Re: Anti-Semitism in the Neo-Confederate movement.


<moshes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2005Dec26.151401@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kimmel@xxxxxxx> writes:
> > <moshes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kimmel@xxxxxxx> writes:
> >> >
> >> > One does one's best to ensure that the truth will prevail,
> >>
> >> Is that true? If a lawyer knows somethjing is not true, will he
> >> refrain from using it if it will clear his client? I wonder.
> >
> > If a lawyer enters evidence or introduces testimony that he knows
> > to be false he can be disbarred and face further charges.
>
> I should hope so. But my question was whether the fact that it was
> not true would be enough to cuase the lawyer not to use it.

Yes. While there are unscrupulous lawyers (just as their unscrupulous
rabbis, teachers, police officers, etc.) it is part of the legal culture
that a lawyer is an "officer of the court" and that he/she has an obligation
not to betray that responsibility with false evidence.

Being disbarred means not being allowed to practice law again. It's the
profession's versio of banishment, a strong penalty and deterrent.


>
> > Since you've phrased it as a question for defense attorneys, the
> > lawyer can raise doubts about the prosecution's case even if he
> > personally has no such doubts, but he can NOT introduce evidence
> > he knows to be false.
> >
> >> > but there are no guarantees. Even the Sanhedrin acknowledged that.
> >>
> >> But the Sanhedrin didn't have lawyers.
> >
> > The Sanhedrin had rabbis who acted as lawyers and judges together.
>
> Exactly. So they didn't have a "client" that they were serving. They
> were _only_ interested in truth and justice.

So the modern justice system is actually an improvement on the Sanhedrin
model since it provides a check on the power of the judges by having someone
knowledgeable serving as an advocate for each of the parties' interests.

Please don't fall for the nonsense that lawyers are all sharks willing to do
anything to win a case. I'm willing to bet if -- heaven forbid -- you were
to be accused of a crime, you would insist on having the best legal
representation you could get.

It's interesting that sometimes, say in a contentious custody case, the
court will appoint counsel to look out for the interests of people directly
affected by the case who are not parties to it (i.e., the children
involved).



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: DNA Test All Newborns
    ... expected that evidence that was obtained illegally would be ... still discuss this with his own lawyer. ... I always thought of legal atmosphere as rather combative and hostile. ... to generate a legal case and avoid being assessed unfair child support. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Real Scholarship
    ... evidence by using colorful words. ... The video was recorded by David Fasold. ... is that you can see the pattern form through the beeps that are made ... Lawyer: And you rejected them because it was forbidden by the Bible? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Question about software that will send a return receipt.
    ... so when you send these people evidence via email ... in court they say well we never got said evidence, ... send a flag to a server saying it was opened/accessed, ... lawyer testifies in court there was no "service via email" and you ...
    (alt.2600)
  • Re: Max was told about the fix last year...
    ... I'd also be wary right now of taking this report as the truth, ... Well unless somebody comes forward with some evidence they're ... Lawyer: You have summonsed my client here to deal with allegations ...
    (rec.autos.sport.f1)
  • Re: DNA Test All Newborns
    ... >expected that evidence that was obtained illegally would be>inadmissible. ... still discuss this with his own lawyer. ... and he can push for a court ordered DNA ... to generate a legal case and avoid being assessed unfair child support. ...
    (soc.men)
Loading