Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
Not to add a THIRD lawyer into this exercise of parsing the statements… but I do see a distinction between saying “the allegation is false” and “I maintain my innocence.” The first goes to the underlying facts (I.e. these facts are untrue) while the second suggests that the accused will either argue that guilt can’t be established to the requisite standard, or that an affirmative defense of some kind is available.
Similarly, denying “criminal wrongdoing” to me is not as strong as denying the allegation itself.
Mind you, I don’t practice in this area so would defer to MBates on whether any of these statements are unusual.
|
“Maintaining innocence” is more than pleading not guilty and saying the Crown can’t prove a case. You don’t plead innocent after all, you plead not guilty. Saying you are innocent means you didn’t do the crime at all. That’s why a criminal lawyer can get into trouble by saying his client is innocent when he knows that he is guilty (and is just relying on burden of proof). Because the lawyer is duty bound not to say false things. Of course, Dube can lie to his lawyers.
Now, in this case innocence just would mean that there was consent. Which Dube is going to maintain was present, and there’s no ethical issue in his lawyer representing that.