Law Commons^™

Candor, Zeal, And The Substitution Of Judgment: Ethics And The Mentally Ill Criminal Defendant , John D. King

American University Law Review

This Article explores the tension between autonomy and paternalism that characterizes the attorney-client relationship when a criminal defense attorney represents a mentally impaired client. Specifically, the Article analyzes the ethical frameworks that constrain the discretion of the attorney in this situation and proposes a new paradigm for ethical decisionmaking when an attorney represents a marginally competent client.

The criminal defense attorney is both a zealous advocate for her client and an officer of the legal system. In representing a marginally competent client, the initial ethical dilemma facing the attorney is whether she has an obligation to alert the court to …

Everyone Deserves Defense, Peter Keane

Publications

In his decades as a public defender, Peter Keane represented murderers and other criminals as skillfully as he could – even when he knew they were guilty . Keane believes every one, no matter what they’ve done, deserves to have somebody on their side.

Defense Perspectives On Law And Politics In International Criminal Trials, Jenia I. Turner

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

As international criminal trials become more prominent, a fundamental question persists about their purposes: Are the goals of international criminal trials primarily legal, similar to the objectives of domestic trials, or are they primarily political, such as helping communities heal and compiling an accurate record of the past? Courts and commentators often acknowledge both legal and political purposes of international criminal trials, but fail to prioritize among them. This paper examines the purposes of international criminal trials through the perspectives of an overlooked, but important, participant in these trials¿the defense attorney. Through personal interviews, scholarly articles, and case law, I …

Guilty Pleas Or Trials: Which Does The Barrister Prefer?, Peter W. Tague

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Barristers in England and attorneys in the United States have been upbraided for pursuing their interests to their clients' detriment in recommending guilty pleas over trials. While this accusation against American attorneys could be true since their incentives are sometimes skewed to favor guilty pleas, it is not accurate with respect to barristers in England. This is because the latter’s selfish incentives--to maximize income and avoid sanction--incline them to prefer trials over guilty pleas. In Melbourne and Sydney, barristers have never been similarly accused. Indeed, the topic has not been studied. Based on interviews with legal professionals in those cities, …