READ CASE BELOW AND AND ANSWER FOLLOWING QUESTION:

Discuss the case, using one ethical system and one concept of justice

Most of your clients are kind of pathetic. They have broken the law, sure, but they don't seem to be especially evil or even competent at their lawbreaking. When friends and family ask you how you can defend guilty people, you always answer with the same well-worn retort that you've heard since law school: that you are defending the Constitution as much as you are defending an individual, and that the system works because someone is looking out for the rights of the accused. However, that phrase seems to stick in your throat when you think of Charlie Simmons. Simmons was a court-appointed case, and you met him in the small room in the jail reserved for attorney visits. He is not a pleasant man. In fact, the way he scornfully looked you up and down and then focused in on you-much as a predator stares at their prey before they strike-made you downright nervous. You didn't sense any compassion, fear, kinship, or humanity in him. Although you have never been very imaginative or emotional, you could sense that Charlie Simmons could easily kill someone and calmly eat a sandwich right afterwards. He was scary.

Simmons had been arrested and charged with an armed robbery, attempted murder, and rape. Allegedly, he had stopped a young couple as they were walking late at night down by the river that runs through the downtown area. He forced them into a deserted section of the riverwalk area, cold-cocked the guy with the butt of his gun, and then raped the girl. He might have killed them both if a river police patrol hadn't happened to be going down the river about that time and scared him off. The couple was rescued but was so traumatized that they couldn't make any positive identification of their attacker. He was caught because the DNA from his semen was matched through the government DNA database. His DNA was already in the system from a previous rape.

"I explained the first time we met, the DNA evidence is very damaging. In most cases, the jury is likely to base their decision largely upon the scientific evidence. I think your best chance is to make a plea bargain for reduced prison time," you had counseled Simmons.

You had found it hard to meet his eyes. You could feel he was staring, challenging you to look up at him and meet his gaze. After a few sections of silence you did look up, and his expression was malevolent.

"I'm not pleading. You're supposed to help me, so do g... d... job."

"I am supposed to represent you, not work miracles." A spark of anger at his attitude had fueled your response. "If you have any information that can aid in your defense, let me hear about it."

"I did those kids so I don't exactly have an alibi," he had responded lazily, amused at your reaction.

"Then I think that if you insist on going to trial, the only thing we can do is to undermine the validity of the match, that's the only evidence the prosecution will present anyway."

You had a sick feeling in your stomach, knowing that you were attempting to acquit a confessed rapist, yet you couldn't see what else you were supposed to do.

Later that week, in the restroom of the courthouse, you hear a whispered conversation. It is obvious that the whisperers do not know that someone else is within hearing distance of their murmurs. From what you hear, it becomes clear that the city's crime lab has been having some problems. The two individuals mention that the lab director does not have a license that he is supposed to have, and there have been irregularities in the way that evidence has been stored, leading to an upcoming investigation. The information has not hit the newspapers yet, and you are relatively sure that it will be kept under wraps until the investigation begins, which won't occur for another month.

You ponder what, if anything, you could do with this information, and then it hits you like a brick: this could mean that Charlie Simmons might walk free. If you found out a little more, you could cross-examine the forensic examiner, using the knowledge to undercut the integrity of the testing and matching of Simmons's DNA. All you need is reasonable doubt and you can probably get him off, especially since the victims are not going to be able to I.D. him. If the defendant was anyone other than Simmons, you wouldn't give a second thought to the plan, but you know that he is guilty as sin. You believe with certainty that he would do it again, maybe killing someone next time. No one knows about the crime lab's problems yet, and when the scandal does come out, it is possible that Simmons could use it for an appeal, you just wouldn't have to be his attorney. You wish you'd never heard the information, because now you have to decide what to do with it.