Legal Question in Legal Ethics in Nebraska

Re: supression of evidence

One.

Trial strategy is within the discretion of the lawyer. There are as many ways to try a case as there are lawyers.

However, there are rules of evidence and things which are obvious,--hearsay objections can be a swamp, so you're not likely to get an ethics violation out of that.

But, if it's something like not showing up for a hearing, failing to file motions that are really obvious (motions to suppress the statements of dead witnesses, for example, are pretty obvious), the taking of a $10,000 retainer and not interviewing a single witness, --that sort of thing, then you've got the makings of not only an ethics violation, but malpractice. A lawyer can violte ethics and not commit malpractice, though.

Two.

Defense counsel are not required to prove their client's innocence. They're there to create "reasonable doubt," which means there's even more latitude given.

Putting a witness on the stand is a dangerous thing, using evidence the other side doesn't have is "fraught with peril," because then the other side gets to play with your toys.

That's why prosecutors hide evidence all the time,--if they think they can make a case without a witness, they'll hide the witness and use the information. No problem, unless it violates a constitutional right.

So, on the flip side, if a defense lawyer fails to pursue a certain line of inquiry, you have to ask why. Maybe it could have hurt the case in the long-run, clouded the important issues,or was at best a neutral issue given what the attorney knew.

Clients often think things are more legally revelant than they are, and attorneys often discount client points of view too much: that's why a working relationship with your lawyer HAS to start outside of the courtroom. Trust is essential, and usually malpractice comes when that trust has broken down.

Help your lawyer; ask questions BEFORE, rather than waiting to jump down her throat AFTER.