In doing so, it is not my purpose to pick on criminal defense attorneys or to suggest that they are venal and prosecutors are virtuous.
To examine that, we must look at our current understanding of the nature of our system. The latter, in turn, influence the stance of the entire bar.
There is a tendency for this to occur, for the gladiatorial concept to be taken outside of the court proceedings. A major segment of the white-collar criminal defense bar spends a great deal of time guiding clients, witnesses and other people on the periphery of investigations, through investigations with the objective, not of meeting the prosecution in a battle to the death in the courtroom, but rather of getting the person through the investigation without having a criminal charge filed.
Professor Uviller created the imaginary case of a lawyer, Sylvia Meade, and a politician, Senator Hardy, who was under indictment for corruption.
In the courtroom, this manifests itself in a number of ways. Hardy stated that the truth was that he needed a vigorous defense outside the courtroom as well as in it.
I will focus on two areas, which I will loosely call legislation and speech on matters of public concern. It is not my purpose to take a position on that amendment. This often features an agreement by the defendant to cooperate with authorities.
After setting out the traditional gladiatorial role of the defense attorneys, he encouraged defense lawyers to do everything possible for their clients within the boundaries of the law. I want to return to that ideal in addressing the particular topic that is before us in this segment of the conference — the role of the lawyer in the criminal justice system.
Although she knew very little about the case, she denounced the prosecution as politically motivated. They often are quite successful in this effort.
Instead of the image of the two gladiators who fight to the death in the courtroom, a more apt image of what actually occurs is two gladiators who march into the arena with their armor and their weapons and then promptly throw down their armor, throw down their weapons, and go off to a little table in the shade and negotiate a deal.
If the profession accepts the proposition that it is permissible to lie in public on behalf of a client for media purposes, then the criminal bar will forfeit any vestige of public respect. The public statements of prosecutors and defense counsel, he says, must be viewed with the greatest skepticism.
Consider, for example, the model rule that governs the disclosure of confidential information obtained from a client in the course of representation. Lawyers who engage in this type of practice have many subtle and highly-developed skills, but those skills cannot be described as gladiatorial.
Throughout, she continues to take strong public positions for her client. In conclusion, I think that the profession should talk about the nature of our criminal justice system and the role of lawyers in more accurate, more measured and more nuance terms.
In court proceedings, this manifests itself in numerous ethical problems, such as instances when either a prosecutor or defense attorney calls a witness whom the lawyer has some reason to believe will or has committed perjury.
So with Alan M. The description of our criminal justice system as purely adversarial, although misleading, does reflect an ingrained way of thinking. The objective of the prosecution in a criminal case is "not that the prosecution shall win the case but that justice shall be done.
Thus, if I were a criminal defense attorney and a client told me that he was planning to kill someone or to bomb an office building or airliner, I would not be under an ethical obligation to disclose that information, although I would be permitted to do so.
The best way, at least the most direct way, of preventing such wrongdoings is by formulating and firmly enforcing sound rules governing the behavior of lawyers in court proceedings.
Meade asked Hardy rather perfunctorily about the truth of the charges against him. Any old kind of death is not sufficient, it has to be imminent death. How does this ideal compare with our current understanding of the role of the lawyer in the criminal justice system?
For one thing, the gladiatorial conception of the role implies to many lawyers an obligation to do everything on behalf of their client within the bounds of the law.Essay of 4 pages for the course Explain the role of lay people and lawyers in crim at undefined (ASSIGNMENT 2) Preview 2 out of 4 pages share via Facebook Twitter Report abuse.
Below is an essay on "Explain the Role of Lay People and Lawyers in Criminal Cases" from Anti Essays, your source for research papers, essays, and term paper examples. The first lawyers that could openly practice were the lawyers in early ancient Rome.
The term ‘lay people’ is used to describe the use of ordinary, non-qualified people in the legal system.
They work of judges will also vary depending on whether is it a criminal or civil case. In criminal cases the judges' role is: To control pre trial matters; To handle bail applications The function of the lawyers is to work with. The Role of the Lawyer in the Criminal Justice System.
Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 2, Issue 3, Winter most criminal cases are resolved, not by a trial in the courtroom arena, but by a negotiated plea agreement.
on the rules that should govern the behavior of the police or prosecutors or defense. P1- Explain the use of the courts in the civil and criminal court hierarchies P2 - Explain the role of the lay people and lawyers in criminal cases.
Criminal Courts and Lay People Lay people are magistrates in the magistrates' court and juries in the crown court.
In both cases, the lay people decide the FACTS .Download