NCJ Number
194694
Date Published
2002
Length
5 pages
Annotation
The author discusses dilemmas he experienced in his representation of a client charged with rape, with attention to ethical and practical issues involved in determining how far a defense attorney should go in representing a client.
Abstract
When hearing the client's story and comparing it with statements by the complaining witness, the author suspected that his client was not telling him the truth about having never met the complainant; otherwise, how could she have known so much about him and his apartment. The client had no explanation that could support the possibility that the rapist was someone else who used the client's apartment. Because no credible evidence existed for an alibi defense, the author adopted the strategy of attempting to undermine the complainant's version of the facts. The author demanded a preliminary hearing in which the complainant would have to testify under oath to the events in question. The author then became convinced that the complainant was telling the truth; and after telling his client of his belief, the client eventually admitted his guilt. The author then decided to mount a defense that involved attempting to convince the jury that the intercourse between his client and the complainant was consensual, even though the author did not believe this to be the case; however, the case dragged on for so long that the prosecutor eventually agreed to accept a plea of guilty for the possession of a gun. The author questions his decision to adopt a defense strategy he believed to be false. He rejects the popular view that defense attorneys should not involve themselves in attempting to determine what is true in a case, but rather build a defense based on challenging the prosecution's ability to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 6 notes