I’m, admittedly, shamefully ignorant of the workings of the American legal system, but until the other day I hadn’t realized just how ignorant. The other day I read about a rape trial in Tampa, FL where the defendant admitted his guilt to his attorney beforehand. After consulting with the trial judge, the attorney placed his client on the stand anyway, whereupon the client promptly lied his ass off.
“Defendant spins lie into acquittal,” St. Petersburg Times, 14 May 2004
Okay, color me naive, but I didn’t realize that this sort of thing was permissible. I understand that the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and I realize that the burden of proof is the responsibility of the prosecution. But I would have thought that actually paving the way for your client to decieve the jury, with the knowledge that said client has in fact committed the crime they are accused of, would be regarded as obstructing the intent of the judicial system rather than upholding it. Evidently this is not the case; according to the article,
I guess I don’t read enough John Grisham novels, but this was news to me. This is not intended as a moral question, although quite frankly I have to wonder how any attorney could sleep at night after doing something like this. I’m sure that there are classes in law school explaining why this sort of thing is considered legally justifiable, and I’m curious as to what the reason is.
The way you put your question it is based on an incorrect assumption. Generally speaking, a lawyer is not allowed to knowingly let a witness commit perjury. See the American Bar Association Model Rules, rule 3.3.a.3 (link)
There are some difficulties with application of this rule in criminal cases, if the defendant won’t be persuaded by his lawyer not to testify. By withdrawing from the case the lawyer would give a clear indication that the defendant was going to lie, and such an indication would conflict with his duty of confidentiality. See Charles W. Wolfram, Modern Legal Ethics, par. 12.5 for more details.
The duty of candor to the tribunal and the duty of protecting confidentiality are often at odds. In some circumstances a duty of candor to the tribunal may include revealing when your client has committed perjury. If you know your client will commit perjury you have a duty to convince him not to, and if he insists to attempt to withdraw. Withdrawal may not always be permitted or possible, however. Some have argued that the duty of candor should not go so far as to require a lawyer to reveal that his client has committed perjury when the client is a defendant in a criminal case (which would generally be otherwise required). One proposed compromise is allowing the client to testify in narrative so as not to make the lawyer an instument of the perjury. This is apparently what happened in the case in your link.
As has been discussed in other threads on this topic, the defendant has the right to testify on his own behalf. If the lawyer knows the client is going to lie, then the client has the option of testifying in the narrative.
"A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false. "
So in other words, if a client wants to take the stand [and lie], the lawyer has to let him, or recuse himself from the case.
My father (who is a lawyer) told me that in this kind of situation where the lawyer expects that his client may perjure himself, the lawyer can ask a neutral question like “Mr. Jones, please describe the events you experienced on the night of June 24,” and then just let his client talk without further intercession - this way he is not encouraging the perjury.
I don’t know anything about this case, but I strongly suspect that the attorney did not place the client on the stand, at least not in the sense that you appear to mean. Rather, the attorney refused to call him as a witness and conduct a direct examination (ask questions and elicit answers). That’s why the judge was consulted. Since no one can prevent the accused from testifying, the resulting arrangement is that the liar takes the stand on his own, and testifies in the narrative (in his own words, without questions from the attorney.)
If you accept the proposition that the accused has a right to testify, and also the proposition that the accused has a right to confidentially consult with and be represented by an attorney, I don’t see any better way of dealing with the situation. What’s the lawyer supposed to do, interrupt the testimony and scream “Liar, liar”?
As I stated initially, I don’t know from jack about how the legal system works. My assumption that the attorney placed the client on the stand was based on the statement in the cited article:
So I inferred that the attorney placed the client on the stand, in the sense that the article appears to mean.
Dunno. Again, I ain’t a lawyer. Others in the thread have suggested that the attorney could not have withdrawn without compromising confidentiality. This makes sense, I suppose. I’m guessing that “my client is guilty” isn’t the only reason that an attorney might ever withdraw from a case, so I infer from this argument (correctly? somebody help me out here) that an attorney would have to state their reason for doing so in open court, which wouldn’t be an option in this case. Yes? No?
I assumed as much; my question was why his action was considered ethical, given the premise that the legal system isn’t designed to absolve confessed rapists of their crimes for no reason. I was puzzled by the following, seemingly contradictory statements from the article:
But then, a few paragraphs later:
So what gives? Is the judge’s ruling in conflict with Florida Bar rules, or is there some subtle distinction here that I’m failing to grasp? (I’m guessing the latter…)
Well, I don’t know about the system in various US states, but here in Australia, lawyers are first and foremost officers of the court. Therefore, in this particular dilemma, a lawyer would have to focus on the key ethical obligation of avoiding presenting false information to the court.
The difference between knowingly allowing your client to lie during your examination-in-chief, and knowingly allowing them to testify in narrative form (with which I’m not familiar) appears to be moot. The lawyer could have tried to persuade his client to tell the truth, he could have presented a non-positive defence (eg “Yes, my client did it, but it’s not a crime because of this particular technicality”) or he could have withdrawn from the case.
To allow your client to lie to the court is as unethical as lying to it yourself, and this lawyer should have known better.