On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 23:44, . <[email protected]> wrote: > If his earlier confession[0] isn't invalid how is this not perjury? I'm > curious. > > [0] http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=15109 > > Swati Sathe, Jail superintendent said when he was admitted to the > prison, Kasab gave his age as 21 and his date of birth as September > 13, 1987. A second witness confirmed this: Venkat Ramamurthy, a > resident doctor in a government hospital, testified that when the > injured Kasab was brought there at 1 a.m. on November 27, 2008, he > said his age was 21.
The difference between "know" and "suspect" would be this: a) the lawyer has in his possession some documents proving Kasab's age, but still goes ahead and claims that Kasab is a juvenile. b) the lawyer has been informed through prosecution documents that Kasab has told the jail superintendent and a government hospital doctor that he is 21. Kasab looks as though he is above eighteen. Kasab's instructions to this lawyer are to claim he is a juvenile. He goes ahead and claims Kasab is a juvenile. The lawyer would be in dereliction of his duty in the second case, imho, if he decided to play judge and disregard his client's claim of being a juvenile, and refuse to present it to court. It is a defence lawyer's duty to defend a person, even if he or she believes that person to be guilty. Also of interest might be s.126 of the Indian Evidence Act, regarding attorney-client confidentiality: <http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/indianevidenceact/CHAPTER9/S126.html> <snip> Illustrations: (a) A, a client, says to B, an attorney - "I have committed forgery and I wish you to defend me." As the defense of a man known to be guilty is not a criminal purpose, _this communication is protected from disclosure_. (b) A, a client, says to B, and attorney - "I wish to obtain possession of property by the use of forged deed on which I request you to sue." The communication being made in furtherance of criminal purpose, is not protected from disclosure. (c) A, being charged with embezzlement retains B, an attorney to defend him, In the course of the proceedings B observes that an entry has been made in A's account book, charging A with the sum said to have been embezzled, which entry was not in the book at the commencement of his employment. This being a fact observed by B in the course of his employment showing that a fraud has been committed since the commencement of the proceedings, it is not protected from disclosure. </snip>
