Posted on 05/04/2008 6:04:47 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.
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.