be twisted another way, so that it appears as if it does not pertain to the case in question. Another example is that "with the help of subtle textual or legal distinctions, certain conjuring tricks can be performed..." (Cohn 102). Many people believe, however, that "...greater responsibility should be placed on lawyers not to pervert the truth to help their clients" (Katsh 2). There are other ways for a lawyer to assist their client, rather than being deceitful. For instance, "it would be appropriate for the attorney to argue to the jury that the available evidence is not sufficient to sustain the burden of proof" (Subin 14). These are why lawyers should be prevented from presenting fraudulent defenses. The ability to present false defenses is necessary for preventing people from getting lost in the legal system. Many times, a person is prevented from getting a trial because no attorney's will defend him. There is a need for attorney's to present false cases because, "...it is essential that there be independent defense attorneys to provide protection against government oppression" (Katsh 2). Another author agrees when he says, "the false defense may be necessary to preserve the individual's access to the legal system" (Subin 12). Here is the reason for having the rights to a fair trial and to an attorney, "if there were no such right, the guilty defendant would effectively be deprived of a defense" (Subin 11). These are a few legitimate reasons that false defenses should not be banned. Taxpayers pay a tremendous expense due to false cases. False cases usually drag out a long time before they are settled and may even go to court more than once. Taxpayers have to pay for things every time a case goes to court. One novelist agrees when he writes, "...the state has assumed many of the costs of enforcement. Public taxes pay for police, detectives, juries, and prisons" (Friedman 133). This same author says that , "the Public ...
