People often look at attorney-client privilege in the criminal arena and presume that, because it could allow a guilty criminal to go free, then it doesn't make any sense. Honestly, however, that's a very small percentage of situations wherein the privilege is ever even used. First, over 90% of criminal matters are settled with a plea bargain -- so there's only 10% of any criminal matter in which the privilege could even affect the outcome. Of that 10%, most attorneys who defend criminals don't want to know whether their client is guilty or innocent, they just want the defendant to tell them their story as they see it happened. On the very rare occurrence when an admission happens, the lawyers hands become tied in several important ways -- not the least of which (at least in WA state) is that they cannot suborn perjury and if they know their client has lied on the stand, they must request that the court relieve them of continuing to represent the client.
They can mess up the crime Scene and make it difficult to now find the correct evidence
Answer:
The Bill of Rights was needed to protect the people against abuse of power by the government. The Bill of Rights was needed to ensure the power of Congress to pass and enforce laws.
Explanation:
Hope this helps :)
Answer:
True
Explanation:
It is true that a federal tribunal can hear or solve a particular conflict by referring to the concept of justiciability. Justiciability is a term in law that refers to the limits upon legal issues over which a court can exercise its judicial authority. In other words, justiciability establishes the situations when a particular court can exercise its duties. When a court cannot provide an adequate solution to a dispute, the matter is considered not justiciable.
