Нина Рейзер - нужна помощь

[JU]

А вот интересно адвокату они говорят правду?
Дескать я убил так-то и так-то, а тело спрятал там-то и там-то. Посоветуй что делать что б тело не нашли и меня оправдали?
Так делают?

Если он такое скажет адвокату то по закону второй должен доложить это до сведения и это будет признание. Поэтому и адвокату тоже врут чаще всего.

[JU]

Ну нaдо же, как я пропустила эту ссылку. Бедная Галина.

Почему Галина? Её Нина зовут.

[avos'ka]

А вот интересно адвокату они говорят правду?
Дескать я убил так-то и так-то, а тело спрятал там-то и там-то. Посоветуй что делать что б тело не нашли и меня оправдали?
Так делают?

Если он такое скажет адвокату то по закону второй должен доложить это до сведения и это будет признание. Поэтому и адвокату тоже врут чаще всего.

А мне казалось, что адвокат не имеет права разглашать сведения, полученные от клиента.

[JU]

А мне казалось, что адвокат не имеет права разглашать сведения, полученные от клиента.

Если он скроет важные сведения то станет СОУЧАСТНИКОМ.

[avos'ka]

А мне казалось, что адвокат не имеет права разглашать сведения, полученные от клиента.

Если он скроет важные сведения то станет СОУЧАСТНИКОМ.

а как же Attorney-client privilege?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney/client_privilege

[JU]

Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality

Есть куча исключений и зависит от crime и пр, похоже в 2004 поменялось но не знаю до какой степени:
"California is famous for having one of the strongest duties of confidentiality in the world; its lawyers must protect client confidences at "every peril to himself or herself." Until an amendment in 2004, California lawyers could not breach their duty even if they knew that a client was about to commit murder."

[madam Liza]

What happens when a criminal just goes to an attorney and says, "Look, I did it. Here's exactly how I did it. Here's my fake story. Now get me out of here?"

If it's a privileged conversation, the attorney cannot share it with the court. But the attorney is not required to take your case. He can recuse himself for any number of reasons, including, "I just don't want this case." At the very least, you will still get a public defender from the court, but that attorney isn't *required* to help you, either -- you'd keep doing this dance until, eventually, you would get an attorney that would be willing to help you.

That being said, and although some will anyway, the attorney cannot LIE for you -- bend, stretch, fold and spindle the truth, but not lie.

Most good attorneys, when confronted with the truth, will try to steer their clients toward plea-bargaining or some other defense that doesn't rely on a complete fabrication.
Also, a lawyer cannot knowingly present testimony or evidence he or she knows to be false -- so, for example, once told, the lawyer couldn't put the client on the stand and ask whether the client committed the crime (assuming the client will testify that he did not). Ethically, an attorney should not allow a client to present false or misleading evidence. Thus, if you tell your attorney, "I did it, but Bob will give me an airtight alibi," then the attorney should not allow either you or Bob to testify. The attorney could still continue to represent you without arguing a theory that you did not do it and Bob's your alibi, basically by attacking the evidence and witnesses presented by the prosecution.
That's all based on the ethical rules, though, not reality. In real life, I know that some attorneys won't even ask "did you do it?" because they would rather not know.

It is the duty of a defense attorney to represent any and every defendant. Lawyers are advocates; justice is the responsibility of the judge and jury.

If defense lawyers only defend people they think are innocent, then they are substituting their own judgment for that of the judge and jury, and thus are subverting the system. (c)

[Golyadkin]

Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality

Есть куча исключений и зависит от crime и пр, похоже в 2004 поменялось но не знаю до какой степени:
"California is famous for having one of the strongest duties of confidentiality in the world; its lawyers must protect client confidences at "every peril to himself or herself." Until an amendment in 2004, California lawyers could not breach their duty even if they knew that a client was about to commit murder."

these exceptions generally do not cover crimes that have already occurred, even in extreme cases where murderers have confessed the location of missing bodies to their lawyers but the police are still looking for those bodies. The U.S. Supreme Court and many state supreme courts have affirmed the right of a lawyer to withhold information in such situations. Otherwise, it would be impossible for any criminal defendant to obtain a zealous defense.

[madam Liza]

адвокаты обязаны сообщать только о тех, которые будут совершены в будущем. Скажем Вася нанявший адвоката говорит адвокату, что завтра он убьёт суьдю в суде. Тогда адвокат обязан сообщить об этомм готовищимся преступлении

[Golyadkin]

адвокаты обязаны сообщать только о тех, которые будут совершены в будущем. Скажем Вася нанявший адвоката говорит адвокату, что завтра он убьёт суьдю в суде. Тогда адвокат обязан сообщить об этомм готовищимся преступлении

Не обязан, а может по своему усмотрению

[madam Liza]

Не обязан, а может по своему усмотрению

за что купила, за то и продаю

. The privilege does not apply if the client is seeking the advice from the attorney in order to commit a crime or to aid someone to commit a crime. If the client's purpose behind contacting the attorney is to learn how to commit a crime, the communication is not confidential. If it were not so, every criminal would first discuss it with their attorney and work out a flawless plan before committing the crime. Without this limitation, the attorney would not be able to turn in such criminals. If, for example, a client came into an attorney's office and said, "I'm going to kill my wife. I want to know, however, what is my best strategy for getting off." This is a flat statement that the person intends to commit a future crime; there is no privilege. The attorney should, and in fact is required, to report the person's intent to commit a crime. While an attorney must report future intended crimes by a client, an attorney cannot and is prohibited from reporting past completed crimes. Model Rule 1.2(d) and Disciplinary Rule 1.16(a)(1) hold that an attorney cannot reveal the fraud or previous activity done by client.

[Golyadkin]

http://www.idiom.com/~beverly/index.html

[Monika]

http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_4480382

BREAKING NEWS:
Children apparently home when missing mom slain, police say

[LLena]

http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_4480382

BREAKING NEWS:

Случайное убийство в ссоре, похоже??

[Брошкина]

Случайное убийство в ссоре, похоже??

это же как надо ссориться!