, was familiar with the house, knew the family intimately. JB was comfortable with her.
She was uneducated and did not have the financial resources to fight back.
Fortunately for her, there was absolutely nothing to link her to the crime.
ziggy
Active Member
Maybe he secured it up before they went to bed and was positive, but at the time did he entertain the possibility the perp have have already been in the house? It's a mad house in most family's Christmas Day. Perhaps the perp entered before they got home - and they had left to go to the White's without securing every door. The note was then written before the murder.
I suppose there could have been two, but one of them would have slipped up by now. I think one perp. Not staging. Crazy hatred.
You know, good friends of ours were murdered in Seattle on Christmas Eve 1985, the same year my Dad died on December 21st. It was quite a bad Christmas.
He came to their door, he was insane, he had read a book about our friend's Father and because of their last name thought they were Jewish and Communists. He killed the man, wife and two little boys.
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/06/us/drifter-is-found-guilty-of-killing-a-seattle-family.html
Crazy people can go into houses and do crazy things and then we try to make sense of it. I think this is one of those cases.
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 88
if crazy hatred is the reason,wouldn't you wanna know who hates you that much and why?it's obvious you probably know or at least had some sort of contact with that person.wouldn't you spend your last dime to find this out?wouldn't you sit down with LE to help them out?if this is the case why such attitude?why the lies?how can you wanna move on just a FEW days after your child was so brutally murdered and you are the real target,the reason?wouldn't you feel angry and guilty?cause I didn't see any anger,nor guilt.