NC Judiciary is a JOKE, and not a very funny one at that.

From the N&O:

With his client dead, Hughes said, he immediately thought of revealing Cashwell's secret. But he decided to wait, knowing that the Supreme Court was considering a crucial ruling on an unrelated case in Wake County that explored whether a dead person's confidentiality trumped the search for justice.

In 2003, the Supreme Court said that a judge can force a lawyer to reveal confidential statements from a dead client. The decision helped crack the arsenic poisoning case of Eric Miller, leading to his wife's arrest and conviction.

Bolstered by that decision, Hughes eventually decided he would reveal his dead client's confession. In 2004, Hughes called Rich Rosen, who is known for handling cases for prisoners who insist they are wrongly convicted, and said he had evidence that could help prove Hunt's innocence.

Full story is here.

So this isn't even a double standard. It's just pure stupidity. Brought to you by the people that put these Wonderkund in their positions. Us.

Comments

Fix-ed

n/t

Thanks for fixing it...

I can't seem to get a link to work for anything anymore...I blame it on rented fingers...not quite sure what I'm doing wrong.

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only UNPATRIOTIC and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public.

Politicians are like diapers. They should be changed frequently, and for the same reasons.

Care to expound upon your opinion?

Care to expound upon your opinion, or are you content just to impugn the entire judiciary without any rationale whatsoever?

If you are upset that this judge filed a complaint against the attorney, I think you might misunderstand the system a little. There is no doubt that that attorney knew there would be a complaint against him as soon as he signed that affidavit, let alone after he testified in court. Client confidentiality is a cornerstone of the attorney-client relationship, on which hangs the rest of the judicial system. You don't punch holes in it without both justification and a ruling from the Bar in support of your decision.

The Miller case determined that an attorney could be compelled to testify about the statements of a dead client under penalty of contempt. That attorney refused to testify until ordered by the Supreme Court to testify as to a LIMITED statement after a balancing of the interests.

In this case, the attorney made up his own mind to reveal what he felt he should reveal. Morally-speaking, I think we can all agree he did the "right" thing. Ethically, it remains to be seen. Thus the Complaint. The integrity of the legal system demanded it.

"85% of Republicans are Democrats who don't know what's going on." -Robert Kennedy, Jr.

"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire

Well, i guess my point is...

on the one hand, an attorney has knowledge of a case but even though his client was now dead, and he was trying to protect the attorney/client relationship, he ended up in court and, the court ruled that the attorney/client relationship was no longer valid and the court could require him to disclose what was confidential information. In the second case, the same situation arises, and the attorney in question, wanting to abide by what the Supreme Court ruled, disclosed priviledged information, now that HIS client was dead, thereby complying with the High Court rulling and a lower court judge files a complaint against him for doing it.

So no, I'm no lawyer in any way, shape or form, and Yes I do think this is a good example of how badly the entire justice system in this, not only state, but the entire country has become increasingly rediculous with contridictory rulings.

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only UNPATRIOTIC and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public.

Politicians are like diapers. They should be changed frequently, and for the same reasons.

Were there others involved who might have been harmed

if he revealed what he knew via privileged communications? Off the top of my head, I imagine that would be a concern for an attorney in that situation.


Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

The larger issue in

The larger issue in protecting attorney-client privilege, beyond any one case, is ensuring that future clients/defendants will confide in their lawyer. Without the ability to be promised confidentiality, a client of any kind will not want to disclose important information. If you needed to tell your lawyer some important information, but feared that the information would be revealed publicly after you died, you might not want to reveal it.

Staples Hughes is a very well-respected lawyer, and he no doubt followed his conscience. Knowing that the judge would have to report him to the Bar makes it a very brave move. But, the judge did the right thing -- this is an issue that the Bar is there to address, however it turns out. No easy answers here.