Okay...I was just asking because I am a defense attorney.
The really good part about my job now is that I'm new at it and so I'm not to the point where I represent people who have done anything heinous. There have been maybe two cases that have made me go home and cry, but for the most part I really enjoy it. Most of my clients are charged with drug offenses, and since I believe that drugs should be legalized, even if they did it I have no problem fighting for them. Anyway, most of my clients admit that they did it, and then I just try to make sure that they get a fair deal from the state.
Anyway, back to the original question -- I don't think that it's wrong for an attorney to present a possible scenario even if she thinks it's not true. First of all, unless the attorney was there, she has no way of KNOWING for sure that her client did it. I don't think that is lying -- to me, it is making sure that the state is proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt. That, to me, is the cornerstone of our criminal justice system. Even if a defendant is guilty, it is the duty of the state (per the Constitution) to PROVE it BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. If someone is guilty and the state can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, the guy, quite simply, should not be convicted. It is a safeguard, I think -- convicting someone of a crime is a very serious matter, and the whole point of the reasonable doubt standard is to ensure that the state is doing its job and if some guilty people fall through the cracks and "get off" well, that's better than innocent people going to jail for things they didn't do. The framers made this the standard, and if O'Reilly doesn't like it, well, that's his problem.
Threaded Mode