The discussion about whether the accused tells their lawyer the full truth is interesting.
I expect criminal defence attorneys have a standard spiel they give to their clients before they ask questions, to provide the client the understanding that what the client tells them might have implications for the nature of the defences raised if a trial proceeds.
I'd invite some actual criminal defence attorneys to chime in if they'd like, but as I understand it, an admission from your client as to having actually committed the crime does not prevent you from challenging and testing all of the evidence. However, if you know by admission your client is guilty, you as lawyer are prohibited from suggesting someone else did the crime. And that seems appropriate to me. The defence lawyer is not there to do injustice, but rather to hold the Crown to high standards for conviction.
A lawyer can not mislead the court, nor can they counsel an offense. Consider this in light of the criminal charge that can arise from refusal to blow on a breathalyzer. My understanding is that a lawyer can not counsel someone to not blow, because that is in itself an offense-- refusing to blow is legally equivalent to blowing over in many cases. They can however let the detained person know the possible outcomes and effects of blowing (which might provide evidence against you) and then let the accused decide what to do.
|