道德意见320
刑事辩护澳门赌场官网的陪审团无效论证
A lawyer defending a criminal case may zealously advocate for the acquittal of his client using any evidentiary argument for which he has a reasonable good faith basis. 目前的法律标准强烈反对陪审团无效，并禁止陪审团无效法律的明确劝告. Accordingly, 澳门赌场官网不可以, 符合职业行为准则, 明确敦促陪审团无视法律. 澳门赌场官网也不得无视法庭限制可允许辩论范围的裁决. 然而，法律体系仍然允许陪审团行使判决无效的权力. 澳门赌场官网可以, therefore, 在热心倡导的范围内, 提出具有良好的证据基础的论点，即使这些论点也可能提高陪审团对其裁定无效能力的认识.
适用的规则
- Rule 1.3(勤奋与热情)
- Rule 3.1(有根据的主张和争议)
- Rule 3.3(对法庭的坦诚)
- Rule 8.4(行为)
Inquiry
The Committee has received an inquiry on a matter of criminal law advocacy: Do the 哥伦比亚特区 职业行为准则 prohibit an attorney for a criminal defendant from pursuing a “jury nullification” argument? 询问者注意到，在这个问题上的有限权力似乎存在冲突. 一些法官似乎认为，根据规则，追求陪审团无效的论点可能会使澳门赌场官网受到制裁. See, e.g., People v. Williams, 25 Cal. 4 . 441、448、21 P.3d 1209, 1212, 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 295, 第298(2001)条(在结案中将陪审团的无效论点定性为“违反职业行为规则”). 然而,在 dicta 在一份未公布的决定中, one court has suggested that such arguments may constitute effective advocacy that satisfies the constitutional requirement that a defendant receive the effective assistance of counsel. 参见美国诉. Sams, 104 F.3d 1407, 1996 WL 739013 at *2 (D).C. Cir. 1996) (unpublished opinion) (it “may be possible” for counsel to satisfy effectiveness standard through “reasonable strategy of seeking jury nullification when no valid or practicable defense exists”). 我们被要求解决这个问题.
Discussion
陪审团撤销起诉的权力——我们指的是陪审团决定无罪释放被告，尽管它的结论是他犯了罪, 因为其否认法律或被告人被指控的情况, 参见Horning v. 哥伦比亚特区, 254 U.S. 135, 138(1920)(将陪审团的无效定性为不顾证据的重要性而宣告被告无罪)——在美国法律中有着悠久而传奇的历史. 它至少可以追溯到1735年对约翰·彼得·曾格的煽动诽谤罪审判, 谁“明显有罪”，发表了一篇让政府官员受到嘲笑的文章，但却被无罪释放, 得到公众的广泛认可. See J. Alexander, 约翰·彼得·曾格案及审判简述 (S. Katz, ed., 1963). Or consider the 1851 case of several abolitionists who stormed into a Boston federal court and took by force a slave who was being held for return to Virginia under the Fugitive Slave Law, 让他去加拿大. They, too, 协助和教唆越狱的联邦刑事指控被宣告无罪, 在他们的澳门赌场官网敦促陪审员认定逃亡奴隶法违宪之后. 参见美国诉. Morris, 26 F. Cas. 1323 (C.C.D. Mass. 1851).
在美国历史的早期阶段, 陪审团废除法律的权力是明确的，并且得到了肯定的认可. 随着20世纪的到来, however, 法律在法院的职权范围(说明法律是什么)和陪审团的职权范围(确定事实)之间形成了更严格的区分。. 今天的陪审员经常被告知，他们必须接受法院在其指示中给予他们的法律. E.g., Sparf & Hanson v. 美国, 156 U.S. 51 (1895).1 Thus, 在当代实体法标准下, a suggestion by a lawyer to a jury that it should ignore the law as stated by the judge may be tantamount to an explicit invitation to the jury to ignore the judge’s instructions. 问题是什么时候, if ever, 刑事辩护澳门赌场官网的这种邀请是否违反了《澳门赌场官方软件》.
我们的讨论必然是一般性的. 陪审团的无效裁决是否违反了职业行为准则, of course, 针对具体案件，不属于本委员会的调查范围. 澳门赌场官网考虑陪审团无效的论点应该得到指导, however, 遵循以下一般原则:
刑事辩护澳门赌场官网在我国法律制度中发挥着独特的作用. They, 也许比其他澳门赌场官网都多, 有义务“在法律范围内热情而勤奋地代表客户”.” See D.C. Rule 1.3. Indeed, 为刑事案件辩护的澳门赌场官网被授权从事以下行为, 在其他情况下, 似乎与规则的精神不一致.
辩护澳门赌场官网不仅是允许的，而且是必须的, for example, 为对抗性诉讼进行辩护，并在客户选择对诉讼进行抗辩时“要求政府承担举证责任”. See D.C. Rule 3.1; 参见id. Comment [3]; Restatement of the Law Governing Lawyers § 110(2) (2002) (same). 他们必须这样做，即使他们确信他们的客户对所指控的罪行的有罪可以排除合理怀疑. See 《澳门赌场官网法》重述，第110条，评注f. 因此，辩护澳门赌场官网可能总是要求政府证明其案件, 而不违反职业行为准则. 参见美国诉. Cavin, 39 F.3d 1299(第5期. 1994). 在这方面, 该规则独特地确保刑事辩护澳门赌场官网将尽最大努力热心地代表客户.
Similarly, 虽然大多数澳门赌场官网都有向法庭坦白的绝对义务, in this jurisdiction defense counsel who are unable to dissuade their clients from presenting false evidence and cannot withdraw from the representation without harming the client may put their client on the stand to testify in a narrative fashion. See D.C. Rule 3.3(b); 参见id. 评论[4],[8]. 尽管澳门赌场官网不能向陪审团辩论这一虚假证据，但他们仍然可以间接参与陈述. Cf. Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 第166-71(1986)条(澳门赌场官网拒绝配合被告作伪证时不违反第六修正案). This D.C. provision, 这反映了对被告作证权的关心, 旨在确保刑事辩护澳门赌场官网的道德义务不会限制被告提出辩护的权利.2
尽管为刑事被告的澳门赌场官网提供了更大的自由, 澳门赌场官网仍须遵守《澳门赌场官网》所载的道德限制. 美国诉. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (1984); 参见第v条. Bennefield, 567 A.2d 863 (Del. 1989年)(辩护澳门赌场官网将国家证人定性为“人渣”,” “liars,和被视为不当行为的“蛇”).3
Thus, 辩护澳门赌场官网的行为至少必须符合澳门赌场官网出庭所在司法管辖区的实体法. See D.C. Rule 8.5(a); see also 《澳门赌场官网法》第105(2000)条重述(“澳门赌场官网必须遵守适用法律, 包括程序和证据规则以及具体的法庭裁决”). 在这个司法管辖区, 这样的实体法似乎排除了对陪审团无效权的明确主张.
哥伦比亚特区没有规定或法规授权陪审团撤销裁决. 地方法院和联邦法院都驳回了陪审团有权获得告知他们“有权”废除法律的指示的主张. 参见美国诉. Washington, 705 F.2d 489 (D.C. Cir. (陪审团可以滥用权力作出违反法律的裁决，但这并不意味着法院必须作出这样的指示); Reale v. 美国, 573 A.2d 13 (D.C. 1990)(初审法庭不需要指示陪审员他们的陪审团撤销的权力). Indeed, 该司法管辖区的联邦和地方法院都批准了旨在阻止陪审团无效的陪审团指示. See, e.g.，美国v. Pierre, 974 F.2d 1355 (D.C. Cir. 1992)(批准陪审团的指示，即如果政府证明其案件排除合理怀疑，陪审团“应”作出有罪判决); 美国诉. Braxton, 926 F.2d 1180 (D.C. Cir. 1991)(相同); Watts v. 美国, 362 A.2d 706 (D.C. (1976)(全院)(陪审团指示可阻止无效判决).
Moreover, 哥伦比亚特区法院给出的标准陪审团指示包含了对陪审团的明确警告:“你们不得忽视任何指示, 或者质疑任何法治的智慧.《澳门赌场官方软件》. 2.澳门赌场官网协会. of D.C. 4th ed. 1993). 在此管辖范围内，对无视法律的明示规劝是, therefore, 可能被法律和法律视为禁止的, therefore, 解析:选D.C. 倡导这种课程的澳门赌场官网的《澳门赌场官网》. See D.C. Rule 8.4.
委员会认识到, however, that there are many variant forms that a jury nullification argument made by a zealous advocate can take—forms that may range from explicit requests to ignore the law to far more nuanced arguments that arguably have the same effect (and about which reasonable minds may differ). Consider the following hypothetical: Counsel wishes to argue that the police investigation of and testimony about a crime is not credible because it is biased by animus toward the political viewpoint of the defendant. 在某种程度上，这是一个基于有政治偏见的证据官员合理推断的直截了当的论点, indeed, 伪造证据. 在另一个层面上, however, 同样的论点也可以被描述为要求陪审团根据被告的政治观点而不是根据证据宣判无罪.
在实践中，常常不可能区分这两种形式的论证. 澳门赌场官网可能经常能够提出善意的证据性论点，从而提高陪审团对其撤销诉讼能力的认识. 这样的争论什么时候违反了规则?
作为根据《澳门赌场官方软件》可作出的结案辩论限制的指导, 我们发现《美国澳门赌场官网协会刑事司法标准》内容丰富. 他们提供:
(a)向陪审团作最后辩论, 辩护澳门赌场官网可以根据记录中的证据提出所有合理的推论. 辩护澳门赌场官网不应故意歪曲证据或误导陪审团可能得出的推论.
(b) Defense counsel should not express a personal belief or opinion in his or her client’s innocence or personal belief or opinion in the truth or falsity of any testimony or evidence.
(c)辩护澳门赌场官网不应提出旨在引起陪审团偏见的论点.
(d)辩护澳门赌场官网应避免争辩，以免使陪审团偏离根据证据决定案件的职责.
美国澳门赌场官网协会刑事司法标准，起诉功能和辩护功能，标准4-7.7 (3d ed. 1993). 的重述, similarly, 禁止辩护澳门赌场官网表达个人意见或暗指没有可采证据支持的事项. See 《澳门赌场官网法》第107(2000)条第三次重述.4
正如我们已经指出的那样, some closing arguments may have a good faith basis yet nonetheless have the incidental effect of appealing to a jury’s prejudice or enhancing its awareness of its ability to decide the case against the evidence. 因此，在应用ABA标准时存在明显的内在张力. 无论在其他情况下如何解决这种紧张关系, 在刑事辩护方面，应该解决这种紧张关系，以便允许存在合理诚信基础的任何证据论点, 但澳门赌场官网须在现行法律的限制下行使其能力. See id. §105评论c (2000); id. §110，注释d(同).
这与其他领域的处理方式是一致的，在这些领域，允许和不允许的宣传之间的界限难以监管. As the Restatement notes in discussing limits on a lawyer’s ability to express a personal opinion: “It may be difficult in practice to maintain the line between permissible zealous argument about facts and inferences to be drawn from them and impermissible personal endorsement. 在有疑问的情况下，自由裁量权留给辩护人, 受主持官员的监督权力，以防止不当或误导性的论点.” Id. §107，评注b.5
We think this analysis strikes the correct balance in the context of jury nullification arguments as well—unless the advocate expressly urges nullification (an expression likely prohibited by the substantive law of this jurisdiction) or has been prohibited by the presiding officer from making a particular argument, 刑事辩护澳门赌场官网可以热心地为当事人辩护，并可以提出有良好证据基础的任何论点. 这种争论不应被视为违反《澳门赌场官方软件》.
Indeed, we can imagine situations in which it “may be possible for a defense lawyer to satisfy [the effective assistance requirement through] a reasonable strategy of seeking jury nullification when no valid or practicable defense exists.” 美国诉. Sams, 104 F.3d 1407, 1996 WL 739013 at *2 (D).C. Cir. 1996). 因为“刑事辩护澳门赌场官网可以采取宪法保障澳门赌场官网有效协助所要求或允许的任何步骤,《澳门赌场官网法重述》, § 110, comment f, 在存在合理证据基础的情况下，任何此类步骤都不太可能被视为违反《澳门赌场官方软件》.
Thus, 考虑最后一个假设, 想象一下这样一种情况:法院以违反第四修正案为由，拒绝了被告对警方搜查提出的审前质疑. Given that definitive ruling it is unlikely that a lawyer could argue that the jury should acquit the defendant because the scope of the search was excessive and that a not guilty verdict would send a message to the police to stop using such aggressive, 不允许的策略. Conversely, 如果为论证提供了证据谓词, it might be appropriate for the lawyer to argue that the police’s violation of departmental procedures designed to limit the scope and extent of a search were a basis for questioning the credibility of their testimony and the evidence gathered as a result of such violations. 尽管这两种观点的区别是, perhaps, a fine one, 根据《澳门赌场官网》，这是一项具有实质性意义的区别.
Conclusion
具有附带无效效应的善意辩论并不违反职业行为规则. 尽管不受澳门赌场官网，“法律允许陪审团不顾证据宣判无罪，而且。 . . . 这样的无罪宣判是不可复审的.” Watts, 362 A.2d at 710. 这种权力是陪审团审判权所固有的必然结果. 只要不顾证据而宣告无罪的权力存在, 我们不认为《澳门赌场官网》禁止刑事辩护澳门赌场官网间接诉诸这种权力的热心辩护. 除非经审裁处主审官禁止, 有善意证据基础的论点不应被视为违反《澳门赌场官方软件》, 即使这些相同的论点也有可能加强陪审团行使其撤销权.
查询号:02-10-06
通过日期:2003年5月20日
出版日期:2003年5月
1. Two states, 印第安纳州和马里兰州, 保留州宪法规定，赋予陪审团决定法律和事实的权力. See Ind. Const. art. I, § 19; Md. Decl. 权利、艺术. 23. But even in those states the jury instructions typically admonish the jury not to arbitrarily and willfully disregard the law or substitute their own judgment for what they think the law should be in a particular case. See, e.g., 《澳门赌场官方软件》(引用自《澳门赌场官网》), Not Jury Nullification; Not a Call for Ethical Reform; But Rather a Case for Judicial Control, 67 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1109, 1111 (1996)).
2. 特区规则3的版本.比许多其他司法管辖区更为宽松. 虽然它的范围确实告诉了我们规则的构建, 如果地区规则与其他司法管辖区的普遍规则相同，我们对所提出的基本问题的解决方法将是相同的.
3. 尽管因辩护澳门赌场官网违反职业行为规则而受到纪律处分的例子很少, 他们仍然受到这些规则约束的警告更为常见. See, e.g.，美国v. Rico, 51 F.[3d] 495, 511(第五卷. (“目前的专业标准并不要求辩护澳门赌场官网坚持每一个潜在的辩护, regardless how far-fetched or implausible”); Ethics Comm. of Bd. 田纳西州职业责任协会. Sup. Ct., Op. 88-F-117 (1988) (criminal defense lawyer who files motion to suppress without first investigating facts must comply with rules against asserting defenses solely for delay or harassment).
4. Notably, the ABA commentary also provides that the defense may argue for “jury nullification” in jurisdictions permitting such arguments—a comment presumably meant to refer to 印第安纳州和马里兰州. 参见ABA标准§4-7.7评论. 通过消极暗示, this suggests that the ABA Standards counsel against the use of an express jury nullification argument where the substantive law of the jurisdiction in question precludes making such an argument. 这与我们对澳门赌场官网有义务使其行为符合管辖管辖区现行实体法的理解是一致的.
5. 审裁处的主审官将会, of course, 在第一时间判断任何论点是否恰当. 当法庭指示放弃某一论点时，因为它被认为已经越过了界限，成为不允许的陪审团无效辩护, 违反《澳门赌场官方软件》的行为可能是由于澳门赌场官网在初审法院认为其论点不可接受后仍坚持其论点. 不遵守法院命令的澳门赌场官网可能受到纪律处分. See D.C. Rule 8.4 & comment [4]; see also 《澳门赌场官网法》第105(2000)条重述(“澳门赌场官网必须遵守适用法律, 包括程序和证据规则以及具体的法庭裁决”).
