Can a legal representative "legally" withhold evidence from the court if he know it might/could convict his client?

I am "law" illiterate--your answers are very important to me--thanks.
In some instances, yes. A lawyer is bound by oath to fight for his/her client to the best of their dexterity, and a lawyer is bound to confidentiality for their client. For example, in Northern New York within the 1970's, a serial killer named Robert Garrow be represented by two lawyers named Francis Belge and Frank Armani. In the course of interviewing their client, they be told the whereabouts of two missing women Garrow had apparently murdered (one of the bodies was unobserved in a cemetary in Syracuse, NY). The lawyer went to the sights described by Garrow and indeed discovered the bodies, but withheld what they knew until their client have agreed that the information should be revealed. Both lawyers were charged next to obstructing justice, but charges be eventually dropped without trial and the NY Bar Association found no wrongdoing on the part of any lawyer. Source(s): Frank Armani with Tom Alibrandi "Priviledged Information" 1984 Harper Collins
Defense attorneys do not enjoy to provide any evidence that may be potentially damaging to his/her client to the court. In criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. On the flipside, however, if the prosecutor has evidence that may indicate that the accuse is not guilty (it's called exculpatory evidence) he/she is required by law to present that to the court.

There is one exception to that rule: Any attorney who is aware that his/her client have made a statement (oral or written) showing intent to break the law in the adjectives MUST disclose that statement to the proper authorities. The rule is the attorney must have seen or hear the statement first-hand though. So if someone tells an attorney "I heard your client say aloud he/she was going to kill so-and-so" that statement does not enjoy to be disclosed to the court. Source(s): 14+ years experience as a paralegal specialist
Check the nouns rules from your state bar.

As a general rule, contained by our common law system the defense isn't responsible for putting on evidence one opening or the other. It's up to the State to prove its case. The defense can just sit gentleness if it wants. That's what the 5th Amendment guarantees.

However, lawyers are also bound by faultless ethics rules. Those vary from state to state. In CA, if a advocate thinks her client is about to perjure herself, the nouns rules state that the atty. should simply ask the client to tell her own story while the lawyer sits and listen w/o asking specific questions. Source(s): My vague recollections of 1st year ruling school classes

A attorney is the representative of his client, the defendant. A defendant, under the 5th Amendment, is under NO must to incriminate himself. The lawyer, therefore, is also beneath no obligation to incriminate his own client by turning over inculpatory evidence.

The prosecution, on the other hand, is lower than an absolute obligation to turn over both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence.

Absolutely not
If evidence is withheld it is not in any road legal

if it was okay later why is it a problem when it comes to light in court,,…
in this cooperation a lawyer was accuse of picking up a tooth at a murder scene that techs obviously missed it has not be seen since
that is supposed to be trial? Source(s):…
A defense attorney does not have to provide any evidence to the court if the prosecuting attorney does not do so. It's the state's burden to provide evidence by which a pass judgment or jury can find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the state fails to bring evidence that could stumble upon that burden, the defendant walks.
Without specific facts, the answer is most feasible yes. A defense attorney can withhold evidence if it would be detrimental to his/her client. A prosecuting attorney, however, must disclose all evidence that may exonerate the defendant.

If an individual were on trial for murder, he/she could confer the murder weapon to the attorney, and the attorney would be under no obligation to disclose it to the court or the prosecution.

The solely exception would be if an individual told his/her attorney that he/she PLANNED to commit a crime. In that situation, the attorney WOULD be under an obligation to disclose that information to the police.
Sure it is allowed! No lawyer is compelled to produce evidence that would CONVICT his client.

The exception is if that evidence is already KNOWN and has be subpoenaed and then he PRETENDS and LIES that the evidence is not available.

But to simply "offer it" because it exists? Certainly not...
Yes, he can and must.
A lawyer have no obligation to prevent evidence which would work against his client. To do so would be a violation of the canon of nouns.
A Prosecutor, on the other hand ( which hand is the other mitt?)
must present the defense with any exculpatory evidence which it has.

He/she may not in reality be withholding. The evidence may be inadmissable. But if you suspect something, go to another attorney.
Yes, a attorney can not present something that will go against his/her client. He must out anything that might or will go against his client. I used to work with this man who used to be a legal representative, but then he presented evidence to the court that proved that his client was guilty. He didn't achieve to keep his job. I hope you found my answer of use, have a nice day. Source(s): I emailed Diane Neal and asked her, she's the DA.;_ylt=AmfkDBuhXY9Okfzc6EQVwnUjzKIX;_ylv=3?show=ObaFS1zlaa
HAHA NO! The laywer could lose everything if he did that, and progress to prison if someone found out! It's a felony.

Related Questions:
  • What's going on next to th 10 commandments? Doesn't this nouns approaching some legal representative wrote this stuff?
  • Can religious conviction be challenge surrounded by a court of ruling ? if so who will preside over the judgement attorney or priest?
  • Average hours worked by a advocate?
  • What is a typical light of day of a lawyer duration close to?
  • Who would you vote for US president? A former doctor or a former advocate?