Hypothetical legal questions

Purple Mountain

So these questions have been bugging me for a while now.. All hypothetical to me but obviously happen in real life.
Can anybody clear these up for me please?

♢ When an accused is found guilty by the jury and subsequently sentenced, if that accused had given evidence to the contrary in the trial, why are they not charged with perjury?

♢ Do lawyers/barristers ever refuse to represent a client out of moral conflict- say a lawyers mother had been sexually assaulted once and then they got approached to defend a sex attacker (obviously still assumed innocent), is it plausible that legal professionals refuse clients on a moral conscience ever?
Also, if they did represent said client and in their heart they know they are most likely guilty, do they simply park this emotion or do they ever toy with it?
I'm obviously not looking for specific examples here for legal reasons but just for the feel of what could potentially happen?

♢ If I marry my first spouse in a civil ceremony and we divorce, if I want to marry my second spouse in church, does the church allow this given that I wasn't already married in eyes of church?
Maybe that question is unfair for this thread as it's not strictly a legal question..well maybe canon law alright!

TIA.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

exaisle

No 2: Yes, they can and do. There can be various kinds of conflicts aside from moral ones..

No 3: Yes, you can marry in church if you haven't already been married in church.

No 1: No idea.

brian_t

Purple Mountain wrote: »

♢ When an accused is found guilty by the jury and subsequently sentenced, if that accused had given evidence to the contrary in the trial, why are they not charged with perjury?
.

Maybe they didn't commit perjury , maybe their recollection was just mistaken.

brian_t

When an accused is found guilty of perjury by the jury and subsequently sentenced,

if that accused had given evidence to the contrary in the trial,

Would they be charged with perjury for a second time.?

Claw Hammer

Purple Mountain wrote: »

So these questions have been bugging me for a while now.. All hypothetical to me but obviously happen in real life.
Can anybody clear these up for me please?

♢ When an accused is found guilty by the jury and subsequently sentenced, if that accused had given evidence to the contrary in the trial, why are they not charged with perjury?

Several reasons.
1. In a case where the accused has told blatant lies in giving evidence the trial judge will exercise his discretion in sentencing to the disadvantage of the accused.

Running a separate trial for perjury would thus be overkill.
Proving someone knowingly told a lie beyond a reasonable doubt carries a high burden of proof. It is not sufficient that the jury did not believe the accused on some point.
Even if the accused was convicted of perjury it is likely that the sentence would run consecutively with the original sentence and so there is no real punishment.
The perjury trial would take place after the accused has gone into custody so the accused would have to be transported under escort from prison and provided with free legal aid for the trial. Extra garda time would be involved in the investigation and trial. All in all, it would be a waste of time and money
[/QUOTE]

Purple Mountain wrote: »

♢ Do lawyers/barristers ever refuse to represent a client out of moral conflict- say a lawyers mother had been sexually assaulted once and then they got approached to defend a sex attacker (obviously still assumed innocent), is it plausible that legal professionals refuse clients on a moral conscience ever?
Also, if they did represent said client and in their heart they know they are most likely guilty, do they simply park this emotion or do they ever toy with it?
I'm obviously not looking for specific examples here for legal reasons but just for the feel of what could potentially happen?

If a lawyer feels they can't represent a client due to some personal quirk, they are obliged to refuse the instruction. A defending lawyer has to do the best she honourably can for the client. They can't cheat or lie on behalf of the client. They are there to see that if the client is ultimately convicted that he got a fair trial and an appropriate sentence. The lawyer is in the same position as a doctor or nurse treating a criminal. The lawyer is not the judge, it is not for the defending lawyer to judge the person. Their job is to test and probe the evidence so that there is absolutely no doubt about guilt.
♢ If I marry my first spouse in a civil ceremony and we divorce, if I want to marry my second spouse in church, does the church allow this given that I wasn't already married in eyes of church?
Maybe that question is unfair for this thread as it's not strictly a legal question..well maybe canon law alright!

TIA.[/QUOTE]