The following questions are based upon possibilities, and are not intended to imply that the situations I have described below are anything more than speculation based upon my own evaluation of this investigation.
(Unleash the lawyers!)
Would it be reasonable to assume that, if Terri's lawyer had anything at all to say in his client's favor, he would have made a public statement by now?
No.
What are some possible reasons that this particular lawyer would choose not to make any public statement about Terri's position in this investigation?
The lawyer is probably conducting his own parallel investigation of the facts. And/or he may be hoping for some "out of sight, out of mind" time, (When was the last time you heard a media report on missing Baby Gabriel?), or may believe there is no point in making a public statement that will not be believed, or may have decided not to tip his hand concerning his defense strategy, or may have scheduled a summer vacation with his family, or may have other reasons for not making a public statement.
Is it likely that he has made an official statement to LE which has not yet been made public?
Yes.
If Terri's lawyer were to become convinced that Terri had indeed committed a crime against Kyron, would he have any reason to delay resignation as her legal counsel? Would it make a difference if a lawyer simply became convinced by evidence of his client's guilt or if the client admitted guilt to the lawyer? Is it ever wise to continue representing a client in such a situation, even though the lawyer could not argue innocence without perjuring himself?
Even guilty people (perhaps
especially guilty people) are entitled to legal representation. An attorney has no duty to resign from representing someone the attorney believes to be guilty; the attorney may even have a duty to continue representing that client especially if the attorney has accepted a retainer from the client which would contractually obligate the attorney to represent the client.
An attorney is an advocate, which is one reason why juries are instructed that the attorney's arguments are not testimony/evidence. Because the attorney does not testify, the attorney's arguments cannot constitute perjury.
Consider a situation where a liquor store is robbed. The defendant's mug shots from prior criminal arrests are show to the clerk in a photo lineup, and the defendant is ID'd as the robber. The client's wife/girlfriend/mother provides an alibi for the client, and the attorney is able to present evidence showing that the defendant had previously shopped at that liquor store (explaining why the defendant looked familiar to the clerk and/or why the defendant's palm print was on the door.) The defense attorney's personal opinions are not relevant to arguing that the guilt of the defendant has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defense attorney does have an ethical duty to refrain from presenting testimony that the attorney
knows to be false and/or from falsifying evidence (like the DA in New York who planted the defendant's fingerprints on the gas cans found at an arson scene). However, the defense attorney properly advocates the most favorable result based on the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the admissible evidence.
Katprint
Always only my own opinions
It does seem from a moral standpoint that Kaine has more rights to the home than Terri does, but what about legally? What arguments can an attorney use in this situation?
