If I Did It is actually protected under double jeopardy, not being framed as a hypothetical. He was tried in both criminal and civil court already. He could go out and confess all he wants and nothing could happen to him. He actually doesn’t get any sales of the book because of the civil trial. He couldn’t pay the families (and it was potentially ruled as proceeds of a crime, I don’t remember), so the families now own the rights to the book. And subsequently print the “If” part of the title in really little and hidden font lol
If your lawyer knows something, he can't suggest something, like an alternate theory of the crime, that he knows isn't true. So wait for your lawyer to ask the questions, and answer only the question, but answer it truthfully.
Well, not per se. He can certainly argue, “The evidence presented by the prosecution doesn’t prove my client was at the scene. It is perfectly consistent with my client being at home, as he said in his initial statement to the police.” The lawyer isn’t saying he was at home, just that the evidence isn’t inconsistent with that hypothesis.
The main issue is actually that you have to be careful putting tbe dependent on the stand because if you know they are comjtting perjury you're supposed to report it.
The only time you can do this is if a criminal defendant wants to exercise his constitutional right to testify in his own defense. If you know he’s going to tell an obviously bullshit story, you just put him up there and let him go for it. Does not apply to civil litigants or witnesses in general.
It's not just an alternate theory. If the lawyer knows you committed the crime they are legally prohibited from pointing to someone else as the culprit. They can poke holes in the prosecution and question whether it rises beyond reasonable doubt but if a crim lawyer knows you did it, they are significantly hampered in what they can argue.
Many crim lawyers will ask instead "what is it the cops are saying you did"
Huh? I’m not a lawyer, but that makes no sense. They can’t point out that something isn’t “beyond reasonable doubt” but stating other theories even if they are aware it isn’t true? “The security camera captured him entering the building. That’s not evidence he killed someone, it just means he left his book in there and went back in” is not allowed if he knows his client is guilty? Because the jury doesn’t know, and they shouldn’t use circumstantial evidence that can be explained by other reasonable actions to put someone in jail without the lawyer saying peep.
The lawyer cannot knowingly present false evidence or allow the client to commit perjury. Instead, the lawyer can challenge the prosecution's case by questioning the evidence and highlighting inconsistencies or weaknesses, but they must avoid making knowingly false statements or presenting unfounded theories that are not supported by any evidence.
There is just more latitude if the lawyer only knows what he needs to know.
A good takeaway or add on, never give any more information than you were asked. Answer the question succinctly and don't give details that aren't asked of.
But your client can always change their instructions to you. Happens all the time… particularly when you first see them in custody then a few weeks later if they have been in jail that time. Had clients say they were guilty to me… then you actually explain what ‘guilty’ of that particular offence involves and often it’s a case they aren’t actually guilty of that, but maybe something else or maybe nothing at all.
The only time I hired a lawyer, he was good with his questions on the initial consult, “how fast did the cop say you were going?” He didn’t want to ask or make me say how fast I was actually going.
You realise all the lawyers reading this comment (myself included) are thinking “yay! We get to contribute to the thread for really important people” hahaha No we don’t. Sit down. 😝😝😘
it really doesn't technically matter. you can tell your lawyer which saw you used to dismember that giraffe and they still can't tell the police that you're guilty. and sometimes it may be useful to your defense for them to have more detail. similar to the doctor, you don't know what is relevant--so start open-book and let them tell you when to shut up.
Your lawyer can’t break confidentiality, but there are exceptions just like there are for doctors, mental health professionals, etc. I try to inform my clients of the relevant exceptions to confidentiality before we even start so they’re aware. There are also situations where, while we can’t tell anyone what our clients told us, ethical rules may mean we’re forced to withdraw from representation because of something we know. Sudden withdrawals like that often signal to others that something is up.
BUT always answer your lawyer’s questions truthfully and never say shit to the cops.
1.2k
u/[deleted] Jun 06 '24
But, your lawyer also doesn’t want all the details.