Blessed Are They (aired Oct. 19, 2003) : A judge rules that Brad Stanfield's confession is inadmissible and that Stanfield can go free because of double jeopardy (1). Eugene takes over the representation of Roland Huff who has killed his wife and her lover. Alan is drafted into representing a man caught performing lewd behavior in a public area, and Sheila represents a man accused of stuffing a human head.
Blessed Are They (1) : Brad Stanfield Goes Free (last updated October 20, 2003) (back to top)
In letting Brad Stanfield go on murder charges, the judge stretched some constitutional principles beyond what was absolutely required and made some dubious calls. Nonetheless, Brad Stanfield probably should ultimately go to jail for a very long time.
Exclusionary Rule
But first, what's wrong with what the judge did?
Basically, what the judge does with Brad Stanfield is apply the exclusionary rule to a violation of attorney-client privilege. This is not unthinkable, but it is unlikely and I think a judge would be reluctant to let a confessed murderer go free when it is not absolutely called for by the law.
The exclusionary rule was created by the United States Supreme Court in 1914 as a way of enforcing government compliance with the Fourth Amendment. Basically, courts will throw out evidence that was obtained by the government through unconstitutional means. According to the Court, not doing so would render the Constitution "valueless and undeserving of mention in a perpetual charter of inestimable human liberties."
The exclusionary rule generally applies only to government actions, sometimes called "state action," and there are some loopholes. More importantly, it generally does not apply to violations of attorney-client privilege as there are other ways of ensuring that attorneys maintain privilege, such as the threat of disbarment or a malpractice lawsuit. The judge did not need to go as far as he did.
Double Jeopardy
Second, even if the judge was right in excluding the statement, he probably still should have allowed the prosecution to try Stanfield again using the evidence the prosecution had during the first trial. Courts have permitted retrial when the prosecution can justify that there was a "manifest necessity" to end the first trial prematurely in order "to prevent the defeat of the ends of public justice." The prosecution did not stop the first trial for its own tactical advantage but because of Stanfield's knowing fraud on his own lawyers and on the court, and the prosecution should not be barred from a retrial.
Perjury Charges
Finally, all these bad calls simply mean an end to the murder charges against Stanfield. The prosecutor still could bring new charges against Stanfield for perjury since Stanfield did take the stand and testify that he did not kill his wife. Even if a judge would not allow the prosecutor to use Stanfield's confession in the perjury trial, the prosecutor could just bring all the evidence he had in the first murder trial to prove Stanfield lied when he testified. Double jeopardy would only bar another murder trial, and would not bar new charges stemming from a new crime, that being Stanfield's lie.
And Stanfield could go to jail for a long time just on perjury charges. Under Massachusetts law, "whoever commits perjury on the trial of an indictment for a capital crime [like murder] shall be punished in the state prison for life or for any term of years."
Sources: The United States Supreme Court applied the exclusionary rule to federal courts with the 1914 case of Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), and applied it to state courts with the 1961 case of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). The double-jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" and is on-line here. Massachusetts' perjury statute is on-line here.
|
|
|
Home / Calendar
The West Wing
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
The Colbert Report
Saturday Night Live
Commander in Chief
Law & Order
*
Issues
Resources
Site FAQ
Search via Google
Ripped from the Headlines?
West Wing: Santos discusses a lawsuit about intelligent design
West Wing: Electoral map as of the 10/9 episode; Santos needs to catch up big-time
SNL: The Miers nomination
South Park: Inspired by Katrina
Boston Legal: End to assault-weapons ban
Daily Show: A 2004 study found that 21 percent of young people regularly get their campaign news from comedy shows like the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Saturday Night Live. So, some footnotes.
NOTE: All photos are copyright their respective owners.
| |
|
DISCLAIMER. The materials contained in this website have been prepared by Stephen Lee ("Author") for informational purposes only and do not contain or constitute legal advice. These materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements.
Furthermore, this information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results. Reading this website is not intended to create, and your receipt and/or use of the information contained herein, does not constitute an attorney/client relationship. You should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Reproduction, distribution or republication of material contained within this website is prohibited unless the prior permission of Author has been obtained.
(C) Copyright 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 Stephen Lee. All rights reserved. Newsaic and FootnoteTV are registered service marks of Stephen Lee. Mirror Law and Footnote Comics are service marks of Stephen Lee. More information available here. Comments or suggestions to the Site Editor.
|
|
|
By Stephen Lee
| |
