Best defence!

[sue11]

This has been puzzling me for a few years now and am hoping that someone can help me with the answer. About 8 or 9 years ago, I watched a programme on date rape. The programme featured a man who had date raped a few woman. Each time a victim came forward to make the complaint, this guy went to his lawyer, who kept getting him off, using the defence that the victim consented to sex. As the courts could not prove the case, he kept getting away with it. My feeling on this is that his lawyer must have had some idea at some point, that he was guilty! If my memory serves me correctly and it is not exagerating, this guy was accused 6 times and each time got away with his crime. The lawyer did not come across as a very nice person in this documentary and seemed not to care that his client was obviously guilty and he was simply releasing this guy to rape more woman or worse as some case history rapists have proved. My question is that at what point would a lawyer start to have a conscience about the possible repercussions of winning a case for a client they suspect is guilty. Obviously they have to ensure the best possible defence for a client, but at what stage should they pull out of defending a client if at all?
Cheers Sue

[sue11]

In a pickle, the bank account instead of a conscience makes sense!
Ward Minter, I remember now reading about similar fact evidence and that this can be used to help win a case. And yes I can see that as long as the solicitor is satisfied that they have ensured the client has received a fair trial, then I presume that they can take any case with a clear conscience regardless. I also remember reading that some solicitors try to delay the trial to ensure that any potential witnesses memory of events, gets as dim as possible. So I presume that they have no problem trying to help their clients case along as much as possible!
Many thanks for your answers!
Sue

[black bunny]

My knowledge of law is purely based on watching Rumpole of the Bailey and Kavanagh, but as I understand it, if a client tells his lawyer he is innocent, the lawyer assumes he is telling the truth and will defend his client according to the client's instructions. Doesn't matter what the lawyer 's private thoughts are.
On the other hand, if the client states he is guilty, then the lawyer has to tell him to plead guilty and accept the consequences - he couldn't advise him to lie!
Therefore I don't think many lawyers are going to ask their client if they did the deed!
Hope this helps.

[filthiestfis]

Get Judge Judy to solve the case I say. We need a no nonsense approach in this country.

[SizzleSquid]

as ward minter says, the accused is assumed innocent in every separate case until proven guilty, even in cases where the charges are running concurently. There has to be SUFFICIENT evidence beyond reasonable doubt, no matter how much you suspect someone to be guilty, for them to be convicted. One word against anothers does not count as sufficient evidence.

[sue11]

Many thanks everyone for all your responses. I think my question is also a moral one really. I felt in this case that the lawyer knew very well that his client was guilty, but was still seemlingly happy to defend him. Obviously legally he was perfectly right to do this, but if I was in the position of the lawyer, my conscience would have been telling me by now that if each time I won his case, I was probably releasing him to attack more women each time. However as Ward Minter states, there is now similar fact evidence which can be used, but I wonder if you can use this if the client received previous not guilty verdicts?