Summary

Byron White United States v. Wade — Concurrence-dissent

Defense counsel need present nothing, even if he knows what the truth is. He need not furnish any witnesses to the police, or reveal any confidences of his client, or furnish any other information to help the prosecution's case. If he can confuse a witness, even a truthful one, or make him appear at a disadvantage, unsure or indecisive, that will be his normal course. [6] Our interest in not convicting the innocent permits counsel to put the State to its proof, to put the State's case in the worst possible light, regardless of what he thinks or knows to be the truth.
Source: Wikisource

Byron White United States v. Wade — Concurrence-dissent

As you may learn by reading any one of a dozen or more handbooks on how to try a law-suit, an experienced lawyer uses all sorts of stratagems to minimize the effect on the judge or jury of testimony disadvantageous to his client, even when the lawyer has no doubt of the accuracy and honesty of that testimony. * * * If such a witness happens to be timid, frightened by the unfamiliarity of court-room ways, the lawyer in his cross-examination, plays on that weakness, in order to confuse the witness and make it appear that he is concealing significant facts.
Source: Wikisource

Byron White United States v. Wade — Concurrence-dissent

Finally, I think the Court's new rule is vulnerable in terms of its own unimpeachable purpose of increasing the reliability of identification testimony.
Law enforcement officers have the obligation to convict the guilty and to make sure they do not convict the innocent. They must be dedicated to making the criminal trial a procedure for the ascertainment of the true facts surrounding the commission of the crime. [5] To this extent, our so-called adversary system is not adversary at all; nor should it be. But defense counsel has no comparable obligation to ascertain or present the truth.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature