伦理意见213
Defense Counsel’s Obligation to Inform Court of Adverse Evidence
适用的代码
- 博士4 - 101 (B) (1) (Nondisclosure of Confidence or Secret.)
- DR 7-102(A)(4) (Knowing Use of False Evidence.)
- 博士7 - 102 (A) (5) (Knowing False Statement of Fact.)
- DR 7-102(B)(2) (Revealing Fraud Upon Tribunal by Non-client.)
适用的规则
- 规则1.6 (Confidentiality of Information.)
- 规则3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal.)
调查
这项调查是由于高级法院审判后澳门赌场官网诉讼的无效协助而产生的. 询问者在该诉讼中辩称，他的前任为一名刑事被告辩护是无效的，因为前任澳门赌场官网未能确保一名证人(“证人B”)获得可强制执行的程序，据称该证人的证词本可为被告开脱罪责. 前任澳门赌场官网找到了另一名证人(“证人A”)，该证人告诉他，她听到证人B对所涉罪行供认不讳. 前任澳门赌场官网同证人B谈了话，他答应出庭受审. Witness B was mailed a subpoena. 然而, it is not clear whether Witness B was properly served with the subpoena, and he did not appear for trial.
In supporting the ineffective assistance of counsel petition, 询问者提交了证人A的一份宣誓书，其中叙述了证人B据称在她在场时所作的有罪陈述.1 请愿书认为, 在其他事物之外, 未能确保证人B收到可强制执行的传票对委托人不利，并使前任澳门赌场官网的协助无效.
Some months after the court took the matter under advisement, the inquirer located Witness B, who denied making any statements of any kind to Witness A. 询问者问他是否有道德上的义务通知法庭证人B否认作过有罪的陈述.
讨论
Consideration of this inquiry must start with DR 4-101, “Preservation of confidences and secrets of a client.“询问者从对证人B的采访中了解到的信息——证人B否认对证人a做过有罪的陈述——属于‘秘密’的定义.” DR 4-101(A) (a secret is information, 除了信心, that is “gained in the professional relationship . . . 其中的披露 . . . would be likely to be detrimental to the client.2“因此, unless the disclosure of the secret is “permitted under DR 4-101(C),” the inquirer may not reveal the information he learned from Witness B. 博士4 - 101 (B) (1).
DR 4-101(C)中唯一与本调查相关的条款是第(2)款。, 在纪律规则允许或法律或法院命令要求的情况下，允许披露机密和秘密.“根据这一标准，委员会得出结论，调查者不得泄露其委托人的秘密.3
1. DR 7-102(A)(4) (Knowing Use of False Evidence)
的确，询问者现在掌握的信息与证人A的宣誓证词相矛盾, a statement that the inquirer has presented to the court. 然而, 询问者说，他在找到和采访证人B之前向法院提交了证人A的供词. 因此, 根据所呈现的事实, there appears to be no violation of DR 7-102(A)(4), because the element of counsel’s prior 知识 of any falsity is absent.
证人陈述相互矛盾的简单存在本身并没有上升到“知道”一个这样的陈述是假的程度. 参见Butler v. 美国, 414 A.2d 844 at 850 (D.C. 应用程序. 1979) and the cases cited therein. 无论如何, when the inquirer presented Witness A’s affidavit to the court, he had no 知识 that Witness B would make a contrary statement. The Committee therefore cannot conclude that, in submitting Witness A’s affidavit, the inquirer 故意 submitted a false statement.
2. 博士7 - 102 (A) (5) (Knowing False Statement of Fact)
Similarly, under the facts presented, the inquirer did not 故意 make false statements of fact in his petition, 以至于他辩称，如果证人B被要求出庭，他会证明被告无罪. 博士7 - 102 (A) (5). 的元素 知识 在向法庭陈述时，没有任何虚假之处.4
3. DR 7-102(B)(2) (Revealing Fraud Upon a Tribunal by a Non-client)
最后, 有一个问题是DR 7-102(B)(2)是否要求澳门赌场官网向法院披露证人A和证人B的陈述之间的冲突, 理由是证人A的陈述构成非当事人对法庭的欺诈. 委员会得出结论，DR 7-102(B)(2)并未强制披露这些事实.
披露非客户欺诈的义务是建立在澳门赌场官网收到“明确确定”欺诈的信息的基础上的. See In re Grievance Committee of U.S. 地方法院, 847 F.二维57,62-63 (2d Cir. (将DR 7-102(B)解释为要求“对欺诈的实际了解”.”) The Committee believes that, 孤独, 调查中所描述的相互矛盾的陈述并不能清楚地证明证人A的陈述是虚假的.
结论
根据所提出的事实，询问者必须保守其委托人的机密和秘密. 因此，从道德上讲，调查者没有义务向法院披露他从对证人B的采访中了解到的情况. Indeed, such disclosure at present would be prohibited.5
然而，询问者在今后就此事与法院打交道时必须谨慎行事. 鉴于他目前所知证人B否认对证人A做过有罪陈述, 询问者应确保今后在法庭上就证人B的证词所作的陈述不会违反询问者的道德义务. 参见In re austen, 524 A.2d 680 (D.C. 应用程序. 1987).
调查没有. 89-11-41
通过:1990年6月19日
1. Although Witness A testified at the criminal trial, 询问者建议说，关于证人B的陈述的证词没有被引出来, because Witness A had not been “asked the proper questions.” The Committee offers no opinion regarding this assertion.
2. See also Comment 6 to 规则1.6 . D.C. 规则 of Professional Conduct, 哪一条规定，禁止披露秘密“不考虑信息的性质或来源，也不考虑他人分享该知识的事实”.”
3. 这一意见仅限于考虑“纪律规则”所允许的披露.调查没有提到法院命令要求披露这一秘密, so the Committee presumes no such order exists. 见意见180. 调查人员是否“被法律要求”披露有关资料是一个法律问题，超出了委员会的决定权限. Id. n.1.
4. 尽管如此, 如下所述, 询问者必须注意避免将来故意作出虚假陈述. 5. 委员会的结论是，根据将于1月1日在哥伦比亚特区生效的《澳门赌场官方软件》，在这一意见中得出的结果将是相同的, 1991. 见规则1.6 (Confidentiality of Information) and 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal).
