If a Defense Attorney knows that his client is guilty, because the client has admitted such to him/her, is that Attorney still allowed to defend them in court? I was thinking of that in terms of the Sandusky case. If Sandusky said to his Attorney: Yes, I did what I have been accused of, but it’s my word against these kids, and I think I can be found not guilty, can that Attorney continue to defend him, or is he obligated to report that info to the Judge?
Yep. Happens all the time (although more often the guilty guy lies to everyone including his attorney). The attorney is bound by attorney-client privilege to keep the confession confidential. The attorney CANNOT reveal that admission to anyone.
There are certain very, very narrow exceptions that both allow and require an attorney to disclose client confidential information. If the client tells the attorney he is going to kill the key witness, for example, the attorney must do what is necessary to prevent that harm. This usually arises in cases in which the attorney reasonably believe imminent harm to another is possible. I am greatly simplifying this, but, you get the picture.
But, if the “admission” to the attorney is about a past act, there is usually no basis for disclosure.
Add to what JSA said that if the client tells the attorney this, then the attorney has to be really careful about letting his client testify or make other statements under oath because then the atty could be suborning perjury. In some instances. That’s why many defense attys don’t ask that question of their clients and don’t want to know.
Many times attorneys will actively try to avoid hearing admissions by their clients because it limits the arguments that can be made. An attorney is allowed a lot of leeway when it comes to defending a client but the attorney cannot make statements that the attorney knows is a lie. So if you don’t know, it’s ok, but if you know it’s false it’s not ok.
It’s a fine line of getting the entire story to prepare a defense and not eliciting statements that will hamper the defense. But as JSA posted, most of my clients just lie to me anyway…about everything…“I didn’t do it”…and “I’ll pay you.”
…and “I’ll pay you.”
Many times attorneys will actively try to avoid hearing admissions by their clients because it limits the arguments that can be made. An attorney is allowed a lot of leeway when it comes to defending a client but the attorney cannot make statements that the attorney knows is a lie. So if you don’t know, it’s ok, but if you know it’s false it’s not ok.
It’s a fine line of getting the entire story to prepare a defense and not eliciting statements that will hamper the defense. But as JSA posted, most of my clients just lie to me anyway…about everything…“I didn’t do it”…and “I’ll pay you.”
Most of the time my clients lied so much I wasn’t sure they were telling the truth when they said they did it. 
Thanks, everybody. I figured the attorney-client privilege prevented disclosure, but it must be tough trying to defend someone charged with a heinous crime if you know they are guilty.
In order for the system to function correctly there has to be two sides vigorously doing their jobs. Criminal defense work is not always an easy career.
I understand and appreciate that. I’m hoping this doesn’t turn into a “how can these lawyers defend these scum” thread. Everyone is entitled to their day in court, with the best counsel possible, and everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Like a lot of things, it may seem unsavory at times, but it’s something that needs to be done for the system to work.
I don’t do criminal work but one needs to always keep in mind that, at a minimum, a defense attorney can hold their head high just by making the State do its work. There are lots of people who are “guitly” of something, but not what the prosecutor has charged them with (There are also more than a few who get caught up in the system despite not actually committing a crime - lots of criminal charges are based on laws and facts that are open to interpretation, particularly in white collar settings).
Sometimes a defense is more about, say, getting 1st degree murder down to 2nd degree or getting someone who has committed a low level felony put on probation instead of spending a year in jail. I doubt Sandusky’s lawyers think they have a serious chance of getting him off (unless they are really young - sorry could not resist) but they are certainly focused, at a minimum, on doing all they can for their client to icrease the chances he does not die of old age in jail.
Thanks, everybody. I figured the attorney-client privilege prevented disclosure, but it must be tough trying to defend someone charged with a heinous crime if you know they are guilty.
I have admitted multiple times that, IMO, a big professional weakness of mine is my inability to do criminal defense work. I was a prosecutor and a military magistrate judge when I was practicing criminal law. One of the biggest reasons I left the Army JAG Corps was b/c the Army wanted to assign me to TDS (Trial Defense Services). They even offered to promote me early, put me in charge of the entire department, and send me almost anywhere I wanted to go. I couldn’t do it.
As others have said, the system only works if there are men and women committed to defending the defendant. I find it a glaring weakness on my part that I am unable to do so.