Posted on May 27, 2008 by Kathy McManus in All, Ethics, Law Comments (8)
Freeing an Innocent Man?
If you had critical information that could free an innocent man from prison, would you reveal it to a judge, even if doing so was illegal?
A North Carolina lawyer named Staples Hughes wrestled with that question for 22 years, while a man he believes is innocent of a double murder continued to serve two life sentences in prison.
“I don’t know whether ethical behavior is always the same as being a moral hero,” Hughes said. “Maybe if I was some kind of moral hero, I would have told.”
What Hughes didn’t tell is that in the 1980’s, a client of his confided that he alone had committed a double murder for which that other man was serving the two life sentences. But Hughes could not reveal the confession because he was bound to secrecy by attorney-client privilege, a legal rule that prevents an attorney from disclosing any confidential information obtained from a client.
So for 22 years, Hughes kept the information to himself, while the man he believed to be innocent—Lee Wayne Hunt—remained in prison.
Then Hughes’ client died, and with him, Hughes reasoned, the confines of attorney-client privilege.
“It seemed to me at that point ethically permissible and morally imperative that I spill the beans,” Hughes explained.
Appearing before a judge, Hughes finally revealed his secret, explaining that his client was dead. “My disclosure can’t hurt him,” Hughes told the court, “And I have to weigh that disclosure against the continuing harm” to Lee Wayne Hunt.
Wrong, said the judge, who refused to consider Hughes’ new testimony and then reported him to the state bar for disciplinary action, saying he had violated attorney-client privilege, even though the client was dead.
Experts in legal ethics echoed the judge’s decision, saying that attorney-client privilege is so sacred it remains in effect even after a client’s death, and can only be broken to stop an execution—not to free an innocent man from life behind bars.
The North Carolina state bar recently dismissed the judge’s complaint against Hughes, but Lee Wayne Hunt remains in prison.
“I go home, have a glass of wine, work in the yard,” Hughes said. “And there’s a guy sitting in a prison camp two counties away, and my feeling is he’s going to be there for the rest of his life.”
Tell us what you think: Do you agree that a dead man’s confidence should outweigh a potentially innocent man’s chance for freedom? What would you do if the law said doing the right thing was actually the wrong thing?
Comments (8)
Skip comments
Always do unto others as
Ones heart always answers any moral question the best. No matter the personal consequences, accepting direction only from our hearts creates peace and love within and without. Even if that man is not freed of the walls that hold him, freeing his mind with the realization “someone else cares about me” could turn his life around for the better, even while he’s still in prison. Individually, this lawyer needs to decide who will rule his mind, his ego or his heart. All loving actions make some type of positive step forward even if its not the one anticipated.
True Morality
True morality will disobey the law of the land in a situation such as this. Laws are supposed to protect us all, and if in some instance a law is harming rather than helping, it ought to be waived for the exception. I feel strongly that Mr. Hunt ought to be released! Pity’s sakes, where is our country if we cannot free an innocent man simply because the man who testifies of his innocence broke a law? Mr. Hughes waited to be perfectly sure his client wouldn’t be harmed. Kudos to him all around.
RE: True Morality
Thank You
Amen.
Love to all, beth.
RE: True Morality
Amen
Totally 100% agreed.
let's face it
We ALL know that the law is flawed. We also know that there are ways around just about any law out there. I would have found a way to anonymously get the information out. And who are these “experts” that say the truth and justice should not be served in lieu of confidentiality??? That’s just asinine.
This judge needs to be reported for disciplinary action. He needs to be stripped of his title because being able to look the truth in the eye and turn the other cheek clearly means he is incompetent to do his job by accurately and fairly judging the truth and upholding justice.
The guilty culprit is dead and there can be no harm to come out of the situation at this point so why not admit the evidence?
No Brainer
This is a no-brainer. Someone is sitting in prison sentenced to life for crimes he did not commit. But the lawyer whose client admits to the crimes decides he cannot present the truth to the prosecutor, because that would violate lawyer/client
confidentiality. SO WHAT??? On the face of it and going on the story as presented, at worst, Lawyer Hughes would have been reprimanded by the bar, maybe even had his license suspended temporarily, but had anything worse happened, such as disbarment, the bar would have been embarrassed by a whole LOT of media attention into restoring Lawyer Hughes’ bar card. There is no indication that Lawyer Hughes was intimidated by his client into keeping his counsel until the client died, which would have been the one possible justification for not passing on the information that would have released the wrongly convicted man. There is also no indication that he tried to persuade his client to confess or to let him (Hughes) off the hook with respect to lawyer/client confidentiality, but those would have been possible alternatives to doing nothing. This is reminiscent of Mr. Bumble in “Oliver Twist” who famously said, “The law is a ###.” That wrongly convicted man’s life is ruined. If
he had been severely physically injured, all measures would have been taken to save his life, even if the injury was his fault, such as driving
badly or standing on a rickety ladder. But no one wants to save his mental life ruined by incarceration. Even when Lawyer Hughes has wasted
22 years of this man’s life, the court and the state bar association still didn’t get it. Lawyer Hughes was finally forgiven for breaking lawyer/client
confidentiality after the client died, but the wrongly convicted man still is incarcerated. In other words, a moral and ethical cluster mess-up.
To all ...
To all who have replied thus far – very well put. Mr. Hunt should be freed. I wouldn’t even think that since the other client is dead, his name needs to be exposed. Just to admit that Mr. Hunt was imprisoned wrongly and to set him free would suffice – would it not? Twenty-two years in for something you didn’t do, the truth comes out, and you’re still in. What would that do to one’s mental state?? “…means he is incompetent to do his job by accurately and fairly judging the truth and upholding justice.” Agreed, and very well put.
They Break The Law!!!
Laws were made to be broken. It’s clearly up to that judge at that time. Another judge may not see it that way. I am a firm believer that the truth will set you free, maybe not today, but some day!!!