So recently, i've been working at my uncle's law firm to get exposure on the law practices and such that i plan to oppose one day. since i'm studying to be a prosecutor. Last week though, one of our lawyers accepted a murder case from a client who asked him to defend his son. at first, i was like okay, we should hear his story. and so we did. well, to be honest me and my uncle's lawyer didn't really feel convinced with his answers. so we investigated on our own. and unlucky for us and for our client, WE FOUND DECISIVE EVIDENCE THAT POINTS OUT HE IS REALLY THE MURDERER.

after that my uncle's lawyer asked me to write a narrative report on what we found and also my analysis for the case. i told him outright in my report that i don't want to be involved defending such filth. he is guilty and we both know it. so i concluded my report by saying that if we HAD to defend him, then I won't join in the court proceedings. maybe we could have him receive lesser charges. but a not guilty decision? NO.

If you were at my position, what would you do?

I would outright declare him guilty and present all the evidence, i wont even try to defend that shit, unless the punk's reason for murder proves to something i would at least defend him in some way.
But it depends on his reason for killing.

If anything, if my mindset is yours, i would do what i said in the first sentence. Minus the murder's reason.

Oh and watch out for backlash from whatever sides.

Before I start, I'll just acknowledge that you should probably have posted this in Personal.

Anyway. Look, the court system, at least as I understand it in my country (Australia) is designed in such a way that this shit's all supposed to come out in court. Before court, even. If you have irrefutable evidence that proves that your client did it, you can present it to the prosecution, even if it's bad for your case. Your client might decide to get someone else to represent him when you do, but the damage will have been done. The prosecution will latch onto it and in the end the guy will probably end up being punished.

Because like it or not, it is your job to defend a guilty man. This doesn't necessarily mean trying to get him off, but trying to get him the best possible outcome that you can, whether he's guilty or not. You argue and they argue, but in the end not your job to decide whether or not your client will be punished. You just have to trust that the truth will come out in court. If the evidence is as decisive as you say, there shouldn't be a problem.

Play by the rules, don't hide or make up anything, and if he doesn't get convicted take solace in that it's the systems fault and not yours. I don't think you should leave the case just because you find it unsavoury, in my opinion doing so would be arrogant and unprofessional.
It's not your place to judge the guy.

Its your job and responsibility to defend this p.o.s. Personally, I agree with Mr.Denkins above. But emotional responses in court are best left for use on witnesses and jurors. My advice would be to keep personal feelings out of the equation.🙊

He's not guilty. He has some evidence pointing to him being guilty. Think of it that way. I'd gladly defend himhim, since everyone deserves a second chance. You are the only one capable of giving him that second chance. Also, as some people said here, you might like it or not, but it's your job anyway . A good doctor wont let their patient die, be it a criminal or the president. You should do that aswell. Good luck on your trial! :3

Oh, and yes: if he has too much evidence pointing thim, chances are they will find it aswell

thanks for your replies though but im not really the defense attorney. supposedly, i was the official court assistant but i didn't want t=it anymore. i understand the 2nd chances thing but this isn't his 2nd chance, if ever he gets a not guilty verdict, but his 5th. he's been tried in court for 5 times now on different cases, 3 murder and 2 rape. this time it was attempted murder. he's not exactly that clean.

that's why i think he should really rot in jail this time.

>>8 Now heres the full story, of tge criminal, HAHA, yep definitely should roy in jail or put in dead row.
I hate people who manpulate other people hearts, especially those fucking rapist scumbags. Death to them all for all i care.

See, hearing the whole story I think you should put him in prison. However this isn't always the case. This past winter I was in mock trial. I played the defendant in a hacking case where everything made me look guilty. However, after telling off an attorney because he didn't seem to under the difference between the definition of try and didn't, I ended up being declared innocent because I managed to look like my roommate did it. So it's not a matter of if the person is guilty or not, it's really a matter of if they can place it off to another person.

It's the job of the prosecutor (In the US) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to the judge and jury the defendant committed the crime. At the same time however, both lawyers, the jury and the judge can just all agree upon a verdict if all parties fully understand what happened and they all agree on whats needed. If the defendant doesn't like the verdict however, then they can always file a "Writ of Certiorari" and have their case reviewed by an appeals court, which I doubt they'll reconsider a guilty verdict if they've been tried 5 times before for similar crimes.

Another thing to think about is what they should do for punishment. There's a statistic that says 95% of everyone who goes to prison, comes out of prison in their life time. Punishment is suppose to fill 5 criteria; Deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution and restoration. Getting sent to prison for some number of years is incapacitation, preventing them from committing more crimes in the future, which they will come out of someday. Before you consider the death penalty, do you think this person can be rehabilitated or do you think they're a lost cause?

I know a retired defense atterny and he told me the toughest part of the job is defending someone who's guilty. It's part of the job to defend them though.