Defending People

the art and science of criminal defense trial lawyering

More on Covering Your Ass

Every man needs a code to live by. When it comes to protection of the attorney-client privilege, it appears that my code puts me on the radical fringe. Under my code, everything I tell my client is privileged. I will only disclose it if disclosure helps my client, or if the client waives the privilege.
Miranda thinks it’s okay to make a record, in anticipation of a possible future claim to the contrary, that the client’s rejection of the plea offer was against the advice of counsel. (See her comments to Gideon’s post of yesterday).

Gideon, Scott, and Young Shawn Matlock (commenting on Scott’s post) all think it’s okay to tell a court, when a client is rejecting a plea offer, that you have discussed the plea with the client. Scott points out that we have an ethical duty to convey a plea offer to the client (true) so that the fact that we have done so reveals nothing (non sequitur).

The Woman in Black’s position appears to be closer to mine: “it rarely serves any purpose to go into any detail about rejection of plea agreements, unless you are, with your client’s permission, trying to impress upon them the just-ness of your defense” (in comments to Gideon’s post of today).

If “any detail” means anything more than “no, thank you,” I agree with her. It rarely serves any purpose to do anything more, when a client is rejecting a plea offer, than “no, thank you.”

I can envision circumstances in which it might be proper to say more than “no, thank you” because doing so would move — for example, “we’re rejecting the State’s offer because my client is innocent,” if that might make a difference to how decision-makers view the case (”impress upon them the just-ness of your defense”).

But I would think carefully about what effect any public statement would have on the client’s case, and only make it if I knew it would help (rather than simply “not hurt”) the client.

Tags:


This entry was posted by Mark Bennett on Thursday, August 16th, 2007 at 11:11 am and is filed under Uncategorized, ethics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

About The Author

Mark Bennett
Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.

Comments

Leave a Reply

By submitting a comment here you give me permission to use your words in any way I like, including editing them for clarity, brevity, or content, as well as rearranging the words or the letters within them to change their very meaning. Those who engage in anonymous ad hominem attacks are the car-keyers of the internet, and will not be tolerated. If you engage in such attacks, I may edit the post to show your name or to make it appear that you are attacking yourself. Or both. I don't have to let you comment here. Don't do so for blatant marketing purposes; do so only to add to the discussion. Once you click "submit comment" you have given up all interest in your words to me, and have no further interest in your words. You agree never to sue, grieve, or complain to anyone about the use that I make of the letters you have typed. If you even threaten to do so, you agree that you will be held up to eternal public ridicule.

« Vanity     Privilege Breakdown »