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 ...
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.