Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1911-12-12

him in court, and If so to what extent
should he go in his defense?
Many lawyers take the position that,
If the client pays satisfactory fee for
his defense it is the duty Of the law
yer to do everything possible to cir
cumvent the law and to obtain his ac-
quittal, even to the extent Of robbing
a safe.
Others believe that a lawyer should
not by a hairs breadth do anything to
save the guilty from the consequences
of crime or wrong doing.
Others, again, believe that a lawyer
is justified in undertaking the defense
of a person he knows to be guilty, but
that in such a case the lawyer does
his whole duty If he sees that the
forms prescribed by law are adhered
to and the trial conducted according
to the rules and practices of the courts.
These hold to the opinion that a
lawyer is not called upon to bully wit
nesses, deceive juries, play the mount
bank or appeal with high sounding pc
riods to the lowest motives Of mankind
to save any person who is obviously
guilty.
It has become to be recognized as
part of the public prosecutors duty
first to satisfy himself of the defend
ants guilt before he indicts. He must
shield the innocent as we'll as punish
the guilty.
Has the lawyer for the defense no
like duty to the state? When the law
yer becomes the advocate for a guilty
man does he lose his individual moral
responsibility for judgment in the case
as a man?
The American Bar association, in
1907, appointed a special committee,
composed of the greatest lawyers and
jurists in America to draw up a code
of ethics for the guidance of lawyers,
and in the code that was adopted were
the following paragraphs:
A lawyer may undertake with pro-
priety the defense Of person accused
of crime, although he knows or be-
lieves him guilty; and, having under
taken it, he is bound by all fair and
honorable means to present such de-
fense as the law Of the land permits,
to the end that no person may be de-
prived of life or liberty but by due
process of law.
But the office of attorney does not
permit, much less does it demand, for
any client violation of the law, or any
manner of fraud or chicanery. No
lawyer is justified in substituting an
others conscience for his own. A law
yer should not do for his client what
his sense Of honor would forbid him to
do for himself He may counsel and
maintain only such actions and pro-
ceedings as appear to him just.
Colonel L. H. Walters of this city,
who practiced law on the same circuit
in Illinois as Abraham Lincoln, tells
the following story, which illustrated
Lincoln's attitude on this mooted ques-
ton of lawyers duty to client he
believes to be guilty:
An atrocious murder had been COM
mitted, and a man, a stranger in the
community, was arrested for the crime.
The circumstances all pointed to the
guilt of the man, and public feeling
was strong against him. He was
without money or friends, and when
his case was called for trial the judge
appointed Lincoln to defend him. On
the trial Lincoln drew from the wit
ness full statements of all the circum-
stances. No effort was made to con-
ceal one bit of evidence or to confuse
the court or the jury. At the close OF
the case Lincoln arose and reviewed
the case and ended with tnfs remark
to the jury:
Il have reflected much on this case,
and, while it seems probable that this
man is guilty, 1 am not sure? Are
you?"
The jury acquitted the man, and af-
terward the real criminal was arrest
ed, convicted and confessed his guilt.
In that case Lincoln acted in strict
accord with the code of ethics later
laid down by the American Bar asso-
citation.
So did the lawyers who were ap-
pointed by the court to defend the as
sassin of President Mckinley. They
went into court in a dignified way and
produced every witness the assassin
desired and drew out all the facts OF
the homicide and stated the case to the
Jury with fairness. They saw that no
undue advantage was taken of the ac-
cused, but they did not try to put
straw in the way of the accomplish
ment of justice.
In Kansas City in recent years
there was a case of two persons charg-
ed with murder, both of whom were
guilty beyond the shadow of doubt
in which the lawyers adhered closely
to this high plane Of legal ethics pre-
scribed by the American Bar assocla-
ton. That was the case of Frank
Hoffman and Mrs. Agnes Myers, who
together murdered Clarence Myers
husband of Agnes. Hoffman confess
ed to all the details of the crime I'M
mediately after his arrest before he
naO retained d Id"ySi' Law L NN ~
Urfer was retained by Hottmans rel
atives to defend him. When his case
came to trial, Urfer simply saw that
everything was done according to
law and that no unfair advantage was
taken of his client, and at the close OF
the states case he introduced no evil
dence, but made plea to the jury for
mercy, basing it upon the theory that
Hoffman was young man, that the
Myers woman was much older and
more experienced than he, and that
she had a great influence over him and
that therefore he was entitled to some
degree of pity. The jury found him
guilty of murder in the first degree
and he was sentenced to be hanged.
ro.arb prookS defended Mrs NV