I will be analyzing the following dilemma under the ethical formalism (Pollack, 2017). I am a defense attorney and a see a judge in my jurisdiction having dinner with a prosecutor and they are married to other people. I have a case in front of this judge and the prosecutor is my opponent. I consider requesting the judge to recuse himself from the case, but it could cause animosity for my client in his case if the judge refuses to do so. I could keep quiet and use the information on appeal., but my client could spend years in prison. Finally, I could do nothing and hope the judge is not biased toward the prosecution in his ruling. How would I handle the situation?
Analyze the following dilemma under the ethical formalism ethical system:
You are a defense attorney who sees a judge in your jurisdiction having dinner with a prosecutor. Both are married to other people. You happen to have a case in front of this judge and the prosecutor is your opponent. You consider that you could request the judge recuse himself from the case, but this may create animosity, and if he refuses, it could be detrimental to your client. Alternatively, you could keep quiet and use the information on appeal, but this may mean your client spends years
…show more content…
The reason I believe this is the best course of action to take for my client is because I want my client to have a fair trial, even though there is a chance the judge will not recuse himself and it may cause animosity. I believe that as the defense attorney I have a duty to my client and I also have a moral obligation to expose the judge and prosecutor’s relationship regardless of the consequences, good or
If a situation in the future occurs where the competitors may file lawsuits against each other, the attorney could not ethically represent either business due to information learned while representing the businesses on cases prior. A lawyer is required by Rule 1.6, not to use information secured from the representation of one client for the benefit of another client.
The job of a criminal lawyer is quite difficult. Whether on the defense or the prosecution, you must work diligently and swiftly in order to persuade the jury. Some lawyers play dirty and try to get their client off of the hook even though they are guilty without a doubt. Even though the evidence is all there, the prosecution sometimes just can’t get the one last piece of the puzzle to make the case stick and lock the criminal up. Such is the case Orenthal James Simpson.
The people directly involved with this case are Judge Lance Ito, the prosecution lawyers, Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden, the defense lawyers, Johnnie Cochran, Robert Shapiro and Robert Blasier , the jury and the defendant, O.J. Simpson. The families of the victims have also been present in the courtroom, as well as other spectators and news media. This case has heard one hundred and twenty witnesses over a nine month period.
Communication between an attorney and its client is crucial during a trial. The attorney - client privilege is a legal privilege between the client the and the attorney assuring the privacy of the client. There have been many cases where the attorney and client privilege has become an issue and most people believe that an attorney should break his/her privilege when the client confesses of harming more than one victim. When it comes to an attorney and a client it is important for both parties to understand each other, and assure that each conversation such be between client and attorney only.
Should lawyer’s defend a clients they know are guilty is one of many ethical dilemmas that lawyers face on a day to day bias , granted the obligation of a lawyer is to give their client a just trail to the best of their ability let’s say a lawyer is defending a client who has committed the murder of three children and then the lawyer ask the most clichéd question that every lawyer must ask his or her client did you do it, now whether or not the person they are defending committed said murder poses the ethical dilemma should you or shouldn’t defend a guilty individual. Yes it is the ethical choose to defend said client to the best of your ability without forcing the defendant to indict themselves but this is a moral battle you know your client ruthlessly committed several murders and the right thing to do is to allow the children parents to receive justice.
The issue of pretrial publicity is a maze of overlapping attentions and interwoven interests. Lawyers decry pretrial publicity while simultaneously raising their own career stock and hourly fee by accumulating more if it. The media both perpetrate and comment on the frenzy -- newspapers and television stations generate the publicity in the first place and then actively comment on the likely effect that the coverage will have on the trial. When a high profile case is brought to trial, many media outlets report not only on the details of the trial, but also details about the persons involved, in particular the defendant. Much of the information reported regarding the case is released before the trial starts. Furthermore, media outlets may not only report facts, but also present the information in a way that projects the culpability of the defendant. By allowing pretrial publicity of court cases, potential jurors are given information that could sway their opinion of the defendant even before the trial begins, and how they interpret the evidence given during the trial. The right of a criminal defendant to receive a fair trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The right of the press, print and electronic media, to publish information about the defendant and the alleged criminal acts is guaranteed by the First Amendment. These two constitutional safeguards come into conflict when pretrial publicity threatens to deprive the defendant of an impartial jury. However, there is a compromise between these two Constitutional rights, which would allow for the selection of an impartial jury and allow the media to report on the details of the case. The media should only be able to report information once the trial has...
people in these 21st century society wonder, “When is Justice to be done?” For district attorneys,
Both the defense attorney and the prosecuting attorney have an opportunity to make opening statements, introduce witnesses and evidence in favor of their case, cross-examine witnesses and offer closing arguments. During the deliberation phase of the case, the jury decides whether the prosecution has met the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury finds joe not guilty, you are free to go and not subject to further prosecution based on the same offenses.
Workplace ethics engages in judgements and collective agreements regarding a suitable guide of behaviour. The ethical decision making framework (EDM) presents, business decision is ethical or unethical.EDM provides an indication of traditional decision making process and issues that manipulate ethical decisions. Employees tend to fraud because they can experience the unfair treatments or situation that they face. Manages may ask employee to work long hours, and then they can take additional time off. Good performance leads to remunerations and appreciation managers than workers.
“Witness for the Prosecution” superbly demonstrated a realist view of the operating procedures in a courtroom. The actors within the courtroom were easy to identify, and the steps transitioned smoothly from the arrest to the reading of the verdict. The murder trial of Leonard Vole provided realistic insight into how laws on the books are used in courtroom proceedings. With the inferior elements noted, the superior element of the court system in “Witness for the Prosecution” was the use of the adversary system. Both sides of the adversary system were flawlessly protrayed when the prosecution and defense squared off in the courtroom.
Eidness, A. C. (2011). Confronting Ethical Issues in Practice: The Trial Lawyer's Dilemma. Family Law Quarterly, 45(1). Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.library.gcu.edu:2048/eds/detail?vid=10&sid=130cadee-b6c4-4c44-afb0-033cf3dd4548%40sessionmgr4004&hid=4113&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=63490930
Professional standards are defined as the legal or ethical duty of a professional in a particular field to exercise the level of diligence, skill, and care as stipulated in the code of practice. Normally, an individual is expected to be consistent with what other professionals in the practice are engaging in to comply with the expectation of the profession. On the other hand, institutional ethics is defined as the application, evaluation and articulation of values and moral principles that are related to the organization’s procedures, practices, and policies (Holloway & Wheeler, 2013). Perhaps, in the case studies below, health care institutions and professionals are involved thus prompting the need to examine their
We human beings live in a society. The society or the social world we live in is based on human cooperation. In other words, the individuals in a society do not live in an isolated self-centered world. The human interactive system presupposes ethical and moral standpoint from which we operate. My personal ethical system is based on “service before self” and “love your neighbors as yourself”.
...rings judges tend handle it the same, and they try to do it very quickly especially when they have a trial. I think the fastest at handling arraignments, that I have had a chance to witness is Judge Jesic, but I think Judge Ewell is pretty fast as well. When Judge Lippitt has a bench trial she tries to keep it neutral, and of course because the parties have counsel she is not very involved with the plaintiff or the defendant. I think the only time I have seen Judge Lippitt interact with a plaintiff is when she was doing a prove up or calming down a plaintiff trustee because they were being very disrespectful to the court. I think that most of the Judges are considerate of the court reporter, but Judge Lippitt cares the most and I know that court reporters like her for that. I usually don’t see other Judges telling counsels to slow down because of the court reporter.
The judge was a middle-aged male who looked intimidating and seemed to be well respected. To my surprise, we did not have to stand up when he entered the room. After the judge came out I assumed the jury would follow quickly after. However I quickly learned that there would be no jury for this particular trial. After a few minutes, the handcuffed defendant entered the room wearing an orange prison jumpsuit. He was a middle-aged, African-American male who was involved in a narcotic conspiracy case. In addition to the defendant a probation officer, the prosecutor and the defendant’s lawyer were also present. Aside from me, my classmate and a student from Georgetown the defendant’s wife and sister were in the