Here is the aspect of US defence attorney conduct I have been struggling with over the course of multiple cases (McStay, Morphew, Delphi etc)
Where I come from, it was drummed in to us that we were officers of the court first and clients comes second. Obviously in high end commercial work, those allegiances get called into question, but at least in criminal work, one does ones job professionally to make the state prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is not one's job to 'prove the client innocent' and especially not to win at all costs. Indeed you don't know if the client is innocent or not and you do not ask that question. Especially you will have seen the evidence and typically know full well there is a strong possibility that your client is in fact guilty
This is why you may strongly represent the client, including in the media, but do no make personal representations about guilt or innocence. You would not stake your reputation on it, and frankly it is not actually your job to make such representations. Rather you limit yourself to your case. What does the evidence show and what does it not show? What will you be arguing? Your client maintains his innocence etc
There are clearly some exceptions to this - and I am thinking specifically of attorneys who have taken cases where DNA evidence has definitively proved the client not just not guilty but in fact innocent.
Morphew is not such a case.
The defence is fully aware the evidence suggests guilt, whether or not to BARD, especially because the preliminary trial held as much. A judge actually said it. Not the DA. The Judge. The defence may disagree with the result, but to claim there is 'no evidence' is obviously a misrepresentation and creates a conspiratorial narrative that the client has been unfairly fitted up
We were taught this is simply not acceptable behaviour. IOW you cannot accuse the DA or any other lawyer / body of professional misconduct without evidence. So accusing of discovery violations is OK. But accusing of fitting up the defendant e.g WRT the allegations against Grusing & the DA and then put into a pleading .... not ok.
Yet this seems the norm now in the US? e.g in McStay, the defence simply lied in opening arguments about what would be presented in evidence.
Odd
ETA not saying all attorneys do this including ones who post here. It’s my observation from these big cases.
www.google.com
(Non-followers have no real understanding of how deeply we who do follow cases become invested.)
www.denver7.com
