Mitchell was convicted of murdering
two people. He made a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the
Trial Judge.
Turns out, during the
original trial, Mitchell's attorney had told the judge that Mitchell was
likely to present false testimony.
The attorney was relying on
Rule 3.3(e), which required that
the attorney inform the court if they suspect their client intends to
testify falsely in a criminal trial.
You have a duty to not
assist your client in future crimes (Rule 1.6(b)(1-3)), and perjury is a future crime.
The judge told Mitchell's
attorney to let him testify, but not to do anything to assist Mitchell
in presenting false testimony, by asking Mitchell specific questions
about his statements.
Mitchell's attorney informed
the judge of this fact in a sidebar conversation without Mitchell being
present.
Mitchell argued that if he
had known that his lawyer was ratting him out, he would have had the
opportunity to convince the Judge that he would testify truthfully.
Mitchell appealed, on the
basis that he did not have effective counsel.
The Massachusetts Supreme
Court affirmed the decision to not grant a new trial.
Mitchell argued that his
attorney only suspected that he was going to perjure himself, and that Rule
3.3(e) is only applicable when the
attorney knows that his client intends to break the law,
but both the Trial Judge and the Massachusetts Supreme Court found that
all that is necessary is that the attorney has a "firm factual
basis" for their decision.
The Massachusetts Supreme
Court agreed that Mitchell should have been a party to the sidebar
conversation, but that his absence did not materially affect his case.
Mitchell unsuccessfully
argued that his attorney ratting him out amounted to a conflict of
interest, and that he could not be properly represented by a person who
wasn't 100% looking after his interests. The Massachusetts Supreme Court
found that argument was unpersuasive because they felt that it would make
it almost impossible for an attorney to comply with Rule 3.3 and not get sued by their client.
In general, the standard set
forth in Rule 3.3 is that,
"an attorney's ethical duty to advance the interests of his client is
limited by an equally solemn duty to comply with the law and standards of
professional conduct."
