Comment 8 The prohibition against
offering false evidence only applies if the lawyer knows that the evidence is false.
Lawyers may be
offering false evidence without even knowing it.
You've
offered false evidence for it.
Not exact matches
Judge Peter Lynch wrote in his 11 - page decision on Tuesday that
evidence presented to a grand jury was «legally insufficient» to back up the three felony counts of
offering a
false instrument for filing on which Ortt was indicted.
In an editorial also published in the July 1 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine, Dr. George Sawaya and Dr. Vanessa Jacoby of the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences at the University of California, San Francisco write, «The pelvic examination has held a prominent place in women's health for many decades and has come to be more of a ritual than an
evidence - based practice... With the current state of
evidence, clinicians who continue to
offer the examination should at least be cognizant about the uncertainty of its benefits and its potential to cause harm through
false - positive testing and the cascade of events it prompts.»
The claim that «ExxonMobil hates your children,» the lawyers wrote, is «
false and unsubstantiated,» though the attorneys did not
offer any hard
evidence to support their counterclaim.
A lawyer may refuse to
offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is
false.
Comment 9 Although paragraph (a)(3) only prohibits a lawyer from
offering evidence the lawyer knows to be
false, it permits the lawyer to refuse to
offer testimony or other proof that the lawyer reasonably believes is
false.
In its settlement
offer the Crown said that it would «recommend a conditional sentence» if Delchev «would admit that his
evidence up to that point in the proceeding regarding duress was
false, and that his counsel knew it to be
false» (Delchev, para. 11).
In settlement discussions, trial Crown had
offered to recommend a conditional sentence on a guilty plea «if the appellant provided an induced statement indicating certain
evidence he had given in pre-trial proceedings was
false and his trial counsel knew it was
false».