Greetings,
I am not a law student but I have a question and need advice on a following school assignment:
You are a defense attorney with a client on trial for burglary. During an interview, he admits to killing 3 people and burying the bodies close to where he lives. He takes you to the graves to verify the information. The police and prosecutor seem totally unaware of the crimes. Write your essay on how you would handle the disclosure. Keep it confidential? Call the police? Consider legal, moral and practical issues
How do I answer this?

Hello t:

I'd like to help, but I don't want to do your work for you.

What I WILL tell you is this. Your scenario is flawed. An attorney who is following the LAW, would stop a client from saying one more word, IMMEDIATELY upon hearing of another crime. He would instruct his client to never mention it again in his presence. He would NOT go to the graves. If he DOES, he's already violated his ethics and the law, so an answer to THAT scenario would be useless.

What the attorney would DO with the little bit he learned, you'll have to decide. But, it's not really a tough decision when you understand what's required of a defense attorney.

excon

Like excon said he should have instructed his client to be quiet about the other crime. If he did somehow hear the entire scenerio, he should as an officer of the court, report this to the proper authorities.

Well I'm no lawyer, and you'll have to do some reading on exactly what a defence atty is supposed to do, like excon suggested, but if by whatever means I got into a situation where I learned that my client undoubtedly committed this crime, I would probably petition to be let off the case I was currently working on with my client. I don't know under what circumstances a lawyer can romove themselves from the case, but I would imagine that if you wanted to quit a case (and thus not get paid for it) they would assume you had a good reason and grant it? Anyway, do some reading about it online. And maybe in a textbook if you have one for the class.

Once the attoreny actually goes and sees the bodies, he has now become part of the continuing crime and unless he reports it, can become chanrged into the crime. If all he does is listen to the client and advises him on how to defend hisself, he has to keep the confidence,

So as noted this wouild never happen as written in real life

Once the attoreny actually goes and sees the bodies, he has now become part of the continuing crime and unless he reports it, can become chanrged into the crime. If all he does is listen to the client and advises him on how to defend hisself, he has to keep the confidence,

So as noted this wouild never happen as written in real life


Father Chuck has it right -

And otherwise it's purely a made up, time wasting scenario - could never happen in real life unless the Attorney had a burning desire to be disbarred and serve time as a co-conspirator.

I must have missed it, but my wife said this was a plot off one of the law and order TV shows before

I must have missed it, but my wife said this was a plot off of one of the law and order TV shows before


Hmm - I missed it, too. What does she say the result was?

(I really do know better than to answer hypothetical questions - )

Ok, wife on tour so I am talking to her by the phone, we often talk about the silly questions on here for fun. She said that the attorney was arrested and convicted ( on the TV show) for being part of covering up the crime, because after he looked at the evidence, he locked it back up.

The bad guy ( killer) was convicted because the evidence did not get thrown out, since the attorney was considered part of the crime.
Attorney at some point told police where the evidence was.

** This is all sort of second or third hand, and she did not remember which one it was.

Ok, wife on tour so I am talking to her by the phone, we often talk about the silly questions on here for fun. She said that the attorney was arrested and convicted ( on the TV show) for being part of covering up the crime, because after he looked at the evidence, he locked it back up.

The bad guy ( killer) was convicted because the evidence did not get thrown out, since the attorney was considered part of the crime.
Attorney at some point told police where the evidence was.

** This is all sorta second or third hand, and she did not remember which one it was.



Your wife is an invaluable source of info!

Now if we can get her to start watching Criminal Minds -