Ethics question

>>2825119
Legally, yes. (perhaps depending on country)
If you had an defendant who admits to a lawyer (in private) of being guilty of the accussed crime, but says he wants to plead guilty and that the lawyer should cook something, than this is what would happen.

Ethically, a person is not obliged to aid in his own persecution, since a lawyer is defending on behalf of this person, one could argue that the lawyer is also not obliged to aid in the persecution of the person who he defends.

>>2825148
*plead not guilty
I need to go to bed..

>>2825148
At least in the U.S., no, legally you cannot instruct your client or any witness to lie, nor can you yourself put out an argument that is based on incorrect information or legal reasoning that you know is invalid.

If you have a client that admits to committing the crime, and wants to plead not guilty, YOU FUCKING DO NOT PUT HIM ON THE STAND OR EVER LET HIM MAKE ANY SORT OF OFFICIAL STATEMENT. EVER!!!1one!! But actually "Cooking" something crosses beyond the bounds of good legal practice and you'd catch nine shades of hell if you got caught doing it.

t. attorneyfag, although one long since removed from criminal justice days.

>>2825171
I meant "cooking" as in finding an alternative explanation to the evidence given by the prosecution, of course within logic and possibility (but that is more because the prosecution and jugde will see through it otherwise)

Are you telling me that lawyers do not try to bullshit on a regular basis?
>somebody moved the stolen goods to his shed without his knowing, your honor! It's the truth!
Admittedly, most of my knowledge comes from some movies.

>>2825119

Lawyer's don't make statements on oath about what is true or false in court anyway, it is up to them to represent their client.

>>2825199
Well, at least in my (and again, I want to stress both limited and some time ago) experience, what is mostly done is to try to look for procedural errors, mostly on the part of the police, to invalidate evidence that is gathered for reasons of some inadmissibility or other, and then let the case fall apart on its own because hopefully you've knocked out some sort of linchpin.

Making a lame argument like that when it's obviously wrong is generally not done, and if the admissible evidence is that blatant, I would heavily lean on my client to enter a plea, and loose cannon defendants who will override their lawyers ideas as to how to run a case are not something I've ever personally experienced nor is it something I've ever heard of from my colleagues. If it did somehow happen, in all honesty the far more likely outcome is the lawayer-client relationship would break down completely and you'd probably see the guy ditching his counsel who keeps nagging him to enter a plea.

>>2825249
So RL is not like the movies?
Damn, Hollywood lied to me. It must be tiresome being a cop and knowing and honoring every procedure, or all the evidence you worked for is mute.

>>2825284
Fuck cops. You just act like a faggot ass thug, walking around with a badge and gun. You make an upper-middle class income with a fucking 2 years associate from a bullshit school, which doesn't matter at all because all you do is strongarm people and tell them to "shut the fuck up, nigger" and make up bullshit charges so you can get brownie points for promotion.

>>2825119
>OP literally states that's this is an ethics question
>everyone confirming that this is indeed legal
Way to fucking go, &Humanities

>>2825331

OP should've used morally or ethically then,
and not let his question be cryptic.
The other anons just answered his question

It's stupid semantics but hey
>&Humanitites
Am I Right ?

>>2825119
Hope so because they do it all day, every day, in every criminal court.

>>2825284
Well, often the cops don't honor the procedures, and don't even pretend to. My very last criminal case went pretty much the following.

>Guy gets pulled over
>This isn't a stop and search, they have a warrant and are looking for his license plates
>After searching the car, they find a hidden compartment built into the passenger side door that has half a million dollars in cash which have heavy traces of heroin on them.
>Client, by the way, is supposedly a 25 year old mechanic, so yeah, I'm sure he got that money honestly
>Get retained.
>Look into this warrant
>Warrant claims that the reason they had probable cause to support the warrant in the first place was that they got a different judge to approve wiretapping on the client, which told them about his drug dealing.
>Go looking for this supposed wiretapping approval.
>Turns out that they only got the wiretapping approval a week after they got the warrant and 2 days after the arrest.
>Get the whole thing thrown out.
>Put drug dealer back on the streets.

This wasn't some little, "oh I forgot section 5325(a)(1)(h) of something obscure". This was blatantly lying to a judge about the information you have to get a bullshit warrant.

In a less serious and more humorous vein, I also have a story about a bunch of dumbass cops seizing someone's fireworks and then shooting them all off after radioing in that they had them, which got another client off of a misdemeanor.

>>2825384

Cop here, it must suck to live in America, we all think your police are unethical, unprofessional cunts.

>>2825309
They get paid more than their diploma would allow, since they risk their lives and all.
>>2825384
Do you feel ethical concerns, letting the drug dealer go free? I mean, the state has to be kept in check and must follow its own laws, but still.

>>2825119
Shot answer: no.

Longer answer: a defense attorney should never give out any information that his client shares with him in private, even if that information is vital to the case or an admission of guilt without the client's consent. It would, however, be highly unethical after the fact to do anything other than try to convince the client to plead guilty and try to minimize the punishment as much as possible, and -- in the event that the client refuses -- resign as his defense attorney.