hmmmm, i do believe lawyers that defend/lie for people that are (a) obviously guilty
Bold annotations are my own.

I am by no means an expert in jurisprudence, but the phrase "obviously guilty" does not sit with 'innocent until proven guilty' and the right of 'due process' under Anglo-American jurisprudence. Note: 'innocent until proven guilty' is not codified in the US Constitution but, "is embodied in several provisions of the Constitution, however, such as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury."

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#innocent

In English law, "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law." The standard to which it [guilt] must be proven is, "beyond all reasonable doubt."

In US Law,, "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A4Sec3

Also, see "Specific factors that define a crime, which the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt in order to obtain conviction. Elements that must be proven are (1) that a crime actually occurred (actus reus), (2) that the accused intended the crime to happen (mens rea), (3) a timely relationship between the first two factors."

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/Index/Aopc/Glossary/e.htm

Hence, there is a codified judicial process that determines 'innocence' or 'guilt' based on the bedrock principle "beyond all reasonable doubt".

Regards,
Riotgirl

P.s. All that googling took me back to studying 'Politics' and having to remember elements of jurisprudence such as the extent of "executive privledge".