Of course one thing Fuji forgets is who accredits Law Schools, even as as with Medical Schools.
Can I get in trouble? Legal Issue
- Thread starter Rono
- Start date
you have no such obligation.
you have an obligation to NOT MISLEAD the police, but there is no obligation to talk to them whatsoever. If you are questioned, it's your right to advise the police that you are not in a position to provide a statement, and insist on that right.
As I said, I am a cat and not a scummy lawyer, when questioned by police you can of course refuse to talk with them. The refusal to talk will not look good for you. It may be the California coming out of me, but is it not obstruction of justice to not tell what you know?
In the U.S. that would be far more clear cut if the suspect had confesed to him. As it is this is complete hearsay "I've danced with a man, who danced with a girl, who danced with the Prince of Wales"
it's only an obstruction if you lie, there is no positive obligation to report or to cooperate in Canada (in contrast to so-called "police states")
even if it was a confession, there is no duty to talk
if it was physical evidence, it's quite different though
(an excerpt from Homolka story:
During the summer of 1994, Murray had become concerned about serious ethical problems that had arisen in connection with the tapes and his continued representation of Bernardo. He consulted his own lawyer, Austin Cooper, who asked the Law Society of Upper Canada's professional-conduct committee for advice.
"The law society directed Murray in writing to seal the tapes in a package and turn them over to the judge presiding at Bernardo's trial. The law society further directed him to remove himself as Bernardo's counsel and to tell Bernardo what he had been instructed to do," Murray said in a statement released through Cooper in September 1995.[15]
On 12 September 1994, Cooper attended Bernardo's trial and advised Mr. Justice Patrick LeSage of the Ontario Court's General Division, lawyer John Rosen, who replaced Murray as Bernardo's defence counsel, and the prosecutors about what the law society had directed Murray to do. Rosen argued that the tapes should have been turned over to the defence first. Murray handed the tapes, along with a detailed summary, to Rosen, who "kept the tapes for about two weeks and then decided to turn them over to the prosecution." [6])
If it was me, it would depend on what the crime was as to whether or not I would rat him out.
I know that in Canada, you have a right to not incriminate yourself in a proceeding against you (IOW, you refuse to act as a witness against yourself, by refusing to take the stand or talk to police).
However, where does it say that you do not have to cooperate with police? I suppose it makes sense not being in a police state, but isn't that obstruction of justice? I know already that police can't force witnesses at the scene of a crime to talk, even though they know that many present at say, a gangland shooting, could be witnesses.
However, where does it say that you do not have to cooperate with police? I suppose it makes sense not being in a police state, but isn't that obstruction of justice? I know already that police can't force witnesses at the scene of a crime to talk, even though they know that many present at say, a gangland shooting, could be witnesses.
The OP says that he 'casually' knows the accused. The accused has posted bail, so I would imagine already has a lawyer.
While the OP thinks he has a moral dilemma, even if he calls crimestoppers anonymously and mentions the person who heard a confession, that could get HIM & HIS family into trouble (that friend would know it was the OP who snitched).
If the accused has criminal associations, does the OP really want to get involved & possibly put at risk his own family?
It dates from 1927, I'm rather supprised that it isn't on youtube as a stand alone. I thought just about every song in the world was on youtube.
You have!!!!!!??!!!!
Well it is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjogyfx-mFk between the 29 second and one minute marks.
sounds like an automatic acquittal
A dude that hires a car for a lawyer isn't right in the head.
Ah. FWIW, the Crown does not have to be convinced of someone's guilt to proceed with the case. The standard the Crown is held to is whether there is a "reasonable possibility of conviction", not whether the Crown knows the accused is guilty.
Ethically, they would be expected to. The Crown's job is not to find guilt or innocence, but to present the facts and let the judge or jury decide. In practice, most Crown's tend either to assume either that the accused is likley guilty or that the accused is certainly guilty of something else just as bad as whatever charges are currently being tried. So long as there is a reasonable prospect of conviction, the Crown is expected to proceed.
It entirely depends what you are saying: is there some slight possibility that the accused did not commit the crime, or that there is some exculpatory evidence. Or is it that there is a huge amount of exculpatory evidence or that the accused’s actions do not in fact meet the requirements of the law to prove guilt.
In most U.S. States and Federally the first is a matter for the Jury (however exculpatory evidence must be turned over to the defence) for the latter it is likely prosecution would be declined. While if it becomes clear that the accused did not commit the crime it would be a grave violation of the professional code to continue prosecution.
