> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Udhay Shankar N <ud...@pobox.com> wrote: >>> >>> No, I didnt. That our courts are a lot more tolerant towards those who >>> indulge in perjury is the disturbing part. >> >> Er...you *are* aware that the definition of perjury hinges on "know" and >> not "suspect", yes? > > Do you mean the defence lawyer does not "know" his client had > confessed (and revealed his age in an earlier hearing) and later > retracted the same. I'm not aware of his case details but does getting > a new lawyer mean an earlier confession is invalid?
No, an earlier confession isn't automatically invalid. And certainly you can assume that the defence lawyer knows what Kasab's confession said. The issue will turn on the details (of which we are unaware). If, for example, Kasab told his lawyer that he had been coerced to say he was an adult, when in fact he was not (I don't know what Kasab told his lawyer - this is an example), then it would be perfectly appropriate for the lawyer to say that he was a juvenile. If Kasab told his lawyer that his confession was correct and he was an adult, then of course the lawyer is not allowed to say to the court that he's a juvenile (and if he did it would be a serious breach of professional ethics). But we don't actually know what went on between them. Badri
