Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When Law Prevents Righting a Wrong
The New York Times ^ | May 4, 2008 | ADAM LIPTAK

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 4thamendment; billofrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last
To: bvw
Are you saying, if you were on a jury and one defendant were to confess to being the only one responsible for a double murder, it would have no bearing at all on your decision? Was there any other exculpatory evidence? I am not familiar with the details of the case.
21 posted on 05/04/2008 7:13:25 PM PDT by Know et al (Everything I know I read in the newspaper and that's the reason for my ignorance. Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Know et al

That’s right.


22 posted on 05/04/2008 7:16:13 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Grammar Nazi
You have a fiduciary obligation to keep your client's confidence. The entire point of being an attorney is preserving your client's trust. And you can't break that except under a very narrowly defined set of circumstances. Barring those, you face disbarment.

"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

23 posted on 05/04/2008 7:21:18 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bvw

“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.


24 posted on 05/04/2008 7:21:34 PM PDT by KrisKrinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

He is either a murderer or a liar, in either case no good as a witness.


25 posted on 05/04/2008 7:22:38 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: bvw

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.


26 posted on 05/04/2008 7:22:57 PM PDT by Know et al (Everything I know I read in the newspaper and that's the reason for my ignorance. Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: bvw

Not relevant to my comment.


27 posted on 05/04/2008 7:25:58 PM PDT by KrisKrinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Know et al

no problemo


28 posted on 05/04/2008 7:27:33 PM PDT by Mercat (the magician has lost control of the show)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Know et al
Guilt or innocence is decided by a preponderance of the evidence.

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.

29 posted on 05/04/2008 7:34:44 PM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc

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.


30 posted on 05/04/2008 7:39:37 PM PDT by JoJo Gunn (Help control the McCainiac population. Have them spayed or neutered.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh

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.


31 posted on 05/04/2008 7:40:58 PM PDT by Know et al (Everything I know I read in the newspaper and that's the reason for my ignorance. Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: BigBobber

You have to admit, it’d make for an ineresting cross-examination...


32 posted on 05/04/2008 7:49:59 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (DonÂ’t trust anyone who canÂ’t take a joke. [Congressman BillyBob])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: skr

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.


33 posted on 05/04/2008 7:58:54 PM PDT by freedomfiter2 (It's too bad I've already promised myself to never vote for McCain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mercat

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...


34 posted on 05/04/2008 8:00:05 PM PDT by piytar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

“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!


35 posted on 05/04/2008 8:00:16 PM PDT by elpadre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: freedomfiter2
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.
36 posted on 05/04/2008 8:07:51 PM PDT by Richard Kimball (We're all criminals. They just haven't figured out what some of us have done yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty

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.


37 posted on 05/04/2008 8:13:15 PM PDT by piytar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: piytar
One of my favorite sayings.

Everyone hates a lawyer until they need one. :)

38 posted on 05/04/2008 8:16:15 PM PDT by Darren McCarty (Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in - Michael Corleone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Know et al

“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.


39 posted on 05/04/2008 8:17:21 PM PDT by piytar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: freedomfiter2

“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.


40 posted on 05/04/2008 8:21:06 PM PDT by piytar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson