Ought ethics to stop lawyers from saying things like this?

I guess I'm with Ticomaya on this one: I don't know if I'd ever make that kind of idiotic argument, but an attorney is required to be a zealous advocate for his client. As long as the conduct doesn't cross the line into outright falsehoods or distortions of the law, then there's a good deal of room to maneuver. And, as I pointed out above, some seemingly intelligent people actually buy into this kind of argument. The defense attorney must be hoping that a few of them are members of the court martial.

Don't people usually apply to be cheerleaders?

I third it from the lawyers' standpoint. The guy's entitled to a defense, the lawyer has to come up with something, and this is the best he could come up with. The attorney cannot step in front of the trier of fact and say, "I think he's an idiot, too, and guilty, so please throw the book at him, court martial him, throw away the key, etc. and then let's all have a beer later." It can't be done. The advocate must be an advocate, even if mounting a defense seems like the stupidest and least likely of success of anything, anywhere, in the history of the world, the lawyer has to go along with it, so long as the lawyer does not perjure himself or suborn perjury in his client. He didn't, so far as I can tell. Did he make the world's greatest argument? Not a chance. Did he make the only argument he could have under the circumstances? Probably.

This is one of the worst positions for a lawyer to be in - defending someone who you know is guilty, who has refused your advice to plead guilty, and who insists on mounting a full-blown defense. The attorney must go along with it. Our code of professional responsibility requires that we do this.

Often they are but they shouldn't be. A great deal of trust is placed in lawyers. As trust administrators they take advantage by covering over the actions of trustees who misappropriate funds. One LA lawyer known for defending trustees who have engaged in or are suspected of fraud, has been retained by trustees specifically to cover acts of malfeasance. In a role as trust administrator, he has threatened beneficiaries who might provide challenges. At the same time he is doing so, he is paid by the trust and all its beneficiaries. Although this practice is ethically questionable, such dual representation is common and has gone unchallenged by the bar association.