The Supreme Court has ruled lawyers or their associations cannot refuse to appear for accused whether they are terrorist, rapists, murderers or any others as such refusal would be a violation of the Constitution, Bar Council norms and tenets of the Bhagavad Gita.
Full Answer
Chennai: An accused has a constitutional right to avail legal services of a lawyer and a lawyer cannot refuse to appear or defend an accused whether they are terrorist, rapists, murderers or any others, unless he has justifiable reasons.
Prosecutors rarely prosecute statutory rape cases unless the alleged victim feels aggrieved, even if a third-party complains and the evidence of the crime is overwhelming. Prosecutors often decline to prosecute when the offender apologies and pro-actively seeks to compensate the victim for the harm done.
The standard for review of a prosecutor's refusal to approve criminal charges is abuse of discretion. There's a good amount of case law regarding what constitutes "abuse of discretion" by a prosecutor in declining to prosecute a criminal complaint. From In re Wilson, 879 A.2d 199 (Pa. Super. 2005):
For the party seeking to enforce the court order or punish the other party’s disobedience, the time and expense involved to prove the other party’s refusal to obey are similar to those of a trial. And the person accused of disobeying the court order may face civil or criminal penalties due to their actions.
The right to counsel refers to the right of a criminal defendant to have a lawyer assist in his defense, even if he cannot afford to pay for an attorney. The Sixth Amendment gives defendants the right to counsel in federal prosecutions.
the Sixth AmendmentUnder Supreme Court case law, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel specifically requires that each and every adult who cannot afford to hire a lawyer at prevailing compensation rates in his jurisdiction must be given a qualified and trained lawyer.
According to the Supreme Court, under what circumstances does a defendant have a Constitutional right to choose a different privately hired attorney? Defendant can choose a new attorney for almost any reason. "Very distrustful" of their lawyers.
The case that established that defendants have a right to represent themselves was Faretta v. California, U.S. Sup. Ct. 1975. The Faretta case said that a judge must allow self-representation if a defendant is competent to understand and participate in the court proceedings.
The amendment that gives you the right to the assistance of counsel at all stages of a criminal investigation or prosecution is the Sixth (6th) Amendment. You can invoke your right to counsel by saying, “I want to speak to an attorney. I am not answering any other questions until after I speak to an attorney.”
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you.
Everyone is not entitled to representation. The US Constitution only provides for a right to an attorney in criminal cases. Legal Aid handles only civil matters. Before a case is accepted the case must be determined to have legal merit and meet Legal Aid priorities.
Defense Attorneys develop relationships with clients as they establish legal needs, provide counsel, help them understand their legal options. Defense Attorneys also conduct research, prepare legal documents, and perform other duties to ensure that clients receive the best and most cost-effective legal solutions.
United States , the U.S. Supreme Court rules that if the Sixth Amendment's speedy trial right is violated, then the Court must dismiss the indictment against the defendant or reverse the conviction.
In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution requires the states to provide defense attorneys to criminal defendants charged with serious offenses who cannot afford lawyers themselves. The case began with the 1961 arrest of Clarence Earl Gideon.
Overview. The Sixth Amendment provides that a person accused of a crime has the right to confront a witness against him or her in a criminal action.
A criminal defendant's right to an attorney is found in the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which requires the "assistance of counsel" for the accused "in all criminal prosecutions." This means that a defendant has a constitutional right to be represented by an attorney during trial.
In criminal cases, the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury, forbids “double jeopardy,” and protects against self-incrimination.
Whereas the Ninth Amendment provides that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution does not deny or disparage other unenumerated rights retained by the people, the Tenth Amendment clearly reserves to the states those powers that the Constitution neither delegates to the federal government nor prohibits to ...
Described by some as “a preference for the Civilian over the Military,” the Third Amendment forbids the forcible housing of military personnel in a citizen's home during peacetime and requires the process to be “prescribed by law” in times of war.
It also referred to legendary American lawyer Clarence Darrow (1857-1930) who was strongly of the view that every accused, no matter how wicked, loathsome, vile or repulsive he may be regarded by society has the right to be defended in court.
The bench cited Article 22 (1) of the Constitution which says “no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for which arrest has been made nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice”.
The Supreme Court has ruled lawyers or their associations cannot refuse to appear for accused whether they are terrorist, rapists, murderers or any others as such refusal would be a violation of the Constitution, Bar Council norms and tenets of the Bhagavad Gita.
Similarly, sometimes the Bar Association passes a resolution that they will not defend a person who is alleged to be a terrorist or a person accused of a brutal or heinous crime or involved in a rape case.
Logically speaking narcissist would make great lawyer because they don't mind hurting other people. They don't mind if their clients are lying or if they are lying about a case. They don't mind saying whatever they need to say or hurting whoever they need to hurt. Their objective is winning.
The lawyer is there is vouch that the accused is punished as per the act of crime committed by him and to no further extent ie. on any additional count of crime which he has not committed. Lawyers are there to defend horrible people (ie. murderers, rapists etc.) as they have a right to justice.
There is also a doctrine in the law that relates to therapists, doctors, and sometimes lawyers called the Tarasoff rule, which allows professionals to report imminent and specific threats of future violence to law enforcement without violating ethical duties of confidentiality.
The duty of lawyers is to ensure that justice is discharged as per the case in hand and the crime committed .
Attorney-client privilege is broad, because our justice system is based on clients being able to have open and frank communications with their attorneys.
That’s why an attorney should keep their personal feelings as far as possible from a case. Sure, bring them up when there’s passion to be had over the innocence of your client. But otherwise make it hell for prosecution until they’ve actually 100% demonstrated the guilt of your client, beyond any reasonable doubt.
The family court judge can make orders regarding custody and visitation of the children, support, or can require the person with greater access to funds to help pay the other party’s attorney fees. But what happens when the court makes a formal order to the parties regarding custody, visitation, support or attorney’s fees ...
In family law, the court is not automatically alerted when someone fails to comply with the terms of a valid court order. And unless the court order specifically penalizes the person who does not comply, that person is not automatically punished.
A contempt action is a very complicated process and can have serious consequences for both parties. For the party seeking to enforce the court order or punish the other party’s disobedience, the time and expense involved to prove the other party’s refusal to obey are similar to those of a trial. And the person accused of disobeying ...
Bringing a contempt action against a party who is not complying with a court order is a complicated and personal decision that must be weighed against the potential financial and emotional strain. While the threat of a contempt action may eventually convince the other party to comply, it is not wise to wait a lengthy period of time before filing the contempt proceeding because certain defenses may arise to the action due to the delay.
Most family law orders, including the payment of support and attorney’s fees, are punishable by a contempt action. Remember too that family law disputes are civil rather than criminal proceedings.
However, no matter how hard an attorney or a judge may try to ensure compliance with a court order, a contempt action may be impossible to avoid when the other party refuses to comply.
The contents of this web page are for informational purposes only, and nothing you read is intended to be legal advice. Please review our disclaimer about law/legal-related information on this website before taking action based upon anything you read or see.
In public defense cases (court appointed attorneys), many attorneys work on contract with a company or for the state. They do not have an opportunity to interview their clients before beginning representation, and basically agree to represent any client who is assigned to them by the court or the group that manages them.
As a former defense lawyer who has interviewed hundreds of potential clients, I can speak from experience.
We also explore whether the lawyers in the office actually have the experience and expertise and knowledge to effectively represent the particular client.
One of the primary reasons I would decline to take a case, even if the client had money to afford me and I had the expertise he needed, was that I just didn’t like him.
Personally, as a defense attorney, I assisted clients charged with drunk driving, assault, drugs, coercion, murder, and more.
Prosecutors often decline to prosecute because a larger grand strategy is in place to deal with a pattern of criminal conduct (e. g. trying to shut down an illegal chop shop, or trying to shut down a gang or drug dealing operation) when doing so based upon a citizen complaint would interrupt the larger strategy .
Reasons why a case might not be prosecuted. There are many reasons why a prosecutor might not file charges, even is s/he believed that the accused did the crime, quite aside from any outright bribery. Perhaps the most important and most common is that the prosecutor thinks that a trial will not result in a conviction.
If the prosecutor had actually accepted a bribe, that would be a crime. If this could be proved, the prosecutor should be removed from office and quite probably convicted. In such a case the new prosecutor would be very likely to review the case with a very different eye.
6. In many countries, an individual has the right to raise a private prosecution if the public prosecutor decides not to pursue a case. This is generally expensive, as with all things legal. The reason for public prosecutors after all is to prevent justice being limited to the rich and denied to the poor.
I gather from the answer to the linked question that what happens in principle is that the police would investigate, and the local prosecutor would file charges against Alice. But suppose Alice is a billionaire and she bribes the local prosecutor to not prosecute.
united-states. Bob could do any number of things to try to convince someone to prosecute Alice: call the prosecutor's boss, or the district attorney ( or their equivalents in DOJ if it's a federal crime), or his elected representatives; he could also go to the media, or post on social networks...
When jury trials were first introduced in England, prosecutions were normally started by a private person, through an action known as Appeal (This is different than the modern use of "appeal" to mean bringing a case to a higher court.) But the King and the central authorities under the king found that often crimes were not prosecuted which they wanted addressed, particularly when the accused was a wealthy or powerful person, or the potential accuser was weak or poor.