defense lawyer

• dui defense lawyer
• dwi defense lawyer
• federal defense lawyer

defense lawyer

defense lawyer questions and answers

Q: What would be the ethical things for a defense lawyer to do in the following situation?
A defense lawyer is defending someone accused of a violent crime such as rape, murder, or assault, and the lawyer knows the client is guilty because the client confessed to him or he has access to evidence that clearly shows the client is guitly. Is it unethical for the lawyer to try to get the client declared "not guilty" so he can walk free unpunished, or is the attorney's ONLY obligation to his client? Or does the attorney have a moral and ethical obligation to society to insure the guilty party is punished? What is the bigger purpose: defending the client or defending society?

A: Look at it this way: If the prosecution doesn't have enough evidence to convict a person, and that person has exercised his right to remain silent when speaking to the police, should the authorities be able to lay a charge with the expectation that the accused will talk to his lawyer, and expect that they'll be able to rely on those statements to the lawyer in court? It completely undermines the right to remain silent and the right to counsel, if your statements to your lawyer are fair game for making out a case against you. That said, such knowledge isn't without a consequence. If an accused confesses to his lawyer, that lawyer's duty to the court prevents him from being able to adduce evidence of things he knows not to be true. Thus, alibi evidence is off the table, evidence that somebody else is the guilty party is off the table...basically, any evidence that the accused is innocent cannot be adduced, because the defence lawyer would be knowingly misleading the court, and thus violating his duty. Still, the lawyer still has a duty to challenge the prosecution's case against the accused. If the prosecution doesn't have the witnesses and/or physical evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the court cannot convict, and it's the defence lawyer's duty to see that the court realizes that it cannot convict. It it's not an admission, but physical evidence in the lawyer's possession, then other obligations kick in. A lawyer can't conceal evidence. (There are some grey areas if he intends to bring it up in court himself, but he can't just take the murder weapon and hide it away.) In Canada, at least, there's a practice trick called the 'brown bagging'. If a defendant brings you the murder weapon and tells you to deal with it (and refuses to take it away himself)...defence counsel can't just bring it to the police himself; it would be easy enough for the police to zero in on the suspect just by watching who he represents in court. Instead, defence counsel should put the object into a paper bag, retain another lawyer (thus invoking privilege with the other lawyer), and have the other lawyer bring the object to the police, telling them only that it might be relevant to some investigation.

Q: Defense Lawyer?
So at school we are pretending to actually be in court. I have to be a lawyer and I have to research the basic rules and things about being a lawyer. I need to know when to object and when not to. I have no clue about anything! Please help! >___<

A: Ok, there is a rule about "objecting" that is often difficult to learn. One should only object when what the other guy is doing is hurting your case. One of the most common objections is an objection to a leading objection. A leading question is one that suggests the answer such as "The light was green, wasn't it?" or "isn't it true the light was green." These types of questions are ones you can ask on cross-examination (questioning witnesses called by your opponent) but cannot ask on direct (questioning your own witnesses). If your opponent starts asking these kinds of questions when he is questioning his own witness, you can object by saying "Objection your honor, leading." Another common objection is relevancy. Relevant questions are those that are pertinent to the issue. So if, for example, the case is a criminal case and the defendant is being charged with burglary, a relevant question to ask the eye witness would be "Were you wearing your glasses that evening:?" or "Describe the lighting near the front door where you observed the man with the crowbar in his hand." These are relevant questions because the ability to see the person who committed the crime is pertinent to the issue of whether the defendant is guilty or not. However a irrelevant question is one that has nothing to do with the case. For instance, take the same eye witness, an irrelevant question would be " Now, Mrs. Smith, isn't it true you have been married eight times." The fact that she has been married 8 times is not relevant to whether she was able to see the person who committed the burglary. Relevancy is a bit tricky because evidence of a person's bias, motive to lie, etc is always relevant. However, if a question is not pertinent in any way to the case, one can object by saying "Objection, your honor, irrelevant." Finally, you can object if your opponent is badgering the witness or being argumentative. The purpose of questioning the witness is not to argue the case. So if your opponent keep asking the same question even though the witness is answering each question or starts raising his voice while questioning a witness because he does not like what the witness is saying, you can object "Objection, argumentative" or "Objection, counsel is badgering the witness." Good luck!

Q: What course would I need to undertake to become a Defense Lawyer?
I realise it would be at a University. Is there a specific course to become a 'Defense' lawyer, or would it be a general legal studies course where I choose my units type thing. Lol anyone know?

A: A lot of answers so far seem to focus on the US. If you're in the UK, however (wouldn't it be useful if the site showed where people are?!) then the following will apply: First you need a law degree. You should make sure it includes the core modules decreed by the Law Society as necessary to qualify as a solicitor or barrister. You then need to decide whether you would want to be a solicitor, who, typically, provides initial advice to people and represents them in the lower (magistrates) courts, or a barrister who tends to specialise in more specific areas and represents people in the Crown and higher courts (I'm guessing this is what you're thinking of) To become a barrister is a long and, often, very expensive process. You need, after graduating, to gain a 'pupilage' at an established chambers (practice). Competition for these is very stiff indeed. Many barristers (and defence solicitors) start out working for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). It's a steady income and considered to be excellent training for moving over to defence work

Q: How can I find information on a defense lawyer?
I need help on finding out what a defense lawyer is.

A: A defense lawyer is the lawyer who represents the accused (the "defendant") in a criminal prosecution. He may be hired directly by the defendant himself, or appointed by the State if the accused can't afford his own. (A Public Defender) Richard

Q: How do I find out if a defense lawyer's actions were inappropriate in court?
I attended Wolverhampton Crown Court and during the trial the defense lawyer showed the court a photograph of my erect penis. The trial was about indiecent assault on 6 sufferers of Hypospadias, myself being one of them.

A: If you think his showing the photo was unnecessary and/or gratuitous, then you can file a complaint with the Law Society. They are legally responsible for lawyer discipline. A defense lawyer, though, has wide discretion in what he uses in trial. If he showed the photo to the jury in order to argue that there was a legitimate medical reason for what the defendant did, then he's unlikely to be disciplined for it. Richard

Q: Can you be both a prosecuting and defense lawyer?
I want to be a lawyer but i dont know if you have to choose whether to be a defense attorney or a prosecuting attorney.

A: Well, not at the same time, but certainly successively over a career you can be both.

Q: What is the name of the final speech a defense lawyer gives?
I'm writing a paper and I'd like the term of the final speech a defense lawyer gives right before the jury goes into their room to make the decision. THANKS!!! AWESOME! GOT IT! THANKS YOU THREE. =-))) QUESTION HAS BEEN ANSWERED-

A: A closing argument or a summation.

Q: is it better to be a defense lawyer or prosecution lawyer?
I'm training to be a lawyer and I can't decide if I want to be the defense or the prosecution. I want to know which pays better.

A: If you are deciding based on which pays better, my suggestion would be to go into corporate law.

Q: How do I cross examine the "insurance company" for the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire court case as defense lawyer?
I'm a defense lawyer for Blanck and Harris for a mock trial in my history class for the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire case. The only details on the insurance company that I can find are that Blanck and Harris had a history of setting their buildings on fire to collect insurance money. So how can I possibly cross examine the insurance company to win for Blanck and Harris' side??

A: Get creative. Learn all the facts of the case and read any deposition material or other statements they may have made. Then, at the mock trial, if they haven't prepared properly, you'll be able to pick them apart based on prior testimony. That's what cross-examination really is. It's the opportunity to embarrass them and crush their credibility in front of the judge or jury. So, learn the facts and learn all the prior testimony and statements (including ones to the Fire Dept's, Police, internal, etc.). You'll also be able to ask them about other possibilities. "Did the police or your investigators look at anyone else?" "Couldn't x,y or z also have caused this fire" (since it's a mock trial you should be able to ask those- I don't imagine there will be any expert witnesses there). It's not an easy process, but spend the time. You'll have fun!

Q: Does anyone know a good, but cheap, defense lawyer in Atlanta?
I need a good defense lawyer for a more complicated felony case, but don't have a lot of money.

A: You're going to get what you pay for with attorneys. Good ones don't work cheap.

Q: Is Mr. Jaggers from Great Expectations a defense lawyer or a criminal attorney??
I don't know... I kinda think he is a defense lawyer but i read somewhere that he is an attorney... which is he and how do you know?? Thanks a billion!! :)

A: Mr Jaggers is a solicitor. In the UK, lawyers are either solicitors or barristers. The job of a solicitor is to represent and advise his client. A barrister is retained by a solicitor on behalf of his client to plead his case in court, or to give a legal opinion. Barristers are the ones who wear wigs and gowns in court and make speeches.

Q: Can you become a defense lawyer after a felony conviction?
Early child abuse left me severely misdirected in my youth. On the wrong path I was convicted of assault & served 7 yr. in the clink. I turned my life around somewhat while behind the wall. But not before an incident where I had to stab a rival inmate in self defense. One yr. pryor to my set release, I was charged with the assault which carries a maximum of 10 yr. Unable to afford a lawyer & untrusting of the system, I hit the law library & studied 24/7 & chose to represent myself in court. It was a longshot which paid off. I was aquitted by reason of self defense. Now Ive been free for 2 years. Im taking several college courses & was wondering about entering the legal field. I thought this would be as good a place as any to get some insight & advice on this matter while maintaining anonymity of my horrific past.

A: Every State has different rules for admission to their respective bar, so I do not agree with a blanket statement that you can't become an attorney after a felony conviction is necessarily true. In New Mexico, one requirement for admission is to be: a person of good moral character, physically and mentally fit to practice law. There are a number of factors considered, and a number of mitigating factors looked at as well. See http://www.nmexam.org/rules/rules103.htm. Nowhere do the rules of admission to the NM Bar explicitly state that a felony conviction is an automatic disqualification. What they do say is: A person who has been convicted of a serious crime as defined under these rules shall prove good moral character by demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant is rehabilitated and satisfies all other requirements for good moral character. I personally know of attorneys who had criminal convictions prior to going to law school & they were admitted to the N.M. Bar. I suggest checking the rules of admission for the various state bars of the states that you might want to live & review the requirements. It would probably be an uphill battle, but not impossible. The first hurdle, though, is getting admitted to law school, which will usually require you to have an undergraduate degree & a high score on the LSAT test. The better the grades you get, & the better you do to put your past behind you, I would think the better your chances are. Good luck.

Q: If you were the defense lawyer for Hitler?
If Hitler didn't commit suicide and was arrested by the Red guard troops in 1945 and put to trial in 1946 in Nuremburg, with you being his defense lawyer, how would you argue his case so he be found not guilty and freed? How would you raise a reasonable doubt about his "alleged" war crimes and crimes against humanity?

A: One reason I have had no interest in being a lawyer. But if I was forced to do such a thing, I would go for insanity and try to get hospitalization. I would try to get him committed, recognizing it was a long shot. Otherwise, there was overwhelming evidence, negative public opinion, and to challenge such things would make me, the lawyer, look bad. A long shot would be better than no shot at all.

Q: Wheny your defense lawyer files a motion to dismiss does that wave your right to a speedy trial ?
I got charged with a felony in massachusetts in may 2006 and my lawyer has put up 3 motions to dismiss due to lack of probable cause . The prosecution keeps failing to come up with the info and the judge keeps giving them more time .

A: The above answer is half right. It does not waive your right to a speedy trial. However, what that right is is dependent - in your case - upon state, not federal, law. And your lawyer will not be able to simply get a trial date set. That requires the judge.

Q: Spiritually speaking, what would it be like to be a defense lawyer for someone you knew was guilty?
Have defense lawyers ever gone mad from the knowledge that they were helping guilty criminals get back on the streets?

A: Ask Johnnie Cochrane -- but he won't answer...