Criminal Defendants Wrongly Convicted by False Evidence—– More wrongdoings by Joyce Gilchrist

The ghost of Joyce Gilchrist remains with us.  Gilchrist is the forensic chemist who worked for the Oklahoma City Police Department who fudged, concocted, created and lied about evidence in order to help the prosecution wrongly convict several defendants.  One of her better known victims was Jeffrey Todd Pierce.  Gilchrist lied about microscopic evidence to get him convicted, and only after he had served 15 years in prison did Gilchrist’s wrongdoing come to light.  Gilchrist was fired, Pierce was released and received $4 million in damages from the City of Oklahoma City.

As the questions rose over the years about Gilchrist and her work, people continue to wonder:  Why did then-District Attorney Bob Macy continue to use Gilchrist as a witness to convict people, even after her fabrication of evidence and unsupported testimony had been called into question?  Why did Oklahoma County judges continue to allow Gilchrist to testify, even after Gilchrist’s employer, the City of Oklahoma City, was trying to fire her?

Of course Gilchrist has always denied all wrongdoing and claimed the City of Oklahoma City was racially prejudiced against her when the City fired her.  That accusation went nowhere in court.  Gilchrist has never admitted doing anything wrong despite a tsunami of evidence against her.

The latest case of Gilchrist’s malfeasance is the case of David Johns Bryson.  After serving 17 years in prison, Bryson has been released.  Gilchrist’s evidence against Bryson was reviewed by another expert, Brian Wraxall, chief forensic serologist at the Serological Research Institute in California.  Last November, he looked over Gilchrist’s lab notes from the Bryson trial and found serious flaws.  Gilchrist had received some of her training at the institute, and Gilchrist was as student of Wraxall.

Bryson was charged with rape.  Key evidence used to convict him were hair, blood and semen samples.  There was also other evidence linking Bryson to the crime, including eyewitness testimony and injuries to the attacker’s penis.   Gilchrist testified the hair, blood and semen were “consistent” with Bryson.  Better DNA techniques later developed showed the samples were not a match to Bryson, but other scientists concluded, based on a review of Gilchrist’s work done at the time, that Gilchrist should have excluded Bryson even before the 1983 trial if Gilchrist done her science correctly, regardless of DNA testing.

“Ms. Gilchrist failed to run a substrate or background control from the robe as she was taught in my laboratory, “Wraxall reported.

Gilchrist’s hair analysis was already discredited.  In 2001, the FBI conducted reviews of Gilchrist’s work and concluded the hair evidence did not match Bryson.  When asked about this finding, Gilchrist, in a deposition, said, “That happens all the time.  Hair examination is very subjective and experts may or may not agree on the conclusions that are reached.  So if someone else agrees or disagrees with my findings, I don’t put much weight in that, “she testified.  Do you think Gilchrist admitted at Bryson’s jury trial that hair testified was a “subjective” finding about which experts disagree all time?  More likely Gilchrist gave the jury the impression her findings carried the force of objective science, inexorable conclusions, undeniable fact.   But that was her testimony to get convictions.   Her later deposition was to save her own hide.

Whether Gilchrist was even qualified to conduct such tests was an issue in the lawsuit filed by Bryson.  Gilchrist’s college transcripts show she had some trouble performing academically in some of her courses.  She was placed on academic probation plural times and academic suspension.  She was questioned at her deposition about her sometimes sub-par performance at the FBI Academy as well.  For instance, she misidentified some hair samples on tests.  But she graduated from the Academy and from college.

Gilchrist at one point stated she regretted not expounding on her answers more in trials.  She did not specifically state she regretted putting so many innocent people in prison with her false testimony.

And, despite the criticism that was becoming more public, then-District Attorney Bob Macy backed her fully and continued to use as his expert witness.  She got convictions, so why quit?  Even after the Oklahoma City Police Department tried to can her, Mr. Macy wrote on her behalf and wanted to continue to use to get more convictions.  When he was asked about the falsification or tampering with evidence, he expressed indignation that anyone would question “law enforcement” or its motives.  In other words, just take our word for it and don’t ask any questions, exactly what the public did for too long.

It took the heroic act of U.S. District Judge Ralph Thompson to bring Gilchrist down.  Only someone so respected as Judge Thompson, when he ruled so unequivocally and extensively about her mistakes, could call attention to her wrongdoing and stop her.  No state judges had the courage or the understanding to do it;  they simply rubber-stamped the prosecution to assist in sending one after another innocent man to prison.

Cheating Prosecutors May Face Rare Penalties As Conviction is Reversed and Justice Department to be Investigated

It is not unheard of for the prosecution to cheat, hide evidence, manufacture evidence and generally manipulate the justice system to achieve injustice.  But in the case of former United States Senator Ted Stevens Republican-Alaska, not only was the ill-gotten criminal conviction dismissed but the Judge has vowed to investigate the Justice Department.  This is rare on both counts, especially for a Judge to pursue sanctions beyond the routine tongue-lashing.

“In nearly 25 years on the bench, I’ve never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I’ve seen in this case,” United States District Judge Emmet Sullivan said, as he spoke for 14 minutes with thinly-veiled anger.  The trial of the former Alaska Senator was held in the District of Columbia, where Judge Sullivan sits.   Judge Sullivan appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the Justice Department lawyers who prosecuted Senator Stevens.  They repeatedly withheld evidence from Senator Stevens’ lawyers during the trial.  The trial resulted in Stevens’ conviction last October for lying on federal disclosure forms about gifts and home renovations he received from wealthy friends.  The rules of federal procedure provide for the appointment of a special prosecutor for contempt investigations, but is rarely done.

Judge Sullivan, appointed Henry F. Scheulke III of Washington, D.C., to investigate contempt and obstruction by the Justice Department lawyers.  Mr. Scheulke is a former prosecutor and experienced defense attorney who oversaw a Senate Ethics Committee investigation and influence-peddling allegations in 1989 against former New York Senator Alfonse D’ Amato.  Scheulke will investigate six career lawyers with the Justice Department, including the William Welch, chief, and Brenda Morris, deputy chief of the Public Integrity Section, an elite unit that deals with official corruption.  The other lawyers to be investigated for possible criminal charges are Joseph W. Bottini, James A. Goeke, Nicholas A. Marsh and Edward P. Sullivan (no relation to Judge Sullivan or to Brendan Sullivan, attorney for Senator Stevens).

The judge said the matter was too serious to be left to an internal investigation by the Justice Department, which had dragged its feet, he said, before looking into the misconduct.  He criticized Attorney General Michael Mukasey for not responding to complaints.  The said reaction of the Justice Department was “shocking but not surprising.”  Of course, this is the usual result of charges of misconduct by the prosecution: File 13.  Nothing ever happens, the prosecutors know nothing ever happens, so what disincentive is there not to do again.  It is similar to police who manipulate evidence: they only rarely suffer any penalties for their constant corruption of the justice system.

But Judge Sullivan did not let die the wrongdoing of these prosecutors.  He called on Attorney General Eric Holder, who dismissed Senator Stevens’ conviction on April 1st in recognition of his department’s ill deeds, to retrain all prosecutors in the Justice Department.

Some observers have remarked that, notwithstanding the wrongdoing of the Justice lawyers, there was a healthy amount of evidence incriminating Senator Stevens.  These observers suggest he has not been convicted, but he really doesn’t look innocent of wrongdoing.  Senator Stevens was defeated in his Senate reelection campaign days after the guilty jury verdict in this trial.

Regardless of the guilt or innocence of this Senator or a thousand other accused citizens, if the United States Justice Department, and its elite Public Integrity Section no less, cannot carry out its work in an ethical manner, our system of justice is corrupt.

During the five-week trial, the prosecution lawyers were repeatedly forced to admit they had not turned over materials to the defense.  Judge Sullivan even said then,“How does anyone have any confidence that the Public Integrity Section has any integrity?”  But the judge overruled defense objections, as always happens, and allowed the prosecution’s tainted case to go the jury.  Not surprisingly, the jury found the Senator guilty.  However, the surprise came when Judge Sullivan then threw out the jury verdict.  The still-further surprise came when the Judge gave notice that the wrong-doing prosecutors would not just go home to cheat again in their next trial.  This time they might have to pay some penalty for wrongdoing—for a change and for the better.  It’s about time.

Injustice for sale — Judges jail children for money

Two judges pled guilty in Pennsylvania last week to putting children in jail for money. The Judges accepted more than $2.6 million from a private youth detention center in Pennsylvania in return for giving hundreds of youths and teenagers to unnecessarily long sentences.

Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan, Judges of the Court of Common Pleas in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, pled guilty in federal court in Scranton, Pennsylvania, pursuant to plea bargains with the United States Attorney’s office. They admitted that they had accepted payoffs from PA Childcare and Western PA Childcare between 2003 and 2006. They are each facing up to seven years in prison.

The scam worked like this: The judges sent juveniles to the detention center so the company running the facility received money from the county government to pay costs of the incarceration. Thus, as more children were sentenced to the detention center, PA Childcare and Western PA Childcare received more money from the government.

The judges sentenced the children to more severe sentences that required incarceration in order to generate more money. Teenagers who were sentenced by Judge Ciavarella in juvenile court were sentenced to detention centers for minor offenses that ordinarily would have been classified as misdemeanors, according to the Juvenile Law Center, a Philadelphia nonprofit group. One seventeen-year-old boy was sentenced to three month’s detention for being in the company of another minor who was caught shoplifting. Others were given similar sentences for simple assault in which the charges stemmed form a scuffle in the school yard, and these would ordinarily merit only a warning.

Although the juveniles were guaranteed the right to a lawyer in court, many of them appeared before Ciavarella without an attorney because the probation service personnel told them that their charges were so minor that they didn’t need an attorney.

The chief counsel of the Juvenile Law Center, Marsha Levick, estimated that of approximately 5,000 juveniles who appeared before Judge Ciavarella from 2003 and 2006, between 1,000 and 2,000 received excessively harsh detention sentences. She said the center intends to sue the judges, PA Childcare and Western PA Childcare to obtain money damages for their juveniles victims.

Prosecutors were quoted as saying “That judges would allow their greed to trump the rights of defendants is just obscene.” That is always so, but it is especially so here where the defendants were so young and vulnerable. This is an extremely vicious crime because it strikes at the integrity of the system, but it appears even more vicious when considering how young lives may have been damaged so severely, taken from school and parents, put into a detention center where there are likely young predators waiting for someone to prey on.

The judges tried to hide their ill-gotten income from this scheme by creating false records and rouging payments through intermediaries. “Your statement that I have disgraced my judgship is true,” Ciavarella wrote in a letter to the court. “My actions have destroyed everything I worked to accomplish and I have only myself to blame.” Conahan had no comment to make.

Ciavarella and Conahan were removed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as judges when the charges were filed in federal court, and the Supreme Court appointed a judge to review all the cases involved.

Again, we have an instance where innocent people are falsely persecuted. It certainly indicates the need for a defense lawyer who can be the legal advocate in protecting the rights of the accused, even for something that seems minor, at first blush. It’s very possible that many of these children sentenced did not have an attorney because it seemed their situation was such a minor offense but that just made it easier for the judges to get away with this injustice.

Consequently, it’s always advisable to seek advice from a competent criminal attorney, when you or your child is charged with any kind of criminal, even petty, act. Get educated on how to choose the best lawyer and discover how to avoid common mistakes by going to my website at http://www.oklahomacriminallawoffice.com

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Judge De-frocked, What Goes Around Comes Around

When a jury trial results in a conviction, or for any reason one of the parties in a criminal case wants to seek reversal of the trial judge’s decision on a matter, the issue must be taken to and decided by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. That is the highest court, the court of last resort, for criminal matters in Oklahoma. Oklahoma is one of only two states in which appellate criminal matters are decided by court dedicated to criminal matters. Texas is the other state. In all other states, all issues of last resort are heard by the same court as the court that decides civil matters, usually called the state supreme court.

The five members of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals are appointed by the governor. Every four years of their term, their names appear on the retention ballot for decision by the voters. The voters of Oklahoma have never failed to retain a judge on the retention ballot.

For all these reasons, Judge Steve Lile had a job that was secure. He was one of the five judges who sat on the Court of Criminal Appeals. He could rule against every defense lawyer who brought a legal issue to the Court of Criminal Appeals for his decision. He could overrule every motion any lawyer urged on his defendant client’s behalf. He could rubber stamp practically every conviction brought to his court for review, and find no legal merit in any reason to overturn a conviction. And he did.

But then it was his turn.

Steve Lile traveled to attend project conferences, meetings of the Regimented Inmate Discipline (RID) Program offered by the Department of Corrections. He routinely applied for mileage reimbursement for that travel and was paid. But there were no meetings on those dates. Lile was filing false claims to the state so he could visit his illegitimate son, Loran Michael Wilson, in prison. Lile made almost weekly trips between June and October, 2004.

Lile had gotten caught intervening on behalf of his then-loverr, Dawn Lukasik, to get out of drug charges in Lawton. The Lawton District Attorney there dismissed the drug charges for the flimsiest of reasons, obviously as a favor to Lile, and from that incident, the travel claims came to light. Dawn Lukasik is the mother of Loran Michael Wilson, and Lile is his father, Lile later said. Lile had not known Wilson was his son until recently.

When Lile’s behavior came to light a few years ago, Lile resigned rather than fight the efforts of the Attorney General to remove him. Since then, Lile has been a private lawyer, a lawyer representing people accused of crimes, the kind of lawyer for whom Lile had such contempt for so many years.

Now the matter of Lile’s license to practice law has been heard by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. It was an ethical violation for Lile to file those false travel claims, even if he has paid back $1523.64 for false travel claims and paid back $1560.40 for false claims Lukasik made for her personal use under the pretense of using the purchases to remodel Lile’s state judge’s office.

Lile told the Supreme Court that he was regretful and remorseful for his misconduct. He was just not thinking straight, he said. Giving the limpest of possible excuses, Lile urged the Supreme Court to forgive his misconduct, that his conduct merited only a private reprimand.

The Supreme Court found no merit in Lile’s excuses, denials, and minimizations. Lile had sought and accepted an office of the highest responsibility from the sovereign state of Oklahoma. He had taken an oath to follow the law. He should have known better. He betrayed all of these. He does not deserve to practice law in Oklahoma. So decided the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court listened to and considered all of Steve Lile’s arguments. The Court ruled against him, but he received full consideration of his position by the Court. That is all defense lawyers wanted when they appeared before Lile when he was sitting on the bench.

Another Corrupt District Attorney Makes Citizens Pay

Harry Connick, then the New Orleans District Attorney, wrongfully convicted a man named John Thompson in 1983. Thompson spent 18 years on death row but eventually was proved to have been wrongfully convicted. Then Thompson sought compensation in federal court for this injustice. The jury awarded Thompson $15 million, but the District Attorney’s Office is now making noises about taking bankruptcy because it cannot pay the judgment.

Harry F. Connick , now deceased, was no stranger to controversy. The father of the well known jazz singer, Harry Connick, Jr. Harry F. Connick had been put on trial in 1990 himself. The then-District Attorney since 1974, was tried in federal court for racketeering by aiding an illegal gambling operation. Connick was accused of returning to the big time gambler, Walton Aucoin, gambling records that had been seized in a 1988 raid. The trial was originally prosecuted by the local U.S. Attorney, who had worked for Connick, John Voltz, who then recused after accusations of his personal bias against Connick. Besides Aucoin, six other defendants included gamblers Wilson Abraham, a New Orleans businessman and customer of Aucoin, who lent Connick $15, 000 in a political campaign and actor Paul Burke, Palms Springs, California. Connick was acquitted, although all the other defendants were convicted.

Nor is the New Orleans District Attorney’s Office a stranger to controversy. In October, 2007, Eddie Jordan, the then-District Attorney resigned from office, pressed by a $3.7 million dollar race discrimination civil rights verdict against his office that threatened to shut down the office. Jordan had already faced criticism for dismissal of high-profile murder cases, mass resignations in the office, and failure to prosecute crimes n a city with the nation’s highest murder rate, especially the chaos following Hurricane Katrina. The race discrimination judgment came from the 2005 federal court case in which the jury found he had, as accused, discriminated against the 43 white employees whom he fired because of their race. Only after Eddie Jordan had resigned from office did state and city officials help pay the $3.7 million judgment. Ultimately, the State of Louisiana agreed to pay $1.6 million, the city of New Orleans agreed to pay $1.1 million, and the District Attorney’s Office pay $600,000 to satisfy the judgment.

Now the facts of the latest verdict against the New Orleans District Attorney’s Office for the wrongful conviction of John Thompson. Thompson had had his execution postponed half a dozen times until it was discovered he did not commit the armed robbery of which he was convicted. Then it was revealed prosecutors at his trial had hidden blood tests that proved he had not committed the robbery. Put on trial again for the murder of Raymond Liuzza, Jr. Thompson at this latter jury trial used all the evidence the District Attorney had hidden from the jury in the original trial, and the jury acquitted him after only a half-hour deliberation.

Now exonerated from having committed the crime yet imprisoned for 18 years by the wrongful acts of the District Attorney’s Office, Thompson filed a civil rights lawsuit in federal court. The jury decided in favor of Thompson and award him $15 million. The present District Attorney, Leon Cannizzaro, defended that lawsuit and now must come up with a way to pay for it. Cannizzaro did not do himself proud when arguing to the appellate federal court that Thompson did not deserve this $15 million in the trial court. Canizzaro argued to the appellate court that death row wasn’t really all that bad, that Thompson had been allowed all that gotten to watch TV and play chess and all his medical care was taken care of as he waited for execution date after execution date to be re-set.

The appellate court remarked that the District Attorney presented a “misleading, rosy picture” of life on death row. The court knew that Thompson had spent nearly two decades of his life in the Angola prison in a six-by-nine foot cell without windows or air conditioning for 23 hours a day. The court heard evidence describing the prison with screaming out at all hours of the day and night, and with inmates who hurled human excrement and “the stench that permeated” the joint. Thompson received four visits a year from family members, but was otherwise left to himself to contemplate his impending execution. Experts testified that Thompson suffers from post-traumatic stress. No surprise there. So the District Attorney’s Office followed up the railroading of John Thompson with an attempt to cover up the extent of their wrongdoing.

Caught red handed now, with no where else to hid its crimes, the New Orleans District Attorney is now asking the State of Louisiana to grant his office permission to seek Chapter 9 bankruptcy.

Who’s Protecting the Accused from Government Erasing Evidence?

The state and federal governments in their many prosecutions have been caught breaking the rules. One of their favorite rules to break is one that can win them a conviction that should not be. Prosecutors like to hide or destroy evidence that would help acquit the accused. It seems natural that would naturally be the evidence they would want to keep away from the jury, but that is one of the biggest no-nos in the criminal justice system.

The prosecution is not supposed to put innocent people in jail. More strongly, the prosecution is not supposed to knowingly put innocent, or people of questionable guilt, in jail. That is why there are rules against it. Oklahoma City chemist Joyce Gilcrest put more than a dozen innocent men on death row. Isn’t that horrifying? Not to prosecutors.

Now the United States Government has done it again. In trying to trap one of the biggest possible fishes, a sitting United States Senator, the Department of Justice has gotten caught erasing evidence. In the trial of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, the government prosecutors redacted (blacked out) information from FBI notes about an interview of witness Bill Allen. The Senator’s immediately demanded dismissal of all charges based on the government’s misconduct.

The trial judge, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, declined to dismiss, of course. The government rarely pays for its errors, and that is likely why such dirty tricks continue on both the state and federal level. The judge chastised the government severely, of course, but the government’s case stayed alive. The judge also ordered the original versions of all the other witness interviews associated with the case to be sure nothing else has been redacted. The defense will need four days to go through all that material.

The redacted notes are from interviews of Bill Allen, the government’s star witness against Senator Stevens. The defense had originally received only the redacted notes, and the defense says the new information, that which was redacted, directly contradicts Allen’s testimony earlier, namely that Senator Stevens never paid for any of the renovations to his home.

The newly revealed notes show Bill Allen told the FBI he did not send a bill to Stevens for the improvements to Stevens’ home, despite Stevens’ requests for an invoice, because Allen thought Stevens would pay the bill if sent one. Allen did not want Stevens to pay. This is the heart of the government’s case.

The trial judge was particularly troubled because someone for the government deliberately covered up this evidence. Referring to the section of the FBI that has investigated and brought the case to trial, Judge Sullivan asked, “How does anyone have any confidence that the Public Integrity Section has any integrity? I don’t have that confidence.”

Senator Stevens is accused of accepting gifts totaling $250,000, including the free improvements to his home, and failing to disclosed them on the Senator’s annual Senate financial disclosure form.

“The trial is broken,” Robert Cary, one of Stevens’ attorneys said in asking the judge to declare a mistrial. However, in overruling the motion, the judge noted that much of the trial, including the cross examination of Bill Allen, had not yet taken place, so the defense could still use this ammunition in the trial. The defense countered that this new information changed their whole theory of the case, all the presentation of the case from the start, including opening statements.

Prosecutors are charged with the ethical duty, not only of prosecuting the guilty, but of seeking justice. This includes not prosecuting people they know or strongly suspect are innocent. The best known court decision on this point is Brady vs.Maryland , a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1963. Most prosecutors keep that in mind and stay above board, even if it means they will lose a case. That is the professional way. But it still happens too often that prosecutors do get caught hiding or destroying evidence. It continues to happen partly because of the competitive nature of prosecution, but also because the penalties are so light when they do get caught. If the penalties were truly heavy for such conduct, if the judges really had the courage to punish such behavior, prosecutors would be less willing to cheat.

Unfortunately, this leaves the accused in the position of fighting against unfair odds, and the need for an experienced, talented lawyer is absolutely essential. For someone facing a criminal charge I’ve provided  educational information on my site at  http://www.oklahomacriminallawoffice.com to help you  make critical decisions and I invite you to educate yourself to protect your rights.

New Ethics Law Passed to Prevent Hidden Gifts to Lawmakers

Oklahoma becomes the first state to prohibit political action committees from giving money to other political action committees. This is one of the new rules enacted by the state Ethics Commission which took effect July 1^st. Another new rule permits gifts to legislators and state elected officials only up to $100.

The new rules take effect because the legislature offered no objection this past legislative session to the new rules proposed by the Ethics Commission.

Under the old rules which allowed political action committees to give money to one another, the original contributor of money could become hidden as there was no end in one committee giving money to others and back again.

The rules on gifts to law makers and state elected officials had permitted gifts up to $300.00 per calendar year. That figure has been changed to $100.00. Also, law makers and state elected officials had been required to report gifts only in the value of $50 or more. One of the new rules taking effect with the other rules requires lobbyists to report spending more than $10 on a state official or aide during each six-month period.

Of the $207,764 spent last year on legislators by lobbyists, records show that 24% of that went to season tickets to Oklahoma University and Oklahoma State University football games. More than 90 legislators received O.U. season football tickets. The season ticket costs $379, with the University paying $300 last year and the legislator paying the balance of $79.00. Now, O.U. will be allowed to pay only $100 of the cost of each ticket, and the legislator or elected state official will have to pay the $279 balance.

As citizens in Oklahoma, we want our elected officials to be impartial in their decisions and not influenced by hidden gifts. So this is good for our state and for all those who are affected the elected officials decisions.

Lobbyists spent more than $200,000 for legislators in the year 2007, mostly on meals, gifts and tickets. This was a 20% increase over the previous year, according to Ethics Commission records.

Lawyer Client Relationship Remains Confidential Even After Death

Twenty-two years ago, a client named Jerry Cushwell told his lawyer that Cushwell had acted alone in committing a double murder. Cushwell pleaded guilty to the murders, but prosecutors also convicted another man, Lee Wayne Hunt, of participating in the murder, and he was serving a life sentence for that murder.

Jerry Cushwell committed suicide in 2002, but he had told the truth to his lawyer about having acted alone in committing the double murder. Still Lee Wayne Hunt continued to serve his life sentence. Finally, Jerry Cushwell’s lawyer, Staple Hughes of North Carolina decided he should speak out to save Hunt from the wrongful sentence. The problem was that a lawyer cannot reveal the secrets told him by a client.

Isn’t the lawyer, Staple Hughes, released from the confidentiality of Jerry Cushwell’s secret in order to save an innocent man? Ordinarily not. Not even if Cushwell died six years ago and the secret is that of a dead man? No.

Cushwell’s lawyer was threatened with discipline from the North Carolina Bar Association when he tried to testify to Cushwell’s secret. The obligation to keep a client’s secrets is so important that it survives death and may not be violated even to cure a grave injustice. Experts believe a lawyer’s duty to keep clients’ confidences is the rock upon which the justice system is built, and making exceptions erodes the trust between lawyers and clients.

Legal ethics rules vary from state to state, but many states permit disclosure of a confidence to prevent certain death or substantial bodily harm. But stopping an execution is not the same as freeing an innocent prisoner. Only Massachusetts allows lawyers to reveal secrets “to prevent the wrongful execution or incarceration of another.” And most courts say the obligation for confidentiality continues even beyond the death of the client.

That was Staple Hughes’ problem in North Carolina. This situation was unlike the Illinois case that freed Alton Logan after serving 26 years of a life sentence for murder. In that case, the lawyers who spoke up said their client had given them permission to speak out after the client died. They did speak out, and Alton Logan has been released on bond and given a new trial.

The North Carolina Bar Association dismissed the complaint against Staple Hughes for his violating the confidence of Jerry Cushwell. However, his testimony went nowhere. The testimony of Staple Hughes to save Lee Wayne Hunt from prison was excluded as hearsay evidence. Mr. Hunt’s life sentence remains in place. The North Carolina Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the matter.

Meanwhile the rule protecting the confidentiality of a client’s confidences remains strong. This example certainly reveals how important the court system believes trust is between a client and his attorney. Because this attorney client relationship is so protected it’s always best to be truthful with your lawyer so he’ll be prepared for what the other side will throw at you and he’ll be able to give you the best defense.

Finding the right attorney you trust and are comfortable with is critical,  as you will be sharing extremely personal and sensitive information. That’s why you will want to go to my website at www.netlegalhelp.com where I share with you how to find the right lawyer for your Oklahoma criminal charge.