Question: The police arrested a suspect linked to sexual assaults. The police searched his home. It sounds like initially the search warrants were very limited in scope but they widened as things turned up. While he was in jail, his lawyer followed his instructions to hide evidence.

From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo#cite_note-17)

> 
> Bernardo told his lawyer, Ken Murray, that the rape videotapes were
> hidden in a ceiling light fixture in the upstairs bathroom. Murray
> found the tapes and hid them from evidence. Later Murray resigned as
> Bernardo’s lawyer and John Rosen stepped in. Rosen turned the tapes
> over to police. [17]
> 
> 
> 

Murray got off on [all charges](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/court-finds-bernardo-lawyer-not-guilty-1.252668). How is this possible? He knew what was on the tape, at least in a general sense. Doesn't a lawyer have a responsibility not to defend a specific fact that they know is criminal? This action had the potential to lead to the release of an extremely dangerous person to the public.

I find a lot of the story confusing. For example if police were still searching the house why would they let someone remove the tapes? If they were finished searching the house and didn't find them then why did he get the lawyer to remove them? Also why could he be kept in jail without charge for 71 days?

Answer: 
The details and principles of this case seem well addressed in the [answer by Jen](https://law.stackexchange.com/a/85423/17500). But I wish to address a particular point in the question which does not depend on the detailed facts of this particular case.

The OP asks in the question:

> 
> Doesn't a lawyer have a responsibility not to defend a specific fact that they know is criminal?
> 
> 
> 

First of all, a lawyer does not defend facts, a lawyer defends accused persons.

A lawyer who has accepted the case of a person accused of a crime is permitted, indeed is often required, to present the best defense possible, even in the face of facts that seem to support the charges, or seem to prove the guilt of the accused. The defense lawyer may argue, and present evidence to try to show, that the evidence is not reliable, or that the evidence relied on by the prosecution can be explained by a theory other than the guilt of the accused. The defense lawyer may present evidence of diminished capacity, or insanity, or that others were responsible, or partly responsible, for the crime. There are various defenses which might apply in a specific case, and the lawyer is supposed to pick the one that seems to him or her the best choice, in consultation with the accused.

A defense lawyer is not permitted to destroy or alter evidence. Doing so is a crime. Actively concealing evidence is also a crime, but reserving evidence for use by the defense may not be, depending on the circumstances and the applicable law in that jurisdiction.

The defense lawyer is **not** supposed to directly lie to the court, nor to advise the accused to do so. Whether a defense lawyer may lawfully present the testimony of witnesses that s/he knows, or has good reason to believe, are lying varies in different jurisdictions.

Whether a defense lawyer has an obligation to disclose evidence that s/he knows of to the prosecution depends on the detailed circumstances, and is different in different jurisdictions.

A defense lawyer is not ethically responsible for the acquittal of an accused, provided that s/he has not violated the applicable rules of procedure.
A lawyer protects lawfully. Once an evidence is encountered, every lawyer must expose it to the court or take criminal complicity responsibility.