> I knew a lawyer who had to take such a defence case and he refused to look at the evidence. While I can understand this at one level, at another it disturbs

> I knew a lawyer who had to take such a defence case and he refused to look at the evidence. While I can understand this at one level, at another it disturbs me that a lawyer hired (in some manner) for the defence would refuse to look at evidence to determine whether it met the definition of "illegality" in order to present an effective defense for the client. Without doing so, the lawyer had no way of knowing what the images consisted of - were they merely going by what the prosecutor told them? Isn't that some kind of abdication of responsibility to a proper legal defence? Could the defendant get a new trial because of this? If this was your trial, and you knew you were innocent, would you want to hear this from your defense lawyer? Or would you rather hope that the porn star in the images showed up at your trial to absolve you (which recently happened to some poor bastard)?