Posted on 05/04/2008 6:05:03 PM PDT by Grammar Nazi
STAPLES HUGHES, a North Carolina lawyer, was on the witness stand and about to disclose a secret he believed would free an innocent man from prison. But the judge told Mr. Hughes to stop.
"If you testify," Judge Jack A. Thompson said at a hearing last year on the prisoner’s request for a new trial, "I will be compelled to report you to the state bar. Do you understand that?"
But Mr. Hughes continued. Twenty-two years before, he said, a client, now dead, confessed that he had acted alone in committing a double murder for which another man was also serving life. After his own imprisoned client died, Mr. Hughes recalled last week, "it seemed to me at that point ethically permissible and morally imperative that I spill the beans."
Judge Thompson, of the Cumberland County Superior Court in Fayetteville, did not see it that way, and some experts in legal ethics agree with him. The obligation to keep a client’s secrets is so important, they say, that it survives death and may not be violated even to cure a grave injustice — for example, the imprisonment for 26 years of another man, in Illinois, who was freed just last month.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I can't say I agree with the Times' conclusion, which seems to be that poor people should have less of a right to attorney-client privilege than the rest of us.
I could go either way, but certainly not on that basis.
Easy call. I would simply turn in my license and find another way to make a living.
All a lawyer with a guilty client should do is his best concerning the sentencing of same.
I cannot even begin to fathom the hideously depraved depths of a lawyer’s “mind” that could allow such a miscarriage of justice.
Telling what he knew was “ethically permissible and morally imperative” 22 years ago. Some stupid made-up bar association “ethics” rules are no excuse for sitting quietly by while a man you know is innocent is spending the prime of his life in prison. I wouldn’t blame either one of these men released after 20+ years, if they went out and murdered the sorry excuse for a human being who kept mum about their innocence all that time. If I was on a jury I would vote “not guilty” in a heartbeat. Anyone who lets being an ethical, truthful human being take a back seat to being a lawyer, at the expense of 20+ years of someone else’s life doesn’t deserve to live.
Even under these stupid bar association rules, the only penalty one of these lawyers would have suffered for piping up was having to find a different job that didn’t require being a member of the bar. They’ll let an innocent man spend 20+ years of his life in prison, so they don’t have to give up their precious career practicing law??? Sick, sick, sick!!
Somehow our culture has convinced us that lawyers and cops care about helping law-abiding citizens. They don't. At least, that's not part of their job description.
Lawyers work to make sure their clients (whether guilty or not) do not suffer any legal penalties. The police work to put people in jail after they do bad things to good people.
There was another case in Chicago recently where the lawyer came forward after the guilty client had died.
But in this NC case, the guilty client was already sentenced to life for the crime and could not suffer any further legal consequences if the lawyer came forward. Very very hard to justify keeping silent then.
There is a concept in law “standing”, that is the ability to assert a claim or a privilege. I would suggest that the dead client has no standing to object to the testimony of his attorney. The attorney was obligated to defend his client not to preserve the client’s legacy for eternity.
This is a classic example of what’s wrong with lawyers and the concept that the law is above people.
You can not take the word of a self-confessed murderer at any value whatsoever. The testimony is worthless. It means zilch.
Exactly. The discussion of lawyer ethics is interesting, but the case they use for an example is not.
“My dead client said the other guy didn’t do it” cuts no mustard with me. It is not evidence. It means nothing.
Sometimes ethics and morality are not the same thing. How can there not be a procedure to release an innocent person from a grave injustice? Do the rights of deceased guilty individuals outweigh the rights of innocent living people? Should one innocent person spend their life in prison in order to protect lawyer client privilege? If anyone wanted to weigh that question, put themselves in Mr Hunts position. I’m pretty sure they would want the injustice reversed.
(2) There is no way of ascertaining whether a convicted felon who is already serving a life sentence is telling the truth.
(3) Most people would think twice about sacrificing their career and livelihood for something that could turn out to be a lie told by an extremely unreliable individual.
(4) Taylor42, the "law is above people" according to our Founding Fathers' design. No one is supposed to be above the law.
(5) Perhaps some blame is due to the innocent man's defense attorney for screwing up a defense attorney's ultra-rare dream case: one with an innocent client.
Obviously you misunderstood my post. I would have violated attorney client confidentiality.
22 years later it wouldn’t have much weight but the same confession at the time of trial may have given the jury reasonable doubt.
Attorney-Client privilege and its cousin "confidentiality" are the backbone of everything. This generally survives death (Supreme Court). It is also the law itself.
Based on strictly the rules of professional responsibility, the judge probably did not have a choice. Under the model rules which are similar to most states, he was OBLIGATED to report the attorney to the bar - or he could be disciplined himself.
I agree with the judge, with reservations. I don't know what I'd do in that situation, but without confidentiality, attorneys can not properly defend their clients, including innocent clients. The right to a fair trial must trump everything since anyone of use could at some point be in court like that Duke LaCrosse team.
I was not disagreeing with your post. I was just saying that if there is a reasonable doubt of innocence, every effort should be made to undue a gross injustice if indeed there is one. Sorry if I sounded otherwise.
The “confession” even if it was, which is questionable — is meaningless. The man who made it is a murderer, a person who is murderer can not be trusted in any sense. It is NOT reasonable to have a doubt on the basis of a “confession” of a murderer.
That’s right.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
“You can not take the word of a self-confessed murderer at any value whatsoever”
Then of course his confession is of no value and you can’t consider him to be self-confessed.
He is either a murderer or a liar, in either case no good as a witness.
I’m not sure you would have made it to the jury. Guilt or innocence is decided by a preponderance of the evidence. A decision made before testimony is given is not ethical or moral. Whether or not the man is innocent or guilty, I can’t say but he may have a case for appeal. Again, I don’t know the laws for the state where he is incarcerated.
Not relevant to my comment.
no problemo
The problem with today's courts is that they have developed too many ways to suppress evidence. The jurors aren't given all the evidence. Just another game to keep the lawyers rich.
It’s so easy even a child could see it. They’re scum, it’s their business to keep the public at each others throats, and they protect their own above all else.
I don’t disagree with you on the fallacy of the court system of today. I have seen more than enough trial by error in our courts. Even the appeal system is abused regularly. The courts are also legislating from the bench, dictating the judges view, rather than constitutional laws.
I digress.
You have to admit, it’d make for an ineresting cross-examination...
All a lawyer with a guilty client should do is his best concerning the sentencing of same.
A lawyer with a guilty client should simply see that the truth concerning his client be discovered at his trial. Truth should be the only thing that counts in our justice system. Unfortunately, it’s the only thing that doesn’t matter in our courts. This judges actions should get him disbarred and imprisioned for false imprisonment.
Easily said. So what about those law school debts (most lawyers aren’t rich and have to pay off their debts over many years), spouse to support, kids, years spent learning your livelihood, etc? Screw them too, eh? More easily said from behind a keyboard than done.
Such a simpistic attitude is unworthy of Free Republic, but sadly far too common lately. Kudos to the attorney for biting the bullet, esp. since the client has passed and cannot be harmed in any meaningful way, but this is a very complex issue with ramifications for the entire due process and right to counsel issues.
However, here’s a way too keep yourself personally from being a complete hypocrit on this topic: If you ever need a lawyer, sign a complete waiver or at least post mortem waiver of all attorney client-priviledge before retaining him/her. What, you don’t like the idea? Might harm your rights or your estate’s (kids, if you have any)? Well, that is what you are advocating for others without their consent...
“The police are not in the business of “protecting” the public.”
in the fifties in the small city where I lived at the time, the police took great pride in referring to themselves as “peace officers.”
They were poorly trained, but had a heart for policing and did a great job!
Well, you get it. These knee jerk “lawyers are evil scum” types, though, clearly don’t. Of course, THEY would want THEIR lawyer to abide by that little nicety of attorney client priviledge, even post mortem for the sake of their families. But it is so much easier to hate the evil lawyers (who should quit their vile profession) and ignore the ramifications. Feel like I am reading KOs or DU - emotion based uninformed cr@p with no real understanding of what is at stake.
Should the lawyer in this case be sanctioned? I don’t know, but it is a tough issue. Did he do the right thing? For the innocent man, yes. For other innocent people who find themselves in front of a court on criminal charges? Maybe not.
Everyone hates a lawyer until they need one. :)
“I’m not sure you would have made it to the jury. Guilt or innocence is decided by a preponderance of the evidence.”
No. Civil liabilty is by “preponderance of the evidence.” Guilt (criminal) is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” BIG DIFFERENCE.
“All a lawyer with a guilty client should do is his best concerning the sentencing of same.”
So screw “innocent until proven guilty,” eh? YOUR lawyer will decide if you are guilty, not a jury of your peers? Yeah, great idea there.
You fail to appreciate the value of our adversarial legal system as a check on tyranny and overzealous prosecution.
In the system you propose, attorneys would essentially serve as agents of the court, working with the judge to discover the truth. But they too would have imperfect judgment. If accused people knew they could not trust their attorneys, everyone--guilty or not--would proclaim their innocence. Every attorney would be forced to guess at his client's innocence, and the quality of defense that client received would depend on that guess. An attorney would invariably make a mistake occasionally, and believing an innocent client to be lying, follow your advice and see that the "truth" come out at trial giving him the sentence he "deserves." The very thing that you decry in this thread--the conviction of innocent people--would be more common.
Imagine if you were falsely accused and your own attorney didn't seem to believe you. In the current system, you could count on the fact that he would still do his best to get you acquitted. In your system, you would be SOL.
If that isn't enough, I'll point out that Germany--hardly famous for its long history of protecting innocent people against overzealous governments--has a legal system more like the one you advocate. The Anglo-American common law system--complete with the adversarial approach we have now--has been one of the strongest bulwarks against tyranny the world has ever known.
A juror has to weigh the reliability of testimony, which is according to the character of the witness. I give no weight to the testimony of such a witness as in this case — either a murderer or a liar. The case would have to be made on other evidence and other *reliable* witnesses.
In the system you propose, attorneys would essentially serve as agents of the court, working with the judge to discover the truth. But they too would have imperfect judgment. If accused people knew they could not trust their attorneys, everyone—guilty or not—would proclaim their innocence. Every attorney would be forced to guess at his client’s innocence, and the quality of defense that client received would depend on that guess. An attorney would invariably make a mistake occasionally, and believing an innocent client to be lying, follow your advice and see that the “truth” come out at trial giving him the sentence he “deserves.” The very thing that you decry in this thread—the conviction of innocent people—would be more common.
The adversarial system should still not allow situations like this one to occur. What kind of ethics would keep this lawyer from insisting that his client’s confession be given to the jury? Only a lawyer could define ethics in such a manner. The current system gives too much control of evidence to the judge and lets myriads of criminals off on technicalities.
A lawyer with a guilty client has to defend the client. He is under no obligation to “get to the truth.” He is obligated to present the best case for his client without committing perjury.
Yes, even witholding evidence that is relevent to the case. That’s why few Americans trust lawyers or our system.
So screw “innocent until proven guilty,” eh? YOUR lawyer will decide if you are guilty, not a jury of your peers? Yeah, great idea there.
The case in point involves a lawyer who witheld evidence that could have gotten this guy off. Now after twenty years the judge still says the evidence can’t be given. Some innocent until proven guilty. If any and all evidence isn’t allowed, “proven guilty” is meaningless.
I don’t know whether you know this - but I am a lawyer. But I’m first a Christian. I did make the decision years ago not to do criminal defense work and fortunately in my community, there’s a public defender so I’ve never been appointed. And you’re correct, it would be a more difficult decision for a lawyer with small children and debt neither of which I have. But just because it’s a difficult decision is not IMHO an excuse.
“Legal ethics rules vary from state to state, but many allow disclosure of client confidences to prevent certain death or substantial bodily harm. That means, several legal ethics experts said, that lawyers may break a client’s confidence to stop an execution, but not to free an innocent prisoner. Massachusetts seems to be alone in allowing lawyers to reveal secrets ‘to prevent the wrongful execution or incarceration of another.’”
These ethical codes are written by various jurisdictions, and those that write them can write exceptions into them.
It should generally be the case that the ethical codes for lawyers should require that lawyers divulge otherwise-privileged information to prevent the incarceration or execution of likely innocent individuals.
On a similar topic... in my community, there is an association, invitation only, named after a federal judge. Just recently there was a civility award designated and this Wednesday, the first recipiant of that award will be honored at the bar luncheon. I just got the email. Now, here’s what really makes me cranky - several years ago, this judge murdered his wife and killed himself. HOW IN THE WORLD IS THERE CIVILITY IN THAT!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.