Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/15/2005 8:18:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/15/2005 9:46:03 PM EDT by AR15fan]
Defense attornies routinely lie during their opening remarks. Presenting false claims to the jury they know to be bullshit.

During direct and cross examination they insert more lies, usually in the form of a question starting with "Isn't it true..." or "would it be accurate to say...?"

Should courts allow this type of conduct? Shouldnt the defense have the same obligation to tell the truth that the victims and witnessess do?
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 8:19:29 PM EDT
Can you stop them?


Can a Zebra shed it's stripes?
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 8:21:02 PM EDT
no


if they say something at the beginning that later in the case is proven to be a lie, and it can be proved they knew it was a lie, they should be fucked

and not just for the defense either

Link Posted: 8/15/2005 8:22:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/15/2005 8:22:22 PM EDT by Max_Mike]
Lawyers are not “allowed” to lie now; a lawyer can be sanctioned for knowingly putting on a defense he knows to be false.

Of course this is ignored.
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 8:22:05 PM EDT
If they didn't lie they would be out of work.
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 8:22:16 PM EDT
Well, cops are allowed to lie aren't they?

Why not the lawyers?

SGat1r5
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 8:22:54 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 8:23:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
Well, cops are allowed to lie aren't they?

Why not the lawyers?

SGat1r5



Cops are not allowed to lie in court.
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 8:24:22 PM EDT
I though both defence lawyers AND prosecutors were allowed to lie in their opening and closing remarks.
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 8:24:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Lawyers are not “allowed” to lie now; a lawyer can be sanctioned for knowingly putting on a defense he knows to be false.



That's why some claim they never ask their clients if they are guilty or not. They should be required to ask that question, and give the best legal advise possible while keeping the truth the highest priority.

Link Posted: 8/15/2005 8:25:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
Well, cops are allowed to lie aren't they?


Nope. The cops like all the other witnessess are sworn in and testify under oath. Only the defense is allowed to present false theories and such that they know are false.
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 8:25:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
Well, cops are allowed to lie aren't they?

Why not the lawyers?

SGat1r5



Cops are not allowed to lie in court.



But they lie all the time on the street, which is their workplace.

A court is a lawyers workplace.

No differance IMHO.

Sgat1r5
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 8:26:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
Well, cops are allowed to lie aren't they?


Nope. The cops like all the other witnessess are sworn in and testify under oath. Only the defense is allowed to present false theories and such that they know are false.



On the STREETS!

Sgatr15
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 8:33:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/15/2005 8:34:38 PM EDT by SgtWhiting]

Originally Posted By sgtar15:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
Well, cops are allowed to lie aren't they?


Nope. The cops like all the other witnessess are sworn in and testify under oath. Only the defense is allowed to present false theories and such that they know are false.



On the STREETS!

Sgatr15



As far as any cops I know, and I know a lot, they can only lie in an undercover situation (UC) like if the bad guy asks "Are you a cop?" Otherwise, no.

For the uninformed, there is now the Brady Decision involving integrity (lying), and Cops. If a cops is caught lying, the department has to fire them. Period. Otherwise, they must disclose the lie(s) told to the District Attorney, or be sued big time. If you lie and miraclously keep your job, because the Chief or Sheriff likes you and/or is completely incompetent, you (the officer) will never see the inside of a courtroom. The D.A. will never file any case you ever have for the next 7 years, at least. Might as well be a jailer, or dispatcher for your remaining years and hope like hell you don't arrest anyone.

FWIW
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 8:34:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SgtWhiting:
As far as any cops I know, and I know a lot, they can only lie in an undercover situation (UC) like if the bad guy asks "Are you a cop?" Otherwise, no.
FWIW



That's lying isn't it?


Sgat1r5
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 8:35:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sgtar15:

Originally Posted By SgtWhiting:
As far as any cops I know, and I know a lot, they can only lie in an undercover situation (UC) like if the bad guy asks "Are you a cop?" Otherwise, no.
FWIW



That's lying isn't it?


Sgat1r5



Yes, a necessary evil. To be sure.
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 8:36:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sgtar15:

Originally Posted By SgtWhiting:
As far as any cops I know, and I know a lot, they can only lie in an undercover situation (UC) like if the bad guy asks "Are you a cop?" Otherwise, no.
FWIW



That's lying isn't it?


Sgat1r5



Yes, the police are allowed to use a ruse in certain circumstances, never in court. Thast ruse will be brought up in court too and the jury has that info. They dont know the defense is lying to them though.
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 8:38:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By sgtar15:

Originally Posted By SgtWhiting:
As far as any cops I know, and I know a lot, they can only lie in an undercover situation (UC) like if the bad guy asks "Are you a cop?" Otherwise, no.
FWIW



That's lying isn't it?


Sgat1r5



Yes, the police are allowed to use a ruse in certain circumstances, never in court. Thast ruse will be brought up in court too and the jury has that info. They dont know the defense is lying to them though.



Yes, well put.
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 8:46:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Lawyers are not “allowed” to lie now; a lawyer can be sanctioned for knowingly putting on a defense he knows to be false.



That's why some claim they never ask their clients if they are guilty or not. They should be required to ask that question, and give the best legal advise possible while keeping the truth the highest priority.




Oh yeah, that would of course obligate the defendant to tell the truth to the lawyer, which they would certainly do right?

Defense should be allowed the latitude to probe the state's case for possible alternate senarios, and motivations. They should not be able to present evidence or tesimony they know or reasonably should know to be highly suspect (nor should the state). It is the state's burden to prove that the crime was commited by this individual and that no other explanation is reasonable. To stand up and ball-face lie should not be permitted, but the state's evidence should be able to prove that they have lied if they are meeting the burden.

To just stand up and claim that others have lied should not be permitted without evidence that supports it.

The state should have the same limits on it in my opinion. Jail house testimony, testimony offered in exchange for reductions should be treated as suspect untill it can be verified though seperate means.
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 8:49:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/15/2005 8:50:59 PM EDT by sgtar15]

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Yes, the police are allowed to use a ruse in certain circumstances, never in court.



So now it is just a "ruse" when a cop lies to me?


Is that the official term that you call it?

If a lie is used to put a person in court then a lie should be allowed to defend him.


Otherwise it is a double standard that benefits the prosicution.

Sgatr15
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 8:53:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By sgtar15:

Originally Posted By SgtWhiting:
As far as any cops I know, and I know a lot, they can only lie in an undercover situation (UC) like if the bad guy asks "Are you a cop?" Otherwise, no.
FWIW



That's lying isn't it?


Sgat1r5



Yes, the police are allowed to use a ruse in certain circumstances, never in court. Thast ruse will be brought up in court too and the jury has that info. They dont know the defense is lying to them though.



In Texas the police are allowed to lie in interrogations, it's sanctioned. Lawyers may not lie and they may not put a witness on the stand who they know is lying, it's prohibited. Good defense lawyers do not need to lie to a jury. If they are they shouldn't be trying the case and should be sanctioned.

It seems as though you have a case of the redass from some bad experience.

bd
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 8:54:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Defense attornies routinely lie during their opening remarks. Presenting false claims to the jury they know to be bullshit.

During direct and cross examination they isert more lies, usually in the form of a question starting with "Isn't it true..." or "would it be accurate to say...?"

Should courts allow this type of conduct? Shouldnt the defense have the same obligation to tell the truth that the victims and witnessess do?



Oh, by the way, jury argument is not evidence. If you sat through the entire trial, you'd hear the judge say that repeatedly.

bd
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 8:55:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/15/2005 8:56:21 PM EDT by captainpooby]
The prosecution routinely lies, why shouldnt the defense be able to?

Link Posted: 8/15/2005 8:58:21 PM EDT
A defense attorneys duty is NOT to create alibis for his client, it is to force the State to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt using sound evidence to meet the charges, and to ensure the rule of law regarding their clients' rights. No more. No less.

All attorneys are supposed to be officers of the court first and foremost. ie, their primary goal is to preserve justice and the rule of law. They are NOT supposed to have the "hired gun" mentality so common in the US and Canada these days.

You can know your client is guilty. It's kind of hard not to most of the time. This idea that the attorney shouldn't ask is a joke created to allow them to break the law themselves without feeling like they have disregarded their duty.
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 9:02:51 PM EDT
Lawyers dont LIE, they just don't tell the whole truth! HE
What lawyers just usually do is suppress facts that can be detrimental to their clients case. If these facts do not come out or are not challenged, then TECHNICALLY speaking they have not lied about it.

I know, I know .... "tomayto" - "tomato", "potayto" - "potato" (refering to different pronounciations, but same meaning)..... Little white lies .... half truths = a lie .... But UNFORTUNATELY that's how things are.



Link Posted: 8/15/2005 9:06:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Lawyers are not “allowed” to lie now; a lawyer can be sanctioned for knowingly putting on a defense he knows to be false.



That's why some claim they never ask their clients if they are guilty or not. They should be required to ask that question, and give the best legal advise possible while keeping the truth the highest priority.




The reason they do not ask their clients if they are guilty or not is (1) so he can remain objective while defending the case, and (2) so he has plausible deniability when SHTF and he is asked why he did not disclose a fact ... he can honestly say, he did not know and therefore did not lie.
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 9:24:39 PM EDT
wow, the misconception and misunderstanding of criminal procedure is stupefying.

Witnesses lie all the time in court...defendants, police officers, you name it. The attorneys are the only ones who don't offer testimony...you know, evidence... the stuff that is used by the fact finder to determine guilt.
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 9:37:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Grunteled:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Lawyers are not “allowed” to lie now; a lawyer can be sanctioned for knowingly putting on a defense he knows to be false.



That's why some claim they never ask their clients if they are guilty or not. They should be required to ask that question, and give the best legal advise possible while keeping the truth the highest priority.




Oh yeah, that would of course obligate the defendant to tell the truth to the lawyer, which they would certainly do right?

Defense should be allowed the latitude to probe the state's case for possible alternate senarios, and motivations.



Even when they know those scenarios are fantasy?
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 9:44:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/15/2005 9:45:04 PM EDT by AR15fan]

Originally Posted By legalese77:
wow, the misconception and misunderstanding of criminal procedure is stupefying.

Witnesses lie all the time in court...defendants, police officers, you name it. The attorneys are the only ones who don't offer testimony...you know, evidence... the stuff that is used by the fact finder to determine guilt.



you know as well as i do that many of the questions asked by the defense are simply statements asked in the form of a question that the defense wants the jury to consider later.

"Isnt it true that my client did..."
"Isnt it true that you did..."

Even when its clearly not true. Even when there is video tape showing otherwise. The defense simply wants to get those lies out there to cloud the juries memory of the testimony and video evidence.
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 9:54:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By sgtar15:

Originally Posted By SgtWhiting:
As far as any cops I know, and I know a lot, they can only lie in an undercover situation (UC) like if the bad guy asks "Are you a cop?" Otherwise, no.
FWIW



That's lying isn't it?


Sgat1r5



Yes, the police are allowed to use a ruse in certain circumstances, never in court. Thast ruse will be brought up in court too and the jury has that info. They dont know the defense is lying to them though.





Call a spade a spade. It doesn't make it less of a lie by calling it a ruse.

Roy
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 1:00:39 AM EDT
No and the same should go for the prosocution also .
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 5:28:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/16/2005 5:32:54 AM EDT by Johninaustin]
I just finished a DWI trial. I was called to the stand 7 times and I wasn't even the primary officer.

We had the guy cold. 3 times the legal limit, destroyed 110 feet of guardrail and his Tahoe, admitted ON TAPE to drinking 24 beers in a 6 hour period, and was found by the responding officer trying to start a vehicle that the engine had been torn out of.

The defense attorney was obviously of the "baffle them with bullshit" law school. Turning the map of the accident scene upside down "because it looks better that way", calling witnesses by OTHER witness names, stating the defendant was not driving, (when there was no one else in the car and the driver stated on tape he was alone.) Even accused the intoxilyzer operator of falsifying results because the defendant "rejected her advances". His closing arguments were amazing to hear. It sounded like he mixed three different cases together. Even stated his client was riding a motorcycle at one point.

FOUR DAYS of this nonsense, and the jury was so confused they practically fell out of the jury box.

All that, and some twit female refused to convict because "she didn't believe DWI was a crime deserving of a conviction."
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 7:14:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

All that, and some twit female refused to convict because "she didn't believe DWI was a crime deserving of a conviction."



Well, you ARE in Austin...
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 7:23:43 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 7:28:25 AM EDT
Nobody is "allowed" to lie in court. Does that mean everyone tells the truth? Of course not. Not even cops.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 7:52:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PBIR:
Nobody is "allowed" to lie in court. Does that mean everyone tells the truth? Of course not. Not even cops.



With cops it is so common that it has developed its own term -- see the search for "testilying" above. I heard the term several years ago at a conference of Chiefs of Police. Every one of them knew what it was. No explanations necessary.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 7:56:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TodaysTomSawyer:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

All that, and some twit female refused to convict because "she didn't believe DWI was a crime deserving of a conviction."



Well, you ARE in Austin...



She was a transplant from Michigan.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 8:28:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
you know as well as i do that many of the questions asked by the defense are simply statements asked in the form of a question that the defense wants the jury to consider later.

"Isnt it true that my client did..."
"Isnt it true that you did..."

Even when its clearly not true. Even when there is video tape showing otherwise. The defense simply wants to get those lies out there to cloud the juries memory of the testimony and video evidence.



All a witness has to say is 'no' The defense will lose credibility and the jury/judge will have all the evidence they need to reject the defense theory of the case. *shrug* Seems straightforward enough to me.

I can't imagine why an attorney would ask a question like that when they know a witness will reject the proposition suggested by the question unless they are prepared to impeach the witness. If the witness is impeached, then the truth of the matter is anything but clear and is legitimately challenged.

It sounds like your real beef is with the jury's simplemindedness. If the jury can't sort out defense cross examination from acres of testimony and videotape, the prosecution really loused up the voire dire.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 8:41:29 AM EDT
I've sat on 2 juries in my life...both times we were instructed to not consider opening and closing statements during deliberations.
Granted, it's hard to do...but those statements are NOT evidence.
When push came to shove, I can honestly say that both juries I was a part of were able to seperate the facts from the fiction.
YMMV
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 8:46:01 AM EDT
Do prosecuting or plaintiff's attorneys ever lie? Yes they do. They should also be under oath.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 8:49:22 AM EDT
Not just "No", but "FUCK NO!"

Any lawyer who is found to be lying in court should immediately be taken out back and shot.

I despise lawyers because theirs is the only business where you are PAID to lie and EXPECTED to do so.

And please spare me the ethics bullshit. Ethics in a lawyer is about as prevalent as air on the moon.


I should perhaps mention that the lawyers I despise are personal injury, defense, and those types. Lawyers who assist people with real estate, trusts, etc., as well as prosecuters, are mostly exempt.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 8:53:27 AM EDT
How do you expect a lawyer to make a living?
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 9:31:55 AM EDT
Dennis Miller on lawyers:

(right click - save as)

flymeaway.net/audio/dennis%20miller%20-%20lawyers.mp3

4.2MB mp3 file

Link Posted: 8/16/2005 9:35:16 AM EDT
LOL. Everyone lies in court, the defense lawyers, the prosecutors, cops, witnesses, to think any different is rediculous.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 9:39:24 AM EDT
A minor clarification, then I'll speak on the topic.

Attorneys provide no testimony during trial, in Ca, there's a jury instruction telling the jurors that, so nothing an attorney says is evidence or subject to the oath.

That said, it is against the cannons of judicial ethics to knowingly present false testimnony/evidence through a witness. It is against the law to knowingly let a witness testify falsely.

Only scum make up facts to win their side of a case.

I say this as an attorney.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 9:51:58 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 9:58:03 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 10:32:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/16/2005 10:33:04 AM EDT by CITADELGRAD87]

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Not just "No", but "FUCK NO!"


I despise lawyers because theirs is the only business where you are PAID to lie and EXPECTED to do so.

And please spare me the ethics bullshit. Ethics in a lawyer is about as prevalent as air on the moon.


I should perhaps mention that the lawyers I despise are personal injury, defense, and those types. Lawyers who assist people with real estate, trusts, etc., as well as prosecuters, are mostly exempt.



[doc holliday] Oh, Zaphod. Are we cross? I couldn't live with myself if I thought were were cross[/doc]

Seriously, man, although the scum in my profession are high profile, we're not all like that.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 10:42:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Not just "No", but "FUCK NO!"

Any lawyer who is found to be lying in court should immediately be taken out back and shot.

I despise lawyers because theirs is the only business where you are PAID to lie and EXPECTED to do so.

And please spare me the ethics bullshit. Ethics in a lawyer is about as prevalent as air on the moon.


I should perhaps mention that the lawyers I despise are personal injury, defense, and those types. Lawyers who assist people with real estate, trusts, etc., as well as prosecuters, are mostly exempt.



What do you do for a living?
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 10:54:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/16/2005 10:55:19 AM EDT by texashark]
I got a "not guilty" in a murder trial last week where the deceased was decapitated.

Foung guilty of manslaughter only, got 10 years.

Didn't lie to the jury once.

The prosecutor did enough for both sides.
Top Top