Quote:
Originally Posted by Barb
I'm sure there are bad experiences to be had in any profession. The tragedy of bad experiences in the legal profession is that sometimes it is a life or death situation.
That being said, I have a few questions...
In layman's terms, what is due process?!
What are the rules of conduct ensuring that due process has been achieved?!
Can an attorney refuse to represent someone whom they know or believe to be guilty...let's say a rapist is caught in the act or a man is arrested with the bloody knife in his hand and the dead man at his feet?!
|
Sorry was gone most of afternoon. Was actually doing some babysitting for a good friend.
Renda gave a good answer due process is making sure a person has had all possible legal and procedural defenses made available to them.
On the other hand as Baron pointed out a detailed discussion would actually entail volumes of discussion.
The two main divisions are substantive due process and procedural due process.
It is the latter which gives most laymen the most pause.
Things like Miranda warnings, timely filing of motions etc.
The first time I realized just how “technical” law could be was my first mock court trial in law school. The case involved a 40 year old who had consensual sex with a 14 year old. The problem was heavily schewed in favor of the state. However, when she finished I moved for and got a directed verdict resulting in acquittal. One element the state had to prove beyond reasonable doubt was she was not his spouse. She never asked before resting the case.
Yes the law is that technical, but I don’t think justice can be done any other way. Start leaving out procedures and elements to be proven and soon you may as well have the state just decide who they want to throw in jail and for how long.
Interestingly enough the “duties” of the defense attorney and prosecutor are different. The defense attorney is to make their knowledge of the law and procedure available to the defendant and to aid the defense in any manner necessary without violating any of the rules of conduct.
Personally, I cannot recall ever asking a single client if they were guilty. I explained to them what the state’s evidence was, asked them what happened, transmitted plea offers if any, explained the options and their consequences, and then asked the client what they wanted to do.
On the other hand the prosecutor alone has additionally sworn to see that justice is done. They are duty bound to reveal exculpatory evidence etc., sometimes they forget that in a win at all cost mentality.
Threaded Mode
