Full knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the case can help the defense to sufficiently conduct the case legally and appropriately in the court room (Meyer & Grant, 2003). One of the key concerns of maintaining attorney-client confidentiality is when an attorney has to decide whether to report their client to the court if he or she confesses guilt to a crime. Even though an admission of guilt is made by the client, this information still considered to be privileged. If in the interim other unrelated charges are disclosed, the attorney is not legally responsible for reporting this information. If a defense counsel has cause to believe that his or her client has intensions of breaking the law, is the only instance when the confidentiality requirements change.
The attorney client privilege states that protection is only under the knowledge and communication of the client seeking legal advice in an attempt to secure legal counsel, in confidence, and is made between privileged persons. Attorney client relationships are established and protected under the privilege once a contractual agreement of representation has been agreed upon by both the attorney and the client. The client does have the authority to waive the above said privilege and from that point forward the attorney is not bound by the law to hold the information provided by the client as the client has allowed for such. In conclusion it is important to remember that an attorney cannot adequately represent anyone without knowing the whole truth and gory details behind any given issue. They must have a clear and concise understanding of the facts that may surface later and have a defense against these breaches of information.
He should just withdraw from the case because it’s not ethical to defend someone who is guilty. But if the answer is so obvious, why are there some lawyers out there who defend guilty clients? The majority of them do it because they feel sympathy for their client. An attorney’s job isn’t just to prove the innocence of his client. His job is also to defend.
So the defendant does not have to have the intention to commit an act or have any knowledge of the circumstances that makes an act a criminal offence. The second type of strict liability is a more common type, with this type of strict liability it is at least necessary for the defendant to have intended to commit the act, but the fact that the offence is one of strict liability means that the defendant need have no knowledge of the circumstances that make his act a criminal offence. An example which shows this is in the case of R V Prince (1875) within this case the defendant knew that the girl he took was in the possession of her father however he thought she was aged 18 and did not know that she was only 16. The result was that he was convicted because he had the intention to remove the girl from her father’s possession whether he assumed her age was 18 or something else. With this case we can clearly see that the mens rea was required for part of the actus reus and he had the necessary intentions.
An attorney can reveal information only regarding the crime the defendant is being accused of not any other information about other crimes that they have not been accused of. The attorney is actually obligated to NOT reveal other information that does not pertain to the crime of accusation. If the attorney believes reasonably that their client is intending to commit a crime they are legally obligated to reveal that
Attorney–Client Confidentiality Paper In the Criminal Justice System, there is a law agreement between an attorney and a client. This law agreement is known as an Attorney-Client confidentiality privilege. The privilege prevents any person within the legal system, to obtain any communication from an attorney and their client. The disclosure can affect a court case, and the trust of the client with his or her attorney. Only the client can wave this privilege of confidentiality during a legal matter.
Criminals especially those who are going through court proceedings may not feel comfortable disclosing certain information to someone they know to be a researcher. Typically most researchers are similar to police in characteristics, white and middle class, so acting covertly will most likely increase comfortability between the researcher and criminals, allowing more valid research to be acquired. Similarly judges and police may alter their behaviours if they know the researchers true identity in a bid to disguise any flaws in their practices and unjustified law enforcing. However, Positivists would argue that data collected by covert observations aren’t at all valid, they are biased as they are based off of the observer’s interpretations. This could be especially true in the case of researching court proceedings as it is unlikely many researchers have gone through one themselves.
Honestly in this type of argument it comes down to the better facts rather than opinions and that’s why Cillizza makes the better argument. From both sides of the argument we can see the basic ideas of each authors but now let’s go deeper On the side of privacy. As privacy is an important issue as to the people, we can see that the people believe that if you “watch someone long, and you’ll find something to arrest”. (Paragraph 4). Schneier shows this to prove that doing nothing can lead to trouble with blackmail or abuse with surveillance information.
The accused are innocent until proven guilty and cannot be found guilty unless the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did in fact commit the crime or crimes that he or she is being accused of. The accused have the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney and if they cannot afford it one will be provided for them, they have the right to a trial by jury and the right to confront witnesses against them, and the right to bail bond unless they are charged with murder or the court determines them a flight risk. The accused also have the right against self-incrimination meaning that a person cannot be forced to be a witness against himself. Rule seven of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states that the accused must have a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the facts constituting the offense they are being charged with. The accused have the right to counsel which means that under the sixth amendment the accused has the right to representation by an attorney.
This is known as the principle of stare decisis, which is translated as ‘let the decision stand’. When a court makes a decision in a case, then any courts which are of equal or lower status to that court must follow the previous decision if the case before it is similar to that earlier case. Not all details from preceding cases would be binding, only the ratio decidendi is binding. Ratio decidendi is the principle of law on which the decision is based. On the other hand, obiter dictum is not binding, which is thing said “by the way” and is not strictly necessary for the