There are instances, many where a person believes they may be guilty of an offence because they don't understand the elements of the offence and therefore think they are guilty. Lets use the example of possession of a weapon for a dangerous perpose. The crown has to prove that the item is or was used as a weapon. They must also prove that it was for a dangerous purpose. That dangerous purpose can't be surmised by the crown it has to be demonstrated. A great example of this is the R v Bray case in Alberta. Bray was carrying a weapon for self defence and used it in that manner and was charged. The Judge in the decision very clearly articulates the circumstances where carrying a weapon for the purpose of self defence is appropriate. Self defence is not illegal. Therefore the purpose of carrying a weapon for self defence is not illegal. For a higher authority look to the SCC Kerr decision where the judges found Kerr not guilty for stabbing someone in the head and killing him with a weapon he had been carrying for quite some time prior to the event, specifically for that purpose. Therefore don't assume you are guilty just because the police tell you that you have committed an offence. Guilt can only be decided by a judge/jury. I suggest telling the criminal defence lawyer all he needs to defend you as effectively as possible, they can do that best if you have made no statements verbal or otherwise to the police. On the issue of firearms offences I note one judges comment - the language of the firearms act is so tortuous and difficult to understand that even those charged with administering it don't understand it. Any time a firearm is involved the defence counsel MUST contact someone expert in the field of firearms. If weapons are involved they must contact someone who is expert in the area of the force continuum. Anyone interested in this area of the law should read No More Mr. Nice-guy; a guide to defending yourself in Canada. The back of the book contains 15 pages of lists of caselaw relevent to self defence and use of weapons.
Nice try: the problem is the moment you give your defense lawyer a brown bag of money, you as the "hapless" defendant have TWO choices only: to plead guilty or not guilty, and whether you will take the stand. You do NOT have a gram of control over YOUR OWN lawyer. Ask me how I know. Law in theory, you've explained it well. In practice, Canada is pretty much the flip side of the USA: what will get you a Community Safety Award in Calif. (where I grew up) or the Freedom Medal in Texas, will get you charged with ASSAULT in Canada. The "evidence" and "case" presented by the Clown.....er Crown......I wouldn't have recognized in a Grade 8 Debate tournament, which is where I was the Judge.
Also let’s assume the lawyer chooses to perjur themselves to benefit their client…….the client attorney privelige only works one way, it doesn’t protect the lawyer should the client be found guilty and decide in an act of retribution that they want to incriminate their lawyer for committing perjury…….no smart lawyer would ever leave themselves at the mercy of someone who knowingly broke the law.
I once interviewed a criminal offense attorney who assumed my guilt. He said, "You were charged; where there is smoke, there's fire." Needless to say, I did not retain him. I decided to use my guilty co-defendant's lawyer because he, at the very least, knew I was not guilty. I was simply charged to ensure they could force me to testify. I would have done so without their coercion. The judge knew the whole story and In fact, at the first day of the trial, the judge ordered my release "Before we do anything else". However, if your lawyer does not believe in your innocence you need a lawyer that does!
I just went to their web site and requested the closest Location to me and Carl got back to me with in a minute and i have no skin in the game so my opinion is that these guys are worth considering
If a client tells you that he's guilty and you tell him to get another lawyer, are you still bound by lawyer confidentiality even if you're no longer his lawyer? My guess is yes because you were acting as his lawyer at the time. But, I would advise people to not make any confessions to a lawyer too early on because you might find that the lawyer you've contacted isn't able to become your lawyer due to reasons of jurisdiction, etc.
This is good advice if you have a lousy lawyer and lousy advice if your lawyer is smart. Let me ask, if I lied to my lawyer and told him I was innocent, he might put me on the stand forcing me to lie to the judge and the judge might figure out that I'm lying. Judges punish liars. Is that a good outcome? If my lawyer knows I'm guilty, he can leave it up to the prosecutor to prove I'm guilty. And if I'm guilty and admit it, that guilt will follow me forever. If I plead innocent and am found guilty anyway, I have a chance to change my life around. The last terrible thing about our law system is that lawyers can chalk up a "win" with a reduced sentence, but to the accused, it's only a win if they are found innocent. Too many guys have been told they'll win only to find themselves in jail. The lawyer says that he got you off with only six months, but time stops when the bars clang shut.
But even if they tell the lawyer they're guilty, the lawyer still doesn't KNOW that. He only knows that the client claimed to be guilty. There are plenty of reasons they might lie about their guilt. (Protecting someone else etc.)
so the defense lawyer is supposed to limit their defense of the client if the client admits guilt but then says im still gonna lie, and say im innocent, and plead not guilty but there is literally nothing to stop the lawyer from defending the client like a normal case because there is no rule that says the lawyer has to share the admission of guilt with the prosecution
so it’s essentially “if the client hired me and pays me, I won’t treat him like a civilian who just admitted to being guilty of a crime in which I would have to report him to police, and because he’s paying me, instead I’ll work with him and hold onto his secrets to help him hide and be strategic in our case…. but if he doesn’t pay me or hire me to represent him but told me he was guilty in our meetings, I feel compelled to and will tell the police this client is guilty of an offence, so I’m not guilty of helping some who is guilty hide, protecting my practice and my own ass legally”
@@Jimminityjabooboo makes sense. thanks for the clarification. so its private practise lawyer (paid more) vs state defence lawyer (shit pay less reason to protect client).
No that’s not correct, if you tell your lawyer you’re guilty and then get a new lawyer. Your previous lawyer will not notify the policy. That is ridiculous. Like this lawyer said, ethically he cannot let you purger yourself on the stand. So his job will be to poke holes in the accusers story and make them seem like not a credible witness. Any other evidence he will do the same, it’s not about lying it’s about challenging the prosecutors version of events to create reasonable doubt
@@Jimminityjabooboo I'm protecting my golf buddies (the Crown counsel and the Judge) and there's nothing the hapless defendant can do about it as it's behind closed doors. Ask me how i know.
@@Sam-fp8zm Having to do it all over again, I'd take my own case, make the Clown....er , Crown PROVE it's case to the Judge, and no, I would NOT take the stand. The "process" as referred to by my PAID lawyer?? It's more like the "processing" going on in Brooks, Alberta at the meat plant.
Lawyers aren't supposed there to get charges dropped, they're supposed to be there to ensure a fair trial. Any lawyer who knows their client is a rapist, paedophile, human trafficker, abuser, torturer, or murderer, and still tries to get the charges dropped, is a collaborator and not much better than their clients. Getting those people to go free means ensuring they have more future victims.
Yes ! Tell your defense attorney everything . Then he can make a deal to lesson the sevarty of your sentence . (Or at least that’s the way it’s supposed to work . ) What you’re trying to do is gain the public trust again . And that’s where your lawyer comes in .
Crown and the process has ZERO interest in your respecting the "public trust". That's an American idea, along with jury trials (common, NOT common in Canada) and the open court (cameras, videos, public access). NONE of those three are available in Canada. The entire crowd doesn't even want your own friends there, including your own paid lawyer.
fascinating video. I will take exception with the Law and the profession and the use of the words "bound by ethics". Clearly the system if flawed if the Society that governs the profession rates lawyer/client privilege over the truth and justice. The ethical approach would be the lawyer tells the crown the individual admitted the crime and thus will plead guilty and work to find an appropriately relevant sentence given said admission of guilt. In other professions, like Accounting, Medicine and Engineering, ethical resolutions involve truth and not cover-up. We have collectively lost our way in society. We accept lies and trickery within the system as opposed to absolute truth being our desired outcome. Sad....but I know it will not change.
-In other words, if you are honest, you'll have a hard time finding a criminal law lawyer to defend you. -Reason is money. Trial criminal defense lawyer makes money by going to trial... no sure thing, no trial... not in Canada, anyways. -There is no money in admission of guilt, a legal aid lawyer can do that; a good lawyer fights to the lesser sentence possible for you. Sick. -Saving the court's time goes far ways... you save the court money but your lawyer makes less... that's for those who want to pay their debt to society and move on. Lawyers don't like that.... they want to milk you.... it's all about money.
It’s great that you put these videos out. Very educational. We are inundated with American media and it’s nice to learn Canadian law. Thank you.
Great episode Mike, i often wondered what would happen if you confessed to your lawyer etc.
They would just up the fee and lie. 😂. Their whole job is lying.
I’ve always wondered how lawyers go about it in that scenario. Very informative!
There are instances, many where a person believes they may be guilty of an offence because they don't understand the elements of the offence and therefore think they are guilty. Lets use the example of possession of a weapon for a dangerous perpose. The crown has to prove that the item is or was used as a weapon. They must also prove that it was for a dangerous purpose. That dangerous purpose can't be surmised by the crown it has to be demonstrated. A great example of this is the R v Bray case in Alberta. Bray was carrying a weapon for self defence and used it in that manner and was charged. The Judge in the decision very clearly articulates the circumstances where carrying a weapon for the purpose of self defence is appropriate. Self defence is not illegal. Therefore the purpose of carrying a weapon for self defence is not illegal. For a higher authority look to the SCC Kerr decision where the judges found Kerr not guilty for stabbing someone in the head and killing him with a weapon he had been carrying for quite some time prior to the event, specifically for that purpose. Therefore don't assume you are guilty just because the police tell you that you have committed an offence. Guilt can only be decided by a judge/jury. I suggest telling the criminal defence lawyer all he needs to defend you as effectively as possible, they can do that best if you have made no statements verbal or otherwise to the police. On the issue of firearms offences I note one judges comment - the language of the firearms act is so tortuous and difficult to understand that even those charged with administering it don't understand it. Any time a firearm is involved the defence counsel MUST contact someone expert in the field of firearms. If weapons are involved they must contact someone who is expert in the area of the force continuum. Anyone interested in this area of the law should read No More Mr. Nice-guy; a guide to defending yourself in Canada. The back of the book contains 15 pages of lists of caselaw relevent to self defence and use of weapons.
Nice try: the problem is the moment you give your defense lawyer a brown bag of money, you as the "hapless" defendant have TWO choices only: to plead guilty or not guilty, and whether you will take the stand. You do NOT have a gram of control over YOUR OWN lawyer. Ask me how I know. Law in theory, you've explained it well. In practice, Canada is pretty much the flip side of the USA: what will get you a Community Safety Award in Calif. (where I grew up) or the Freedom Medal in Texas, will get you charged with ASSAULT in Canada. The "evidence" and "case" presented by the Clown.....er Crown......I wouldn't have recognized in a Grade 8 Debate tournament, which is where I was the Judge.
The lawyer cannot divulge the conversation, but I guess they cannot perjure themselves either. Thanks for this.
yeah interesting. Is it the same in the USA?
No self snitching
Also let’s assume the lawyer chooses to perjur themselves to benefit their client…….the client attorney privelige only works one way, it doesn’t protect the lawyer should the client be found guilty and decide in an act of retribution that they want to incriminate their lawyer for committing perjury…….no smart lawyer would ever leave themselves at the mercy of someone who knowingly broke the law.
Lawyers don't give evidence
I once interviewed a criminal offense attorney who assumed my guilt. He said, "You were charged; where there is smoke, there's fire." Needless to say, I did not retain him. I decided to use my guilty co-defendant's lawyer because he, at the very least, knew I was not guilty. I was simply charged to ensure they could force me to testify. I would have done so without their coercion. The judge knew the whole story and In fact, at the first day of the trial, the judge ordered my release "Before we do anything else". However, if your lawyer does not believe in your innocence you need a lawyer that does!
If youre going to admit guilt and still want good counsel.
You better call Saul
Also, is it wise to keep silent also to the lawyer?
I just went to their web site and requested the closest Location to me and Carl got back to me with in a minute and i have no skin in the game so my opinion is that these guys are worth considering
If a client tells you that he's guilty and you tell him to get another lawyer, are you still bound by lawyer confidentiality even if you're no longer his lawyer? My guess is yes because you were acting as his lawyer at the time. But, I would advise people to not make any confessions to a lawyer too early on because you might find that the lawyer you've contacted isn't able to become your lawyer due to reasons of jurisdiction, etc.
Justice shouldn’t have “selective blindness” when it comes to guilt.
Not the answer I was expecting but makes sense
This is good advice if you have a lousy lawyer and lousy advice if your lawyer is smart. Let me ask, if I lied to my lawyer and told him I was innocent, he might put me on the stand forcing me to lie to the judge and the judge might figure out that I'm lying. Judges punish liars. Is that a good outcome? If my lawyer knows I'm guilty, he can leave it up to the prosecutor to prove I'm guilty. And if I'm guilty and admit it, that guilt will follow me forever. If I plead innocent and am found guilty anyway, I have a chance to change my life around. The last terrible thing about our law system is that lawyers can chalk up a "win" with a reduced sentence, but to the accused, it's only a win if they are found innocent. Too many guys have been told they'll win only to find themselves in jail. The lawyer says that he got you off with only six months, but time stops when the bars clang shut.
Don't tell your lawyer you are about to commit a crime. They may have to turn you in.
Excellent video with great info.
I had a lawyer tell me they could not represent me if I was guilty
But even if they tell the lawyer they're guilty, the lawyer still doesn't KNOW that. He only knows that the client claimed to be guilty. There are plenty of reasons they might lie about their guilt. (Protecting someone else etc.)
Good. Thanks.
great videos
But what if you’re not sure if you’re guilty because you don’t know the law?
That's why the lawyer can't tell anybody.
so the defense lawyer is supposed to limit their defense of the client if the client admits guilt but then says im still gonna lie, and say im innocent, and plead not guilty but there is literally nothing to stop the lawyer from defending the client like a normal case because there is no rule that says the lawyer has to share the admission of guilt with the prosecution
so it’s essentially “if the client hired me and pays me, I won’t treat him like a civilian who just admitted to being guilty of a crime in which I would have to report him to police, and because he’s paying me, instead I’ll work with him and hold onto his secrets to help him hide and be strategic in our case…. but if he doesn’t pay me or hire me to represent him but told me he was guilty in our meetings, I feel compelled to and will tell the police this client is guilty of an offence, so I’m not guilty of helping some who is guilty hide, protecting my practice and my own ass legally”
@@Jimminityjabooboo makes sense. thanks for the clarification. so its private practise lawyer (paid more) vs state defence lawyer (shit pay less reason to protect client).
No that’s not correct, if you tell your lawyer you’re guilty and then get a new lawyer. Your previous lawyer will not notify the policy. That is ridiculous. Like this lawyer said, ethically he cannot let you purger yourself on the stand. So his job will be to poke holes in the accusers story and make them seem like not a credible witness. Any other evidence he will do the same, it’s not about lying it’s about challenging the prosecutors version of events to create reasonable doubt
@@Jimminityjabooboo I'm protecting my golf buddies (the Crown counsel and the Judge) and there's nothing the hapless defendant can do about it as it's behind closed doors. Ask me how i know.
@@Sam-fp8zm Having to do it all over again, I'd take my own case, make the Clown....er , Crown PROVE it's case to the Judge, and no, I would NOT take the stand. The "process" as referred to by my PAID lawyer?? It's more like the "processing" going on in Brooks, Alberta at the meat plant.
Lawyers aren't supposed there to get charges dropped, they're supposed to be there to ensure a fair trial. Any lawyer who knows their client is a rapist, paedophile, human trafficker, abuser, torturer, or murderer, and still tries to get the charges dropped, is a collaborator and not much better than their clients. Getting those people to go free means ensuring they have more future victims.
Would the rules of ethics not compel the lawyer to report the person who confessed to a crime even if it's bad for business?
Afaik only if they will be doing new crimes. The whole point of a defense lawyer is to discuss the current charge
i just waited till he stated to get two lawyers. Rich people do that.
unless you got a mob lawyer, the answer is no.
This is not very helpful because it raises more questions than it answers.
never admit anything
Yes ! Tell your defense attorney everything .
Then he can make a deal to lesson the sevarty of your sentence . (Or at least that’s the way it’s supposed to work . )
What you’re trying to do is gain the public trust again . And that’s where your lawyer comes in .
Crown and the process has ZERO interest in your respecting the "public trust". That's an American idea, along with jury trials (common, NOT common in Canada) and the open court (cameras, videos, public access). NONE of those three are available in Canada. The entire crowd doesn't even want your own friends there, including your own paid lawyer.
Soooo the answer is no. lol
fascinating video. I will take exception with the Law and the profession and the use of the words "bound by ethics". Clearly the system if flawed if the Society that governs the profession rates lawyer/client privilege over the truth and justice. The ethical approach would be the lawyer tells the crown the individual admitted the crime and thus will plead guilty and work to find an appropriately relevant sentence given said admission of guilt. In other professions, like Accounting, Medicine and Engineering, ethical resolutions involve truth and not cover-up. We have collectively lost our way in society. We accept lies and trickery within the system as opposed to absolute truth being our desired outcome. Sad....but I know it will not change.
-In other words, if you are honest, you'll have a hard time finding a criminal law lawyer to defend you.
-Reason is money. Trial criminal defense lawyer makes money by going to trial... no sure thing, no trial... not in Canada, anyways.
-There is no money in admission of guilt, a legal aid lawyer can do that; a good lawyer fights to the lesser sentence possible for you. Sick.
-Saving the court's time goes far ways... you save the court money but your lawyer makes less... that's for those who want to pay their debt to society and move on. Lawyers don't like that.... they want to milk you.... it's all about money.
If your in a bind, u need a “criminal lawyer “……
We were already taught that from BB.
Everyone lies. Never tell the truth. Ask a cop
Ethics and Lawyer in the same sentence. LMAO. ALL Shysters.
IT ALSO DEPENDS IF YOU PAY YOUR LAWYER AND HOW LONG YOU BEEN A CLIENT.....NOT A NEW ONE
THAT WAS THE FIRST QUESTION MY ASK ME LMAO
NEVER LIE TO YOUR LAWYER