Robert Grow Case Analysis

912 Words4 Pages
When on the topic of murder trials, one cannot help but imagine the poor moral values of the attorney defending the suspected evil doer, but we hardly ever wonder rather or not the attorneys are mentally effected themselves. More often than not, most attorneys can find themselves alone with the dark secrets of their wicked clients. This is due to a client’s right in the justice system known as the attorney-client privilege. The attorney-client privilege is the client’s right to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications between the client and the attorney. One well known example of just how far this “privilege” can go is the murder case of Robert Garrow. The Robert Garrow case pulled the cover off one of the most ethically debatable components of the justice system. Garrows case brought with it the debate of rather or not the duty of confidentiality was morally or ethically sound. This also caused much more people to ask a somewhat long…show more content…
One such argument can find its’ basis in the fact that the attorney-client privilege has the potential to protect guilty men and women. An example can be found in the Buried Bodies Case, when Robert Garrows confessed the murders to Frank Armani and the information was kept confidential. Thus, protecting Garrows, a guilty man, from any punishment at the time. Many would also argue that even if the crime is not privately confessed between the client and their attorney, it hides reliable evidence that could otherwise be used to convict the unjust. Another strong argument that can be used is the fact that, in court, you must be truthful. This means that, technically, hiding the truth could be considered lying and can cause the verdict to take a drastic turn allowing guilty people, who have confessed to their crimes, to maneuver their way out of the criminal justice
Open Document