On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Badri Natarajan <[email protected]> wrote: > > What's the problem? It's the lawyer's duty to defend him to the best of > his/her ability (wasn't the woman who was initially appointed forced to > stand down because of a conflict?) within the law. She isn't allowed to > put forward arguments that she knows (note: "knows", not "suspects") to be > untrue, but as long as there is any uncertainty at all about his age, she > can and should put forward any argument she can to save him.
While a lawyer should defend their client(s), perjury is not exactly the best way to wiggle out of a sticky case. That India does not hand out harsher punishments like (say) the US courts does not make it a line of defence either. > As for "terrorist enjoys state hospitality at taxpayer expense", I don't > know where to begin. Then dont !! -- .
