what criminal court landmark cases included defense attorney ethics

– Prosecutor misrepresented himself as a criminal defense lawyer in order to get an accused murderer to turn himself in. Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Smith, 950 A.2d 101 (Md. 2008) – Defense attorney misrepresented himself to be a police officer in a phone call with a person he believed to be a prosecution witness.

Full Answer

What are some landmark Supreme Court cases in history?

The Ethics of Criminal Defense William H. Simon Columbia Law School, [email protected] ... might provide a more plausible ethical basis for aggressive criminal defense. A truly plausible case, however, would require substantial ... court at trial than by the lawyer unilaterally and in private. Thus, the

Are there any cases involving in-house counsel and ethical issues?

Houston Criminal Defense Lawyers. Neal Davis is a top-rated criminal defense attorney in Houston, Texas with nearly two decades of experience – including going before the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals and appearing as lead counsel in a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case.

Is it ethical for a lawyer to defend a client against state?

Gideon was accused of committing a felony. Being indigent, he petitioned the judge to provide him with an attorney free of charge. The judge denied his request. The Supreme Court ruled for Gideon, saying that the Sixth Amendment requires indigent criminal defendants to be provided an attorney free of charge. Learn more about this case.

Can a lawyer throw a case due to personal ethics?

Aug 08, 2018 · The Ethics of Defense Lawyers. by Jamie Flook. August 8, 2018. 3. In 1993 the American Bar Association conducted a nationwide survey of all their members to gauge personality types. They concluded that 78% of lawyers (link) prefer to make decisions based on detached objectivity rather than taking into account personal feelings or values.

Why is Gideon v. Wainwright a landmark case?

In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution requires the states to provide defense attorneys to criminal defendants charged with serious offenses who cannot afford lawyers themselves.

What was the Supreme Court ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright?

Wainwright. On March 18, 1963, the United States Supreme Court announced that people accused of crimes have a right to an attorney even if they cannot afford one. That case, which came from Florida, revolutionized criminal law throughout the United States.Mar 1, 2021

What are some Supreme Court cases involving the 6th Amendment?

ActivitiesBatson v. Kentucky. Jury selection and race.J.E.B. v. Alabama. Jury selection and gender.Carey v. Musladin. Victims' free expression rights and defendants' rights to an impartial jury.Gideon v. Wainwright. Indigent defendants and the right to counsel.In re Gault. Juveniles and the right to counsel.

What are the 5 most important Supreme Court cases?

Marbury v. Madison (1803)McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)Schenck v. United States (1919)Brown v. Board of Education (1954)Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)Miranda v. Arizona (1966)More items...

Who won the Gideon vs Wainwright case?

Decision: In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Gideon, guaranteeing the right to legal counsel for criminal defendants in federal and state courts. Following the decision, Gideon was given another trial with an appointed lawyer and was acquitted of the charges.

When was the Gideon vs Wainwright case?

1963Gideon v. Wainwright / Date decidedWainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court established that the Fourteenth Amendment creates a right for criminal defendants who cannot pay for their own lawyers to have the state appoint attorneys on their behalf.

What are some Court cases involving the 8th Amendment?

10 Cases that Violated the Eighth Amendment Banning Excessive Bail and Punishment United States v. Bajakajian, 1998. ... United States v. Salerno, 1987. ... Gregg v. Georgia, 1976. ... Furman v. Georgia, 1972. ... Powell v. Texas, 1968. ... Robinson v. California, 1962. ... Trop v. Dulles, 1958. ... Weems v. United States, 1910.More items...

What is Fifth Amendment right?

noun. an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, providing chiefly that no person be required to testify against himself or herself in a criminal case and that no person be subjected to a second trial for an offense for which he or she has been duly tried previously.

What are some Court cases involving the 9th Amendment?

At least two Supreme Court cases attempted to use the Ninth Amendment in their rulings, though they were ultimately forced to pair them with other amendments.U.S. Public Workers v. Mitchell (1947) ... Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Concurring Opinion. ... Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Dissenting Opinion.Sep 18, 2019

What makes a case a landmark case?

A landmark case is a court case that is studied because it has historical and legal significance. The most significant cases are those that have had a lasting effect on the application of a certain law, often concerning your individual rights and liberties.

Which is a landmark Supreme Court case?

In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court sanctioned segregation by upholding the doctrine of "separate but equal." The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People disagreed with this ruling, challenging the constitutionality of segregation in the Topeka, Kansas, school system.

What are landmark Judgements?

A landmark decision is one that changes an entire area of the law during a period of time. The United States Constitution did not provide for judicial review of laws and court decisions. It was a power the US Supreme court assumed (took) for itself with its first landmark decision. In the decision Marbury v.

Prosecutors and Court Ethics

Some prosecutors, for example, may behave unethically. Prosecutors exercise a great deal of discretion as they decide which cases should go to trial and which should be dismissed. In theory, they must try to seek justice and not merely a conviction. However, on occasion they are driven by personal ambitions rather than justice.

Defense Attorneys and Court Ethics

Like prosecutors, defense attorneys also have the potential to behave unethically. The job of a defense attorney is to ensure that defendants are not deprived of their due process rights. Their loyalty lies solely to their clients and not to the public.

Judges and Court Ethics

Just as both prosecutors and defense attorneys have the potential to behave unethically, judges are also not immune to engaging in inappropriate behaviors. The most important ethical responsibility of a judge is to be impartial. For this, judicial independence and integrity are vital.

What percentage of lawyers prefer to make decisions based on detached objectivity?

They concluded that 78% of lawyers (link) prefer to make decisions based on detached objectivity rather than taking into account personal feelings or values. This might seem the most reasonable approach to take to ensure a fair and effective justice system. After all, everybody is entitled to receive a fair trial.

How long was Glenn Ford on death row?

The innocent man in question, Glenn Ford, spent three decades on death row before being released after his conviction was quashed. To make matters worse, after being released, Ford was diagnosed with terminal cancer and was denied compensation for his time in prison.

Is everyone entitled to a fair trial?

After all, everybody is entitled to receive a fair trial . There are many heroic defense lawyers out there doing tremendous work; there will be many ethical and unethical prosecutors as well. Take, for example, Marty Stroud, who prosecuted an innocent black man in the 1980s and sought the death penalty for him too.

What was the lawyer's role in the family business?

A lawyer was helping run the family business, which was controlled by his mother and shared with his siblings. There was no engagement letter. As the mother started aging and fading, there were disputes among the children (the lawyer and his siblings) how things should be handled.

Do in-house counsels believe in ethical rules?

Many in-house counsel apparently believe that the ethical rules do not apply to them, or apply with less force.

What was the case of the DOE?

This case involved an in-house attorney who complained to the US Department of Energy (DOE) about discrimination at her client. To further her case, she gave information to the DOE about other complaints of discrimination at the company. Even though she prevailed in her jury trial, the ruling was reversed. The Fifth Circuit held that there was no exception to the ethical rules that allowed her to disclose information regarding other wrongs without client consent, which she did not have. The verdict was reversed and the case dismissed based on the lawyer's misconduct.

Did Goodyear withhold documents during discovery?

In this case, Goodyear withheld documents and otherwise gave false responses during discovery. The court entered drastic sanctions against Goodyear, and the "nail in the coffin" was the fact that Goodyear's in-house counsel had participated in reviewing the false discovery responses before they were filed.

Do ethical rules apply to in-house counsel?

The ethical rules still apply to in-house counsel. Not only that, the stakes are higher because it is much more difficult for your to disengage from your client when you are in-house. If you have any questions about your ethical duties at all, contact the author.

Why did Staples Hughes testify against his own client?

In a rare case where a lawyer broke client-confidentiality, North Carolina lawyer Staples Hughes testified against his own client in order to prove a convicted murderer innocent. Hughes said while on trial that his client (who committed suicide before this) confessed to the murder for which another man was serving life. The Judge Jack A. Thompson urged Hughes not to testify saying that his law license would be in jeopardy, ethically he felt required to speak on behalf of the factually innocent.

Who was the inmate on death row?

The inmate, Marco Allan Chapman, was a convicted murderer set to be executed that week.

Who is Kurt Boehl?

Kurt Boehl is an attorney in Seattle who has been telling his clients how to get through the messy marijuana laws. Boehl says that as long as he doesn't lie and actually tells his clients what the laws are, then when he tells them what to do to get around the laws it is completely justifiable. Is there a line between breaking ...

What are the duties of a defense counsel?

Defense counsel should consider the impact of these duties at all stages of a criminal representation and on all decisions and actions that arise in the course of performing the defense function. These duties include:

What are the steps to make a clear record for potential review?

Such steps may include: filing motions, including motions for reconsideration, and exhibits; making objections and placing explanations on the record; requesting evidentiary hearings; requesting or objecting to jury instructions; and making offers of proof and proffers of excluded evidence.

When a representation ends, should the client request the client's file?

(a) When a representation ends, if the client requests the client’s file, defense counsel should provide it to the client or, with the client’s consent, to successor counsel or other authorized representative. Defense counsel should provide the client with notice of the file’s disposition. Unless rules or statutes in the jurisdiction require otherwise, defense offices may retain clients’ files unless a client requests the file. If the client’s file remains with defense counsel, counsel should retain copies of essential portions until the client provides further instructions or for at least the length of time consistent with statutes and rules of the jurisdiction.

Who should have final control over the scheduling of court appearances, hearings and trials in criminal matters?

When defense counsel is aware of facts that would affect scheduling, defense counsel should advise the court and, if the facts are case-specific, the prosecutor.

Is the Criminal Justice Standards copyrighted?

Copyright by the American Bar Association. This work (Crimina l Justice Standards) may be used for non-profit educational and training purposes and legal reform (legislative, judicial, and executive) without written permission but with a citation to this source. Some specific Standards can be purchased in book format.

What is the community of criminal defense attorneys?

(a) The community of criminal defense attorneys, including public defense offices and State and local Bar Associations, should develop and maintain programs of training and continuing education for both new and experienced defense counsel. Defense offices, as well as the organized Bar or courts, should require that current and aspiring criminal defense counsel attend a reasonable number of hours of such training and education.

When before a jury, should defense counsel not knowingly refer to, or argue on the basis of, facts outside

When before a jury, defense counsel should not knowingly refer to, or argue on the basis of, facts outside the record, unless such facts are matters of common public knowledge based on ordinary human experience or are matters of which a court clearly may take judicial notice, or are facts that counsel reasonably believes will be entered into the record at that proceeding. In a nonjury context counsel may refer to extra-record facts relevant to issues about which the court specifically inquires, but should note that they are outside the record.

What is the role of a prosecutor in the Supreme Court?

Generally: "A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence." Supreme Court Commentary to SCR 3.130 (3.8).

Can a prosecutor propose a plea agreement?

Prosecutor May Not Propose a Plea Agreement Requiring a Waiver of the Right to Pursue an Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim Relating to the Matter that is the Subject of the Plea Agreement

What does "aggrieved" mean in SCR?

"Aggrieved" according to Black's Law Dictionary includes the definition of "having a legal interest adversely affected." Since U.S. Attorneys would possibly be subject to sanctions for including waivers in plea agreements, they probably meet that definition.

Can a defense counsel advise a client about a plea agreement?

Defense Counsel May Not Advise a Client about a Plea Agreement Involving a Waiver of the Right to Pursue an Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim Related to the Subject of the Plea Agreement

Prosecutors and Court Ethics

• Some prosecutors, for example, may behave unethically. Prosecutors exercise a great deal of discretion as they decide which cases should go to trial and which should be dismissed. In theory, they must try to seek justice and not merely a conviction. However, on occasion they are driven by personal ambitions rather than justice. Some prosecutors treat their current jobs as stepping-st…

See more on criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com

Defense Attorneys and Court Ethics

Judges and Court Ethics

Read More About Criminal Justice Ethics