Should I tell the truth?

[dan16150]

I've got myself in a right mess over something I've said (I know I said the wrong thing), which was misunderstood by a drunk woman passenger.

I'm a taxi driver in a big city, and I've been suspended without pay because of it, the court case is looming.

I've lied a little in the statement I've made to my solicitor, she failed to find the fare, refused to use the credit card machine and refused to find a cash point, so my statement say's 'would you like to owe me instead', meaning I'd collect the fare later, she has accused me of asking for a blow job (oral sex) in her statement. What I really said was 'people have even been known to ask me for blow jobs before', I meant exactly that and didn't have any wrong intention. She took it out of context and I tried to tell her that but she flew into a drunken rage.

Should I stick with the statement or tell the truth?

The case is more complexed, she is also falsely accusing me of exposure via a blurry image of me with my hands in my lap, she says the hands are a penis, I'm confused perhaps the police (the prosecutors) have doctored this image in some way because as I'm a taxi driver the crime must be considered more serious?

 

[army judge]

You screwed up, my friend.
You should have never given a statement, at least that is what I advise my clients in the US.
If a person has given a statement and has lied, ONLY the testator KNOWS he or she has lied.
You have made a mess, and if I were you, I'd simply keep my big mouth closed.
It might be too late to help yourself, but talking more certainly wouldn't help you now.
That confession stuff, I always say, save it for your spiritual adviser, religious officiant, priest, imam, holy spirit, great father, blessed mother, or whatever is sacred to you.

You've also compromised your solicitor, or at least that's how we'd view it across the pond, mate.

Oh, that stuff about the truth setting you free; well it rarely works that way, especially in criminal matters!

 

[Michael Wechsler]

To clarify, "compromised" equates to putting your lawyer / solicitor / barrister in a bad position.

I'm not sure if it's a bad thing to come clean with your lawyer, who is supposed to act as your advocate. My understanding is that a solicitor is the equivalent in the UK to a lawyer in the US, with barristers having a more specialized purpose. If you made a statement to the authorities or to a third party that was false, you might have a much larger problem. Your lawyer or solicitor needs to know what happened in order to put forth the best defense on your behalf. Army judge can feel free to expound and you may want to share whether you may have made statements to people other than your legal representation.

 

[disagreeable]

Dude, you take the deadbeats to jail or take a piece of their furniture in exchange after you have radioed in what is going on. The only sex you should be having with passengers is after they pay the fare. There are rules to the game.

 

[army judge]

To clarify, "compromised" equates to putting your lawyer / solicitor / barrister in a bad position.

I'm not sure if it's a bad thing to come clean with your lawyer, who is supposed to act as your advocate. My understanding is that a solicitor is the equivalent in the UK to a lawyer in the US, with barristers having a more specialized purpose. If you made a statement to the authorities or to a third party that was false, you might have a much larger problem. Your lawyer or solicitor needs to know what happened in order to put forth the best defense on your behalf. Army judge can feel free to expound and you may want to share whether you may have made statements to people other than your legal representation.

Professor, I'm sure you've seen it, too.
Once your client admits his or her guilt to you, you can't represent her or him as vigorously one would normally do.
As an officer of the court, and in accordance with the canon of ethics, once a client admits to having done the deed; things change on the defense side.
I know many of my colleagues who would motion the court to be released from defending the client.
Most of my colleagues will simply admonish the client to not admit their guilt.
That, of course doesn't prevent the client from telling what she knows about the matter before the bar.

 

[Michael Wechsler]

Yep, I thought that is exactly where you were going but I deleted my response before being too conclusive, lol. Ethically speaking, if an attorney knows that something is not true then the attorney cannot make the argument in court that it is truth, such as soliciting perjured testimony that is beneficial to the defendant.

 

[army judge]

Yep, I thought that is exactly where you were going but I deleted my response before being too conclusive, lol. Ethically speaking, if an attorney knows that something is not true then the attorney cannot make the argument in court that it is truth, such as soliciting perjured testimony that is beneficial to the defendant.

Yes sir, plus it eliminates the defense counsel from allowing the defendant to testify on her or his behalf.
One has the fundamental right to take the stand in his or her defense, if your client to admitted to the crime to his or her lawyer; allowing the client to take the stand the defense lawyer couldn't ask the defendant the question the jurors wait to hear, "Did you _________FILL IN THE BLANK_________, Ms. Youdidit?"

LOL

 

[abeha]

You've also compromised your solicitor, or at least that's how we'd view it across the pond, mate.



_________________
emma