NewGuy

If any lies are detected, the whole immunity deal goes out the window. Since the don't know all the evidence in the case, they stick to the true in their own self interest. Note that other evidence must corroborate their story.

Rich Maher Loc: Sonoma County, CA

It's how they get the bigger fish.

RS Loc: W Columbia, SC

A bit off the beaten path here; but, I often have to wonder
how often/if ever do defense attorney's give their clients up,
if and when they find out they actually did the crime they
were charged with?
Also, I often wonder; if someone 'tries' to kill someone but
doesn't succeed and only wounds them, why isn't their
sentence the same as if they had in-fact succeeded?

gerdog

Lawyers are often aware of the guilt of their client, but they are duty bound to defend them as well as possible. The only time they would give them up is if they became aware that a client has admitted that they are about to commit a new crime. Our society in the US is going in the direction of prosecuting people BEFORE they have committed a crime by using conspiracy laws that were originally designed to crack down on organized crime where there actually WAS an underlying illegal deed.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

I think there are various degrees of immunity. It all depends on how bad the prosecutors are after someone and how valuable the information is to help them make a case. The again, I may have watched too many episodes of Law & Order. lol

jaycoffman Loc: San Diego

You are correct--there are a number of types of immunity and it does depend on what the person has to offer and how serious their own misconduct.

delkeener Loc: SW Rhode Island, USA

Determining truthfulness of a witness is a job for the jury if one is used. If the jury is not used then the judge decides.

Burtzy Loc: Bronx N.Y. & Simi Valley, CA

The system isn't perfect, but neither are people. Granting immunity is a work-around at best. But if the additional proof of the testimony backs up the one granted immunity, it sometimes to snags a bigger, nastier fish. Immunity is a tool, not a pardon.

andesbill

If the client tells his lawyer that he is guilty, the lawyer must either convince the client to cop a plea or drop the client. If the lawyer only suspects, he can represent him/her. The lawyer is an officer of the court.

CaptainBobBrown

Plea deals are necessary to effective search for the truth. It's rare for crimes to be committed without witness, often the witness is involved in the crime but everyone has the right to refuse self incrimination (5th Amendment) so by giving immunity from prosecution a participating criminal witness forgoes self-incrimination in exchange for having to render their witness testimony. Any of us serving on juries should take into account the character of the witness but the witness's character flaws shouldn't stand in the way of at least uncovering a fuller accounting of the crime(s) in question. Sure copping a plea doesn't remove all incentive to perjury but less than if a witness had no shelter from full prosecution under the law through agreement to forgo 5th amendment protection in exchange for their testimony. Don't let current political drama overwhelm reasoned consideration of basic criminal justice. It's not about Trump or Clinton. It's about what it takes for a rational society to get at the facts in the face of incomplete knowledge.

gerdog

Nonsense! EVERY defendant deserves competent legal representation. Every lawyer has represented clients who they knew were guilty. In fact, if a lawyer pressures his client too much to cop a plea, the issue can be claimed on appeal that his lawyer unfairly coerced him. The lawyer can present the plea options to the client, but if the accused decides to take it to trial, that's his decision. In fact, a defense attorney has to ask the judge's permission before he can dump his client. Why do you think that the lawyer/client communication privilege exists? As an officer of the court, the lawyer can't help a client to commit crimes, but he is always duty-bound to give effective assistance. Even a shoplifter caught redhanded on surveillance cameras gets to have a lawyer. Sometimes all the lawyer can do is try to get the best sentencing deal possible, but they don't just walk away from guilty clients.

jaycoffman Loc: San Diego

Very good analysis. In our system of justice (there are others) the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the government. This means something real. So it is not up to the defense lawyer to determine innocence or guilt only to make sure the defendant is treated fairly and according to the rules of court--factual innocence or guilt has nothing to do with how the lawyer proceeds in court although it may well involve discussions between the defendant and his/her lawyer. It is up to the government to present evidence to a judge or jury to convince the trier of fact that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime charged. It is not a perfect system but it is an attempt to be fair to everyone. Some of the rules that have evolved make sense and others do not--at least not in all situations which is why our laws are still evolving. And, yes, it's very frustrating for prosecutors and police to know that someone is guilty of a crime but not able to obtain the evidence necessary to prove it but that's our system.

Huey Driver Loc: Texas

A plea deal also gives the prosecution the opportunity that cherry pick it's witnesses and maybe sway what could be an unfair verdict.

pendennis

If you want to see just how corrupt the Justice Department, from top to bottom, just read "Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Justice Department" written by Sidney Powell. While she concentrates on the travesty of Justice in a few cases, her exposure of just how "justice" works in the U.S., is stunning to say the least.

She cites the "case" against Enron, the collapse of Arthur Andersen, and the persecution (that's not a misspell) against the late Alaska Senator, Ted Stevens.

She uses actual court pleadings, transcripts, and tons of documentation which show just how the FBI, Justice Department prosecutors, judges, and even the Federal appellate system to literally trample on the rights of defendants who were not only not guilty, but innocent.

Senator Stevens was so persecuted, lied to and about, and hamstrung, that he eventually lost his life (most likely suicide) from the "case" the Feds pressed. The Feds denied him real exculpatory evidence, ramrodded evidentiary hearings, and prevented the defense from interviewing witnesses by getting court orders to keep his attorney's from communicating with them. The FBI altered field interrogation forms (Form 302), and refused to turn them over to the defense even though the Federal Judge ordered them to do so.

Enron, while a real tragedy, was hardly the case of corporate corruption the Feds would have everyone believe. However, the corporate malfeasance was limited to far fewer people than the media would have one believe.

Arthur Andersen had a stellar reputation among the top accounting firms in the United States. Yet, they were indicted, causing their bankruptcy, based on actions, or rather non-actions, by some in the firm.

The Manafort case is another in which the Feds routinely overstepped the bounds of jurisprudence. They literally had Manafort locked up in solitary confinement for daring to talk to witnesses. Someone remind me why its illegal (in the eyes of the DOJ) for the defense to contact interview potential defense witnesses without the DOJ and FBI calling it "witness tampering".

It could be construed as "tampering", if the defense urged a witness to lie, etc. But how is it tampering when the defense attempts to determine the veracity of witnesses prior to trial?

I read Ms Powell's book in short order. I was absolutely riveted by her clarity and presentation. It will open your eyes, and prove that the parties involved in the President's "collusion" case is nothing but a witch hunt from the outset.

Tinkwmobile

IMO, legal system needs major fixing (still better than most). Plea bargains seem like a bribe.