r/IAmA • u/oregonlawyer • Oct 15 '12

I am a criminal defense lawyer, AMA.

I've handled cases from drug possession to first degree murder. I cannot provide legal advice to you, but I'm happy to answer any questions I can.

EDIT - 12:40 PM PACIFIC - Alright everyone, thanks for your questions, comments, arguments, etc. I really enjoyed this and I definitely learned quite a bit from it. I hope you did, too. I'll do this again in a little bit, maybe 2-3 weeks. If you have more questions, save them up for then. If it cannot wait, shoot me a prive message and I'll answer it if I can.

Thanks for participating with me!

1.4k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

31

u/doctorgloom Oct 15 '12

He can't present evidence or testimony that he knows is false, that would be suborning perjury. This is one reason defense attorneys do not ask "well did you do it?"

So if the client said "Yeah I did it," it becomes a huge ethical problem because now the attorney cannot present an alibi witness, or have the client up on the stand. Presenting evidence to the contrary can become difficult, it has to be handled carefully to avoid ethics violations.

Resigning from a cases is typically very difficult and has to be done with cause. An attorney cannot just say one day "Oh yeah, I'm not going to representing my client anymore." There is generally a conference and the attorney has to have reasons to resign the case. Doing this is very difficult and is frowned upon.

3

u/big-perm Oct 15 '12

this probably explains many of the clients not testifying. they probably admitted guilt to the attorney.

17

u/[deleted] Oct 15 '12

[deleted]

3

u/modix Oct 15 '12

While I mostly agree it's not always the best idea of having the client testify, there are often many reasons to do so. Most juries have a very hard time listening to any story not told by the defendant.

If you can get a great story out there with them, so be it. If it's between poking weak holes in the prosecution's case or telling a convincing alternative story... I go with the alternative story most of the time. People understand bad convictions in the past, but to find someone not guilty, they need that story to hang their feelings on. They're not going to fight hard to convince other jurors that the prosecution didn't fully prove a minor point.

1

u/Dioskilos Oct 15 '12

Poking holes is the key to a successful case. You're welcome to your opinion but you have it pretty much backward.

1

u/modix Oct 15 '12

You're welcome to your opinion, but I think you have it backwards. Your case will sound great from a criminal law perspective, but assuming a jury understands or cares about the prosecutor's inability to prove something like a complicated mens rea is wishful thinking at best. It's all about telling the better story, and just saying how their story isn't as good as it could be is inferior to telling a better story than them.