Should a lawyer represent someone they believe to be guilty?
371590
Morally no.\nBut, unfortunatley, the law is not based on morals.\nEveryone has the right to an attorney, a fair trial, and don't forget, in America, you are innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.\nSo even if a lawyer believes someone is guilty, he has an obligation to give that client the best defense possible.  If he/she does not like defending people like that, then they shouldn't have become a lawyer.
254768
I think asking what your role in the investigation is fine. You may just be a witness to something or have relevant information to help them in an investigation. Many times you could have been a passer-by before a crime happened and might have seen the suspect(s). In that case, you might not even know that you were a witness.\n\nOnly you really know if you did something to need a lawyer, so you should stop playing dumb and answer the question yourself.
1016001
Prosecutor.  If a prosecutor thinks the defendant is innocent, he doesn't have to prosecute.  If a defense lawyer is certain his client is guilty, he has to try to get the guy off, anyhow.
765728
Yes, you always tell your attorney the truth. But most won't ask you (and you shouldn't blurt out) whether you're guilty or not. Listen to what your lawyer asks you. Answer the questions honestly.\n\nIf there's something more you think the lawyer should know, ask if he or she wants to know about whatever it is... be guided by their answer.\n\nAssuming you're discussing a criminal case, the issue for the lawyer won't necessarily be whether you're guilty, but rather whether the state can prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, using evidence gathered within the restrictions of law.\n\nIf you're discussing a civil matter, the rules aren't much different.
726698
I'm certain he is guilty. What kind of innocent person would lead the cops to chase after him for a long time after he lied and told them he would turn himself in? There were no other suspects that the police could find, and guilty people are let free a lot. The problem seems to be the amendment in the Consitution that says that a person can't be tried twice (double jeopardy), even if substatial evidence amounts against that person. I have heard a lot of rumors that a murder weapon was found, but that eveidence is now usless thanks to that amendment. Rich people like him can afford the best of lawyers, and his lawyer certainly was no amateur. He helped many other famous people walk free, and your lawyer runs most of the show at a trial. He knows all of the loopholes and how to bring his client out of a hole.
76382
It will depend on state, county and local laws.  Though a state sets down a guideline, lawyers play plea games.
810998
NO! Are you kidding? A judge cannot be running around in fear that his decisions might be the basis for a criminal charge.  Who would ever be a judge then?\nJudges are required to make decisions based upon the evidence that comes before them, the law, and their wisdom and common sense.  That's why they're judges.   There are times when judges can be prosecuted -- if they take bribes or commit other criminal acts, for example.  But what you're asking is, essentially, to charge judges with crimes if they make rulings that are (eventually) determined to be incorrect that would have let in exculpatory evidence.  Then, in fear of their own lives or freedom, every judge would let in every piece of evidence proffered by a defense attorney, and capital cases would become absolute circuses.\n\nThe reason we have judicial gatekeepers to determine relevance and other rules of evidence is to ensure that the jurors hear only proper evidence--that their minds aren't tainted by prejudicial evidence, unreliable evidence, or red herring evidence introduced solely to confuse or inflame the jurors.  If you're so concerned about that, then you should allow BOTH sides to introduce whatever evidence they want.  That could include information about the defendant's predilections, his character, some other acts, unreliable hearsay evidence, junk science, and gruesome details about the death that would just enrage the jurors to convict.
546846
Certain categories of the profession are looked down upon.  The ambulance chasers, the class action guys have given the profession a bad name.  The defense lawyers who defend obvious guilty people don't add much in favor to the profession, either.  A lawyer is either the bad guy who is trying to take something from you (prosecuting attorney trying to get you convicted, or your spouses divorce lawyer trying to take half of everything you own,  or the lawyer for  clumsy guy who tripped and fell in your store trying to sue you for $3,000,000.  \n\nOr if you're on the opposite side of the examples given above - he's your savior who is saving you from something (jail) or is helping get you something - that $3,000,000 dollars.
227330
You can be sued by that guy, however, if you told the truth, he should loose.  It might even be thrown out of court without a trial.  Most likely, he is bluffing and there will be not lawsuit.
228353
Possibly something like fraud or perjury, if the elements are there and can be proven - very unlikely.\n\nIf it is proven that he intentionally lost a case, he will likely be sanctioned (even disbarred) and would be liable for legal malpractice.
1068353
Yes it is a good Idea. If the defendent Is Not guilty -He needs to be able to tell the Jury that and denie the charges.
447752
It's very possible. Sometimes the guilty will deflect the issue by trying to put it on someone else first.
164141
I would highly suggest a lawyer in this case.
931353
Lawyers represent either the plaintiff or the defendant. Judges decide who wins or loses.
44832
There is an old police saying - "There are two sides to every story, and the truth lies somewhere in between".  Obviously, there is a lot more to this story you haven't explained.  You can't just give generalities, and expect any officer to come up with a solution, let alone, criticize the police officers who handled your situation.  Your first step should be the hiring of an attorney.  Aside from defending you in court, he will be your best counsel in a future course of action.  Second, I think you will be surprised on how reasonably priced the services of a private investigator can be.  His mission is primarily a fact finding one, and can supply your attorney with the necessary information to not only vindicate you, but assist you in prosecuting the low life scum you are talking about.
943742
Lawyers are officers of the court and support the system - the Constitution - and ensure the process works.   Lawyers do not let bad people out into the community.  The Constitution has a process where the guilt or innocence of a defendant can be determined.  If an accused is not convicted, not charged, etc., then the adversarial process has "let them out."  The government's lawyers will zealously represent the government and do what it can to charge and convict while the defense attorney must zealously represent their client's interests.  Lawyers do know the difference between "bad people and good people," but that is irrelevant.  In the US, every individual is entitled to legal representation.  \n\nImagine if you were arrested for watching that movie because it is a crime to watch criminal dramas and popular opinion was people who watch those movies should go to jail.  Now imagine the government throwing everything it had to ensure you go to jail.  Alternatively, imagine you are accused of being a pedophile and are arrested/charged, but you really are just a sweet person who has been wrongfully accused.  Should lawyers not represent you because you're a bad person?\n\nThe world is only black and white if you pretend it is.
776817
it would probably be advised that it is written by a lawyer