Is it necessary for defense lawyers to believe that the clients they defend are innocent of the charges against them? Some legal scholars hold that lawyers' sole obligation is to provide the best defense they are capable of, claiming that in democratic societies all people accused of crimes are entitled to the best possible legal representation. They argue that lawyers have no right to judge defendants because it is the job of the courts to determine guilt or innocence and the job of the lawyer to represent the defendant before the court. They believe that the lawyer's responsibility is to state those facts that will assist each client's case, construct sound arguments based on these facts, and identify flaws in the arguments of opposing counsel. According to these scholars, the lawyer's role is not to express or act on personal opinions but to act as an advocate, saying only what defendants would say if they possessed the proper training or resources with which to represent themselves. But such a position overlooks the fact that the defense lawyer's obligation is twofold: to the defendant, certainly, but no less so to the court and, by extension, to society. For this reason, lawyers, great as their obligation to defendants is, should not, as officers of the court, present to the court assertions that they know to be false. But by the same principle, lawyers who are convinced that their clients are guilty should not undertake to demonstrate their innocence. Guilty defendants should not be entitled to false or insincere representation. When lawyers know with certainty that a defendant is guilty, it is their duty not to deny this. Rather, they should appraise the case as much as possible in their client's favor, after giving due consideration to the facts on the other side, and then present any extenuating circumstances and argue for whatever degree of leniency in sentencing they sincerely believe is warranted. In cases where it is uncertain whether the client is guilty but the lawyer sincerely believes the client may well be innocent, the lawyer should of course try to prove that the client is innocent. The lawyer's obligation to the court and to society also ultimately benefits the defendant, because the "best defense" can only truly be provided by an advocate who, after a careful analysis of the facts, is convinced of the merits of the case. The fact that every client is entitled to a defense does not mean that defense lawyers should take every case they are offered. Lawyers should not be mere mouthpieces for a defendant but instead advocates for the rights of the defendant given the facts of the case.Q: It can be inferred from the passage that the author holds that a defense attorney who argues in court that a client is innocent Answer Choices: (A)should sincerely believe that the client may be innocent (B)would be right to do so even if the attorney knows that the client is actually guilty (C)is assuming that role of mouthpiece for the client (D)has favored the obligation to the client over that to society (E)has typically not researched the facts of the case thoroughly
A: Among A through E, the answer is
(A)should sincerely believe that the client may be innocent
(B)would be right to do so even if the attorney knows that the client is actually guilty
(C)is assuming that role of mouthpiece for the client
(D)has favored the obligation to the client over that to society
(E)has typically not researched the facts of the case thoroughly