Essay On Henry Alford Case

Henry Alford was an African American in the South at the time of the civil rights movement. He was at a local bar visiting a prostitute and got to an altercation with Nathaniel Young. Later on that night Young was killed by a shotgun blast. Alford was indicted for first-degree murder, and faced a death penalty if convicted by a jury. His attorney went out to talk to some witnesses and was convinced of Alford’s guilt. Alford’s claims of innocence could not be backed up with any eyewitness’s stories or evidence. Witnesses of the case saw Alford retrieve his gun, and how shortly before the murder, stated he was going to kill Nathaniel Young. In addition, after returning home, stated that he had carried out with the deed. Alford had also a substantial amount of history, such as prior conviction for a murder. From what the attorney had gathered and seen he believed that Alford was most likely going to be convicted in a trail. His attorney advised him to plea guilty to the lesser charge of second-degree murder in order to avoid the death penalty, but ultimately left the decision up to Alford. A great amount of evidence pointed

Defendants are in great pressure to lie to their counsel regarding guilt or innocence. If the defendant decides to admit his or her guilt, it makes it difficult to help the defendant. Or if the defendant lies about involvement it is difficult to negotiate plea bargains or the plea agreement given. This scenario poses an ethical dilemma for the attorney, which is to permit a client to lie in court and plea guilty when they indicted their innocence. With the plea bargain the defendant is able to freely tell the truth with the knowledge that plea bargain will exist whether he denies guilt or not. Overall, eliminating ethical dilemmas. And defendants are not longer encouraged to