Case No. 9 is proceeding according to a game plan – Kamran’s game plan so far. From bribing the police and his house help, to sending his friend and colleague (and only witness) Rohit, a notice that he will testify on his (Kamran’s) behalf, to hiring one of the best lawyers in town, Kamran has a water-tight case so far. But then why did Kamran’s lawyer, Bukhari, ask for the truth, and why did Kamran tell him the whole truth and nothing but? Here’s what you need to know if you’re not a lawyer. And don’t worry, we’ll skip the jingo and keep it short!
In the recent episode of Case No. 9, Kamran’s lawyer Bukhari, played by Muhammad Noorul Hassan asked Kamran for the full details – the truth. Did he do it?
And Kamran went ahead and told him the truth.
This should not however, come as a surprise for those who are familiar with how the legal framework operates or even for those who are avid watchers of law series – did anyone say SUITS, or The Good Wife, or even, The Lincoln Lawyer? One would then be familiar that the lawyer defending a case must know all the details from his client. This information is essential for the lawyer to know as it helps him defend his client better. Here’s why…
Kamran’s admission of the truth to his lawyer is known as ‘full disclosure’ in legal terms. This full disclosure, or passing on all relevant and truthful information to one’s lawyer by the client falls under ‘Attorney-client privilege’ where the attorney does not have to disclose to the public, or in a court of law, what his client told him in confidence and furthermore, this information or the truth, fully disclosed by his client, will prevent him – Bukhari (Kamran’s lawyer in this case), from getting blindsided in the courtroom, as in, be exposed to information that his client had withheld from him earlier.
This new information, if presented in court by the opposing council, or Sehar’s lawyer in this case, might come as a surprise for Bukhari who would not have prepared a legal argument to defend it formidably. Thus making Kamran’s case weak in front of the judge.
For example, if Kamran did not tell Bukhari that he had in fact, told his househelp to lie about their absence on the night of the rape, Sehar’s lawyer might bring up the topic, or convince one of the domestics to take the stand and expose Kamran’s lie. But if Bukhari knows about this loophole in the story, he will take adequate steps to cover his client’s weakest links or plan a counter strategy to block the househelp from appearing on the witness stand etc, etc.
Hence truth or full disclosure from the client will assist the lawyer in better fighting his client’s case, thus assuring a greater chance of winning it.
On the flip side, Kamran was not obligated to tell Inspector Shafiq the truth and he refrained from it, despite the inspector asking him repeatedly and casting a doubt on his apparently dishonest answer.
And that dear folks, is why Kamran had to tell his lawyer the truth. Not because he had a weak moment, but because that was what the relationship between an attorney and client demands – full disclosure.
Case No.9 has aired four episodes so far, and with each successive episode, the script is educating viewers on the legal and medical procedures that are considered a standard practice when registering an FIR for a Rape case. The drama is also showing how influential criminals such as Kamran can influence the law, and his close associates to create circumstances that make it very hard for the victim to seek and achieve justice.
Sehar has all the odds stacked against her. Yet the drama is keeping audiences intrigued with a narrative charged with suspense and incisive storytelling as well as packing in gripping performances from the entire cast.
Catch Up All The Latest Drama Stories Here
Case No. 9 is written by Shahzaib Khanzada and directed by Syed Wajahat Hussain. It is produced by Abdullah Kadwani and Asad Qureshi under the banner of 7th Sky Entertainment. The cast includes Faysal Quraishi, Saba Qamar, Aamina Sheikh, Junaid Khan, Hina Khwaja Bayat, Noor ul Hasan, and more.
Sources: SGR Law
Comments 4