How not to practice (criminal defense) law: decide for the jury whether your own client is guilty

In last week's episode of the TV show Harry's Law, the main character - Harriet - finds out during trial that her client is actually guilty. Having thought he was innocent all along, Harriet feels she can't continue to represent the client. She asks the judge for permission to withdraw and says to the judge that she will "tank" the case if she is forced to continue but the judge denies her request to withdraw. Harriet does tell the jury in no uncertain terms that her client did, in fact, kill the victim. The judge declares a mistrial and reports Harriet to the disciplinary authorities.

In a case of "life imitating art" (to the extent that "Harry's Law" is art), the Legal Profession blog is reporting on a case in which the Kansas Supreme Court has reversed a conviction based on very similar conduct by a criminal defense lawyer.

In this case, the lawyer told the judge that he thought a surveillance video depicted his client in the act of the crime. Given that the video was not clear, the court found the attorney "ignore[d] the separation of duties in a criminal prosecution", particularly the fact that the "duty as defense counsel [is] to advocate for his client, including the presentation of any truthful, relevant evidence that would assist in his client's defense." The court concluded that the attorney "exceeded the scope of his duties as defense counsel and invaded the province of the jury when he performed the fact-finding function of identifying the robber in the videotape as his client and, based thereon, made the determination that his client was guilty."