The recent case involving the kidnapping, sexual assault and murder of a young girl has brought out the question again: ”How could you represent someone like that?” Historically, there would be no public forum for which to debate this issue: Thankfully, with the internet, the answer to such a question can be argued and answered, to the satisfaction of the public. It is a criminal lawyer’s obligation to not judge their client for they are alleged to have done, or have done, quite frankly. Imagine if the lawyer said to a client: “Since you are guilty of such a horrible crime, I do not intend to work as hard as I would if you were innocent.”
A fair trial means that only such evidence that was obtained legally by police should be entered at trial. A fair trial means that the burden of proof on the crown to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt applies to everyone: A fair trial means that the crown must provide all disclosure to the defence, whether it hurts or assists the accused. A fair trial means that the accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence until he is proven guilty. A fair trial is a right, not a gift.
I do not condone criminal activity. However, I will not condone, encourage or accept anyone treating my clients with disrespect. I will fight vigorously for my clients. They deserve it. I will not take no for an answer, for every problem has a solution. Bottom line? If a crown wants to convict my client, they will have to fight hard for it, because I will be there, every step of the way to prevent it.
I am as tough as they come: And the experience, drive, determination, respect and compassion is what I have in my arsenal. I am an exceptional criminal lawyer. And I am ready to take on your case.
One Comment
Agreed. When evidence is excluded because it was procured unlawfully and/or in violation of the accused person’s rights it the blame falls on those who committed the wrongdoing in getting the evidence. Those who blame the judge who rule the evidence inadmissible or the lawyer who fights for its exclusion are flat out wrong. The way to ensure that evidence against someone who is guilty gets to the jury is to ensure that it is procured lawfully and within Charter provisions. That duty lies with the police. When police choose to ignore the Charter and the law THEY are the ones increasing the odds of guilty parties being acquitted. Not the judge, not the lawyer.