Here's an interesting case. From down here in San Diego, even. Concerning a defendant with a cool name -- "Exodus Bolton" -- but who I'd just as soon not meet on the trolley, thank you very much.
For those ethics junkies out there, it's a must read. Ditto for criminal defense lawyers. Because it's a very interesting case that provides firm support for the proposition (1) that attorneys can (and perhaps even must) present testimony from their client that they're pretty sure is false (as here, IMHO) so long as they don't "know" it's perjurious, and (2) that putting the client up on the stand without direct examination, and letting him give his perjurious testimony narratively, is a pretty good solution to the problem.
Both propositions are controversial. See if you think that Justice Aaron is correct.
