Quote:
Originally Posted by 4X4
So, like, a guy could tell his lawyer that he murdered someone, pre-meditated, and the laywer could still come up with some kind of alternative story that makes his client innocent? Like, Johnnie Cochrane? Like, I know you did it, but I'm gonna lie you out of it?
I've never really thought about that. That's... Well... Disturbing. But I guess that's the way it has to be. Huh.
|
The obligation is on the prosecution to prove the charge, if there is no evidence presented to show that it was a pre-meditated murder the lawyer is under no obligation to reveal the statement made to him. In fact, the statement is completely privileged and cannot be compelled even by court order.
Even if you think about Cochrane at the OJ trial, he didn't really argue that OJ was at the golf course that night, he instead pointed out that some of the evidence was insufficient to substantiate the charge.
There's a pretty hazy middle ground with this, so it's hard to state a firm rule.