Your first big case is a multiple murder. As defense attorney for Sy Kopath, you have come to the realization that he really did break into a couple's home and torture and kill them in the course of robbing them of jewelry and other valuables.
He has even confessed to you that he did it. However, you are also aware that the police did not read him his Miranda warning and that he was coerced into giving a confession without your presence. What should you do? Would your answer be different if you believed that he was innocent or didn't know for sure either way?
Here is your solution, as you requested.
Every client is covered by the attorney-client confidentiality; it is also the given right of any individual to seek guidance & counsel in any legal situation. Having not read my client his due Miranda right is a breach of due process - the law is about due process, the protocols established through this is what the present Justice system is about. There are ethics in policing as much as there are ethical practices in law & this is what informs the moral responsibilities the job entails. In the very archaic days of what now is the Miranda warning & ...
The solution is a concise discussion of the attorney-client confidentiality priviledge and the dilemna that such a priviledge creates in the moral & ethical choices of a practicing lawyer in the balancing act of practicing just law informed by ethics, seeking justice for a wrong and maintaining a good track record of cases won in behalf of his clients in a trial situation.