Case Study: Attorney Privilege In Court

501 Words3 Pages
Blocks Attorney client privilege excludes reliable evidence. Had attorney client privileges not been in place the client would never have told the outright truth to his attorney anyway because they would know that whatever they tell their lawyer could be used to incriminate them in the court of law. It is better that the defendant is allowed to communicate with his attorney in private as to be properly represented and thus make the trial just and fair. Truth seeking is vital to prevent convicting the innocent In the case where the defendant is in fact, innocent the trials in both resolutions would have the same result, and thus reach the same conclusion. The only difference is when the defendant is guilty, meaning that this point…show more content…
The reason he was jailed for 26 years for a crime he didn’t commit was because of attorney client privileges. Justice is based off the idea that each person gets their due. Alton Landon was innocent, and did not deserve to lose half his life. Attorney client privileges made this case unfair. Attorney client privilege is unnecessary. The right to a fair trial is a constitutional right, and as such attorney client privilege is a main component of a fair trial. Every person should be allowed to be properly represented as to maintain justice in the criminal justice system. Without attorney client privileges it becomes impossible to be properly represented. Attorney client privilege is a constitutional right Attorney client privileges are a constitutional right Attorney client privilege is not a constitutional right, the right to a fair trial is. The fact that attorney client privilege is a part of the current criminal justice system does not in turn make it fair or a constitutional right. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that attorney client privilege is even necessary. All the parts of a fair trial as described by the constitution can be attained without attorney client
Open Document