The Defense Cannot Solve the Crime

A tragedy has occurred in Ventura County. A young person, with her whole life ahead of her, is gone. Another young person is accused of committing the act that deprived Kali Manley of her future and deprives her family and community of her presence.

Sadly, this is not the first time and neither will it be the last time that this will happen. A life is taken, a person is accused.

What next? We Americans can define our society and its level of civilization by how the criminal justice system performs in situations such as this. Will it work? Will the accused get a fair trial? Or will we regress to times of old when the right to due process, including the right to representation by a lawyer, was not guaranteed?

Will we have trials by ordeal, sentencing by opinion polls or even dispense with trials and get straight to the execution? This is not a facetious argument.

What happened in the last few harrowing days has happened before. A lawyer may have information about a crime but it cannot be revealed without breaching a hallowed oath. The lawyer has reviewed his obligations with anguish and found that he must be silent.

This action is vilified. We as a society naturally want everyone in our community to participate in the resolution of the abhorrent crime. But this cannot include the defense attorney. Why?

There are solemn obligations imposed on all lawyers by California law. All attorneys are required to “maintain inviolate the confidence, and to preserve the secrets, at every peril to himself or herself of his or her client” (Business and Professions Code Section 6068 [e]). The Model Rules of Professional Conduct state: “[A] lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client consents after consultation . . . and [a] lawyer may reveal such information to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary: (1) to prevent the client from committing a criminal act that the lawyer believes is likely to result in imminent death or substantial bodily harm . . . “ Only future threatened conduct of a client may require that the attorney reveal it to others when someone could be hurt or killed. What if we were not allowed to communicate confidentially with an attorney? It is possible that our whole system of justice would falter.

Everyone has the right to seek legal counsel and to rely on the attorney’s oath to maintain silence as to those communications. This is the foundation of our democracy, enshrined in the Bill of Rights where still in this country a person accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

All participants in the system are required to do their jobs, fully and completely, irrespective of public opinion. The judge must neutrally apply the laws, the district attorney / prosecutor must competently put the defendant on trial, the defense attorney must zealously represent his or her client, and the jury must follow the law and determine whether the evidence presented allows a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

As members of a profession, lawyers are required to adhere to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, upon pain of disbarment. It is thus ironic when members of the public call for the disbarment of attorneys such as Louis “Chuck” Samonsky, who do represent their clients in the manner demanded by the profession. Do these citizens who demean the attorney who abided by the oath of his profession want to relinquish their right to the attorney-client privilege of confidentiality if accused of a crime in the future?