Semantics.

  • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Minor correction: Admitting you committed a crime in the past is protected. The attorney can still tiptoe around the fact that they know you committed it, by defending you on procedural or clerical grounds. For instance, they can attack the evidence that has been submitted against you, because it was mishandled, or because the equipment used to gather it hadn’t been calibrated recently enough, or for any number of reasons. Even if they know you committed the crime, they can still ensure that your court proceedings are fair.

    Admitting that you plan on committing future crimes is not covered. The attorney can’t be party to future crimes, and admitting you plan on committing crimes makes them a co-conspirator if they don’t rat you out.

      • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Read my second paragraph, because I covered that already. The attorney can’t help you plan or execute future crimes, because that makes them a co-conspirator.

        And from what I’ve read, that’s pretty much exactly what Trump tried to do. He apparently tried to use the “hypothetically if I were to commit this crime, what would be the best way to do it” method. The issue is that this is just a blatant attempt at getting around things, and courts don’t tend to like it when you try to skirt their rules.

        • macrocephalic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          To be pedantic, you specifically said future crimes. A discussion between a lawyer and a client, about past crimes where the lawyer was a participant in the crime are not covered.