Answer

Defense Attorney’s Arguments

The defense attorney; in the second video, turns against his client before a jury because of a revelation of guilt that the client had made when they had a meeting. Notably, conversations between client and their lawyers are protected by the attorney-client privilege. However, there is an exception to this general rule. In specific, the crime-fraud exception to the privilege makes the communications not privileged if the client says words to imply that he/she has the intention of committing a crime or covering up a crime or fraud (Cole, 2018). In the current case, the client was clear that he was guilty of the crimes against him. As such, the defense by the defense attorney is that if something is not done, the defendant might commit further crimes. The attorney has disregarded the attorney-client privilege because of the previous communications that they had which implied that the client was guilty of the sex offences due to the sex photos and sex crimes (Sphinx150, 2009). Additionally, the client told his attorney that an eyewitness was taken care of (which means that the eye witness might have been eliminated).

I think the arguments by the defense attorney are justified because they are meant to stop further crimes from happening. The attorney in this case, was aware of the past criminal acts of his client and was apprehensive that he might harm the lady witness in court (Sphinx150, 2009). As such, he decided to use the crime-fraud exception to make sure that his client does not commit a crime or another cover up. Additionally, I think that such a defense is justified for the attorney-client privilege to be revoked because the client may have been in the process of committing a crime or was planning to commit a crime. Although such a defense was overruled by the judge, I think it was an ethical one to ensure justice.