It seems as though the courtroom has its own set values that differ largely from the ones we see on a day to day basis outside the courtroom. In the courtroom, things that would not normally be appropriate or ethical or moral happen to be all or most of the above qualities. In order to protect the presumably innocent people who are charged with crimes, the courtroom values must be upheld. Sometimes ethical dilemmas are faced by attorneys in which they must decide for themselves which set of values to uphold, the courtroom values or the otherwise “real-life” values. Wayland Sermons and Frank Johnston, two lawyers from Joe McGinnisss “Cruel Doubt, were faced with such an ethical dilemma, whether or not to defend a seemingly guilty client, James Upchurch. By deciding to defend him in court against the charges of murder that he faced, they made the morally right decision, at least in the world in which lawyers operate.
Even though James Upchurch was not willing to admit that he was involved in the murder or Leith Von Stein and the attempted murder or Bonnie Von Stein, there was enough evidence, although not physical evidence,
cruel, doubt, courtroom, guilty, values, lawyers, james, defend, upchurch, murder, jury, ethical, system, sermons, right, let, johnston, faced, crime, case, been, whether, two, trial, supposed, reasonable, protect, morally, might, involved, evidence, dilemma, defense, decision, attorneys, appropriate