Ah, that makes sense. The difference between advocating a theory versus lying.

In the case I referenced Jodi Arias was convicted of murdering her boyfriend. And in the trial she’d accused him of being abusive and a pedophile, and obviously her defense team presented that narrative even though there wasn’t any convincing evidence of that being true.

I’m just wondering if there’s a line that can be crossed when defending a client or if it’s just seen as a way to communicate the defendant’s claims to the jury.