Comments on: Mouthpieces http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/2009/08/31/mouthpieces/ Tue, 07 Feb 2012 03:06:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: CuriousInVa http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/2009/08/31/mouthpieces/comment-page-1/#comment-4323 CuriousInVa Wed, 02 Sep 2009 01:49:40 +0000 http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/?p=5946#comment-4323 My point exactly... I deal with this on a daily basis....if Joe or any of the others confessed to the lawyer, the lawyer can't say a word about it but also cannot enter a straight up plea of not guilty. If the lawyer suspects guilt but has not heard a confession, then they must follow their client's wishes. If at any time during the proceedings, the client admits guilt the atty cannot continue the representation that the client is not guilty. However, they also cannot speak about the details gained during representation. If the client refuses to w/draw the not guilty plea then the atty has to w/draw but still cannot speak a word about any details. If after the trial the client admits guilt, the atty can do nothing about it. They still cannot speak a word. It all has to do attorney guidelines and with perpetuating a fraud upon the court. You cannot argue anything that you as a lawyer know to be untrue. But, at the some time, you cannot reveal client confidences that you might believe to be untrue or even reveal them after you withdraw b/c you know them to be untrue. Most attys agonize over when it is appropriate or necessary to reveal a client confidence and go to judges or state bar associations to get rulings on whether they are in a position to waive the privilege. My point exactly… I deal with this on a daily basis….if Joe or any of the others confessed to the lawyer, the lawyer can’t say a word about it but also cannot enter a straight up plea of not guilty.

If the lawyer suspects guilt but has not heard a confession, then they must follow their client’s wishes. If at any time during the proceedings, the client admits guilt the atty cannot continue the representation that the client is not guilty. However, they also cannot speak about the details gained during representation. If the client refuses to w/draw the not guilty plea then the atty has to w/draw but still cannot speak a word about any details.

If after the trial the client admits guilt, the atty can do nothing about it. They still cannot speak a word.

It all has to do attorney guidelines and with perpetuating a fraud upon the court. You cannot argue anything that you as a lawyer know to be untrue.

But, at the some time, you cannot reveal client confidences that you might believe to be untrue or even reveal them after you withdraw b/c you know them to be untrue.

Most attys agonize over when it is appropriate or necessary to reveal a client confidence and go to judges or state bar associations to get rulings on whether they are in a position to waive the privilege.

]]> By: Bea http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/2009/08/31/mouthpieces/comment-page-1/#comment-4322 Bea Tue, 01 Sep 2009 22:26:02 +0000 http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/?p=5946#comment-4322 If a defendant tells his lawyer that he's guilty, and wants to take the stand to say he didn't, then the lawyer has to withdraw so as to not perpetrate "a fraud on the court". Other than that, lawyers don't tell what their clients told them. Not even after they're no longer their lawyers. I'd love it if Kathleen could speak, but it's a basic tenet of law that allows one to feel confident to speak to one's lawyer - not unlike a priest during confession, or a psychiatrist during a therapy session. They can all STOP a FUTURE crime from happening, but very rarely testify about what they know of a past crime if learned while under the privilege. If a defendant tells his lawyer that he’s guilty, and wants to take the stand to say he didn’t, then the lawyer has to withdraw so as to not perpetrate “a fraud on the court”. Other than that, lawyers don’t tell what their clients told them. Not even after they’re no longer their lawyers. I’d love it if Kathleen could speak, but it’s a basic tenet of law that allows one to feel confident to speak to one’s lawyer – not unlike a priest during confession, or a psychiatrist during a therapy session. They can all STOP a FUTURE crime from happening, but very rarely testify about what they know of a past crime if learned while under the privilege.

]]> By: Just Another Friend http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/2009/08/31/mouthpieces/comment-page-1/#comment-4320 Just Another Friend Tue, 01 Sep 2009 21:07:40 +0000 http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/?p=5946#comment-4320 I couldn't speculate whether the exception applies, but I would point out that the exception is discretionary. As you scroll down the linked page, see Note 20: "This rule permits but does not require the disclosure of information relating to a client’s representation to accomplish the purposes specified. In exercising the discretion conferred by this rule by paragraphs (c) and (d), the lawyer may consider such factors as the nature of the lawyer’s relationship with the client and with those who might be injured by the client, the lawyer’s own involvement in the transaction, and factors that may extenuate the conduct in question." Etc. There are attorneys who specialize in ethics. What we really need is one of those, or a criminal attorney who has first-hand experience with this situation. I would note that even if an attorney was in a situation fitting within this exception, I would expect him/her to be relatively limited and targeted with his/her disclosures. In other words, I would be extremely surprised to see Ms. Voelker posting here. I couldn’t speculate whether the exception applies, but I would point out that the exception is discretionary. As you scroll down the linked page, see Note 20:
“This rule permits but does not require the disclosure of information relating to a client’s representation to accomplish the purposes specified. In exercising the discretion conferred by this rule by paragraphs (c) and (d), the lawyer may consider such factors as the nature of the lawyer’s relationship with the client and with those who might be injured by the client, the lawyer’s own involvement in the transaction, and factors that may extenuate the conduct in question.” Etc.

There are attorneys who specialize in ethics. What we really need is one of those, or a criminal attorney who has first-hand experience with this situation. I would note that even if an attorney was in a situation fitting within this exception, I would expect him/her to be relatively limited and targeted with his/her disclosures. In other words, I would be extremely surprised to see Ms. Voelker posting here.

]]> By: Just Another Friend http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/2009/08/31/mouthpieces/comment-page-1/#comment-4321 Just Another Friend Tue, 01 Sep 2009 21:07:40 +0000 http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/?p=5946#comment-4321 I couldn't speculate whether the exception applies, but I would point out that the exception is discretionary. As you scroll down the linked page, see Note 20: "This rule permits but does not require the disclosure of information relating to a client’s representation to accomplish the purposes specified. In exercising the discretion conferred by this rule by paragraphs (c) and (d), the lawyer may consider such factors as the nature of the lawyer’s relationship with the client and with those who might be injured by the client, the lawyer’s own involvement in the transaction, and factors that may extenuate the conduct in question." Etc. There are attorneys who specialize in ethics. What we really need is one of those, or a criminal attorney who has first-hand experience with this situation. I would note that even if an attorney was in a situation fitting within this exception, I would expect him/her to be relatively limited and targeted with his/her disclosures. In other words, I would be extremely surprised to see Ms. Voelker posting here. I couldn’t speculate whether the exception applies, but I would point out that the exception is discretionary. As you scroll down the linked page, see Note 20:
“This rule permits but does not require the disclosure of information relating to a client’s representation to accomplish the purposes specified. In exercising the discretion conferred by this rule by paragraphs (c) and (d), the lawyer may consider such factors as the nature of the lawyer’s relationship with the client and with those who might be injured by the client, the lawyer’s own involvement in the transaction, and factors that may extenuate the conduct in question.” Etc.

There are attorneys who specialize in ethics. What we really need is one of those, or a criminal attorney who has first-hand experience with this situation. I would note that even if an attorney was in a situation fitting within this exception, I would expect him/her to be relatively limited and targeted with his/her disclosures. In other words, I would be extremely surprised to see Ms. Voelker posting here.

]]> By: CuriousInVa http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/2009/08/31/mouthpieces/comment-page-1/#comment-4317 CuriousInVa Tue, 01 Sep 2009 18:39:11 +0000 http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/?p=5946#comment-4317 The exception would also arise if the client admitted to the lawyer they did it. A lawyer cannot stand up in court and argue that a client is not guilty if the client has admitted to the lawyer that they committed the crime (that is, unless the client admits the crime but says it was in self-defense, they were insane, etc. ). Otherwise, confidentiality can only be waived by the client - never the attorney. The exception would also arise if the client admitted to the lawyer they did it. A lawyer cannot stand up in court and argue that a client is not guilty if the client has admitted to the lawyer that they committed the crime (that is, unless the client admits the crime but says it was in self-defense, they were insane, etc. ). Otherwise, confidentiality can only be waived by the client – never the attorney.

]]> By: CuriousInVa http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/2009/08/31/mouthpieces/comment-page-1/#comment-4319 CuriousInVa Tue, 01 Sep 2009 18:39:11 +0000 http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/?p=5946#comment-4319 The exception would also arise if the client admitted to the lawyer they did it. A lawyer cannot stand up in court and argue that a client is not guilty if the client has admitted to the lawyer that they committed the crime (that is, unless the client admits the crime but says it was in self-defense, they were insane, etc. ). Otherwise, confidentiality can only be waived by the client - never the attorney. The exception would also arise if the client admitted to the lawyer they did it. A lawyer cannot stand up in court and argue that a client is not guilty if the client has admitted to the lawyer that they committed the crime (that is, unless the client admits the crime but says it was in self-defense, they were insane, etc. ). Otherwise, confidentiality can only be waived by the client – never the attorney.

]]> By: AnnaZed http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/2009/08/31/mouthpieces/comment-page-1/#comment-4315 AnnaZed Tue, 01 Sep 2009 17:40:08 +0000 http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/?p=5946#comment-4315 Doesn't Mrs. Wone stand to be impacted adversely financially in the civil suit? Does that apply? Doesn’t Mrs. Wone stand to be impacted adversely financially in the civil suit? Does that apply?

]]> By: AnnaZed http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/2009/08/31/mouthpieces/comment-page-1/#comment-4318 AnnaZed Tue, 01 Sep 2009 17:40:08 +0000 http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/?p=5946#comment-4318 Doesn't Mrs. Wone stand to be impacted adversely financially in the civil suit? Does that apply? Doesn’t Mrs. Wone stand to be impacted adversely financially in the civil suit? Does that apply?

]]> By: Bea http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/2009/08/31/mouthpieces/comment-page-1/#comment-4310 Bea Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:53:28 +0000 http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/?p=5946#comment-4310 My take, and Themis may disagree, is that the exceptions to a lawyer keeping his/her mouth shut relate to ongoing crimes - not that it's not "a crime" to continue covering up the murder, but under the law, Ms. Voelker can't tell what she knows since she represented Joe/Victor UNLESS she was told that the boys were planning on having another sleepover victim and intended to rape/murder him too. Then she could/would have to prevent this crime. My take, and Themis may disagree, is that the exceptions to a lawyer keeping his/her mouth shut relate to ongoing crimes – not that it’s not “a crime” to continue covering up the murder, but under the law, Ms. Voelker can’t tell what she knows since she represented Joe/Victor UNLESS she was told that the boys were planning on having another sleepover victim and intended to rape/murder him too. Then she could/would have to prevent this crime.

]]> By: Bea http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/2009/08/31/mouthpieces/comment-page-1/#comment-4316 Bea Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:53:28 +0000 http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/?p=5946#comment-4316 My take, and Themis may disagree, is that the exceptions to a lawyer keeping his/her mouth shut relate to ongoing crimes - not that it's not "a crime" to continue covering up the murder, but under the law, Ms. Voelker can't tell what she knows since she represented Joe/Victor UNLESS she was told that the boys were planning on having another sleepover victim and intended to rape/murder him too. Then she could/would have to prevent this crime. My take, and Themis may disagree, is that the exceptions to a lawyer keeping his/her mouth shut relate to ongoing crimes – not that it’s not “a crime” to continue covering up the murder, but under the law, Ms. Voelker can’t tell what she knows since she represented Joe/Victor UNLESS she was told that the boys were planning on having another sleepover victim and intended to rape/murder him too. Then she could/would have to prevent this crime.

]]>