yes they can, as long as they dont mislead the judge or jury.
A prosecution attorney cannot ask a defence attorney a direct question about t=what they believe regarding their clients innocence or guilt;
harley brite told me that before i ran him off the board.
maybe technically speaking, but in practice it would be nigh on impossible for a lawyer to offer an any way meaningful defense to a client that has admitted guilt without perjuring himself. read the below a lawyer being asked this very question.
also read the bit below that quite interesting for all the numpties that were giving the lawyer dude sht.
"
I mean, say they said to you “I did it, but I want you to get me off.” How could you defend such a person?This is how. First, I would say:
“The evidence is strong and because we can’t contradict it, you haven’t got a chance. I can’t accuse witnesses X, Y & Z of lying because they’re obviously telling the truth. I can’t call you into the witness box to tell a pack of lies. The virtually inevitable consequence of pleading not guilty is that you will be convicted by the jury (or magistrates) and your sentence will be much tougher. You really ought to plead guilty.”
Faced with that sort of advice 999 of these defendants out of 1000 will realise that the game is up and plead guilty.
You’re still evading the question, just like every other slippery lawyer I’ve ever met. What of the one in a thousand who won’t plead guilty. Would you still represent him?Yes I would, but without doing any of the dishonest things like accusing the witnesses of lying, or calling a defendant to tell an admitted pack of lies. All I could really do would be what is known as “put the prosecution to proof.” I could argue that certain evidence was inadmissible, or that the prosecution case was not conclusive, but that would be as far as I could go.
But I have to say that this situation is so rare that I have never come across it, or even come close to it."
How on earth can you bring yourself to defend child abusers and rapists?Very easily indeed. It’s not my job to judge either the law or my clients’ morals.
The alternative to a criminal justice system is a lynch mob, and it is remarkable how readily righteous indignation, often by those who are far from righteous in their own lives, can spill over into orgies of violence. .
People accused of such things are not always guilty. Arguments rage about how many false accusations there are of such crimes; we simply don’t know, but undeniably there are some. The consequences of being falsely accused do not need spelling out.
But even if they are rightly accused we do not want mobs baying their guilt outside as they lob petrol bombs through the windows, and what is more very often the wrong windows as with the Portsmouth mobthat mistook a respectable paediatrician for a paedophile. We want proper, fair courts where guilt can be conclusively demonstrated.
Courts are only fair, certainly in an adversarial system, if both sides can argue their cases as firmly and as persuasively as possible. That means good lawyers, including defence lawyers, arguing in front of good judges. Little is more revolting than the spectacle, as in Soviet Russia, of lick-spittle “defence” lawyers parading their own disgust at the criminal instead of trying to defend him.
tbf i think the guy just realised he was wasting his time arguing with numpties rather than you "ran him off the board"
