On a current TV lawyer series, the lawyer is defending two young men accused
of murder. In the course of the investigation, the lawyer finds the murder weapon along with evidence proving that the two defendants are guilty. What
is the lawyer's responsibility here? As an officer of the court, he
probably has an obligation to turn the weapon over to the police, which will virtually assure his clients' conviction. But he is also obligated to
defend his clients, who have a Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. What is the lawyer's legal obligation here?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:

On a current TV lawyer series, the lawyer is defending two young
men accused of murder. In the course of the investigation, the
lawyer finds the murder weapon along with evidence proving that
the two defendants are guilty. What is the lawyer's
responsibility here? As an officer of the court, he probably has
an obligation to turn the weapon over to the police, which will
virtually assure his clients' conviction. But he is also
obligated to defend his clients, who have a Fifth Amendment
protection against self-incrimination. What is the lawyer's legal
obligation here?

Yes, a lawyer in a criminal case is required to defend his client to
the best of his ability. At the same time he's not allowed to make misrepresentations to the court, and is not allowed to participate in
the crime. Finding and hiding this kind of evidence would be
violations of both of these things.

In a criminal case a lawyer is not always required to disclose
everything they find that may run counter to the interest of the
accused. If it's something the prosecution could (and may) also find,
may not be required to be disclosed because the other side could find
it equally well. But with a murder weapon, once it's in the defense
lawyer's custody it can't be discovered by the prosecution. So it has
to be disclosed.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 12:10:17 PM UTC-5, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

In a criminal case a lawyer is not always required to disclose
everything they find that may run counter to the interest of the
accused. If it's something the prosecution could (and may) also find,
may not be required to be disclosed because the other side could find
it equally well. But with a murder weapon, once it's in the defense
lawyer's custody it can't be discovered by the prosecution. So it has
to be disclosed.

Subsequently what is the likelihood the attorney who received the weapon
will have to withdraw from being the attorney for the defendant, because the attorney is now a witness?

This reminded me of the attorney for a certain Saint Louis, Missouri couple, the
McCloskeys, in 2020. The McCloskeys brandished guns in front of their house as a crowd came by. The couple claimed they feared for their physical safety. The police
became involved. The McCloskeys hired attorney Albert Watkins. A short while later the McCloskeys gave one or more of their guns to Watkins. Attorney Watkins
then had a press conference; informed the press that he had received a gun from the McCloskeys. He declared he was now (apparently, potentially or actually?)
a witness; and so he had to (and did) withdraw from representing the McCloskeys.

Watkins is a showboat. I have wondered if he was acting reasonably as far as say
the Rules of Professional Conduct are concerned, or if his motivation was more likely that he wanted to extricate himself from a case that would detract from his image.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Elle N <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote:

Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

In a criminal case a lawyer is not always required to disclose
everything they find that may run counter to the interest of the
accused. If it's something the prosecution could (and may) also
find, may not be required to be disclosed because the other side
could find it equally well. But with a murder weapon, once it's
in the defense lawyer's custody it can't be discovered by the
prosecution. So it has to be disclosed.

Subsequently what is the likelihood the attorney who received the
weapon will have to withdraw from being the attorney for the
defendant, because the attorney is now a witness?

Withdrawing isn't always required - if the client agrees, the
attorney can continue to represent them. May not be a good idea, but
it's possible.

This reminded me of the attorney for a certain Saint Louis,
Missouri couple, the McCloskeys, in 2020. The McCloskeys
brandished guns in front of their house as a crowd came by. The
couple claimed they feared for their physical safety. The police
became involved. The McCloskeys hired attorney Albert Watkins. A
short while later the McCloskeys gave one or more of their guns to
Watkins. Attorney Watkins then had a press conference; informed
the press that he had received a gun from the McCloskeys. He
declared he was now (apparently, potentially or actually?) a
witness; and so he had to (and did) withdraw from representing the McCloskeys.

Watkins is a showboat. I have wondered if he was acting reasonably
as far as say the Rules of Professional Conduct are concerned, or
if his motivation was more likely that he wanted to extricate
himself from a case that would detract from his image.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)