E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSANALYSIS
The law is pretty clear on a lawyer's ethical duty when he makes statements regarding his clients. The lawyer may neither divulge confidences nor make statements adverse to the client's interests.
Wes Oliver is a professor at Widener University who teaches criminal law and procedure. This fall he will join the faculty of the Duquesne University School of Law as a professor and director of the school's criminal justice program.The rule is clear enough, but it is violated all the time in innocuous ways. Lawyers go home to their wives and describe the horrifying day they had. They gather with other lawyers in corridors of courthouse or in local watering holes and tell stories about their cases. Arguably, lawyers could be seeking advice from their professional colleagues, thus including them in the attorney-client privilege, but usually they're just telling stories.
In short, lawyers do describe to their friends facts surrounding their cases, and those discussions often evaluate the strength of their cases. Ideally, and most often, they omit the names of their clients, but their listeners are frequently able to identify them. One very famous lawyer routinely jokes about his former client's guilt. Alan Dershowitz said to his criminal law class at Harvard: "If O.J. does it again. ... By that, I mean gets another speeding ticket."
Because few lawyers absolutely observe the prohibition on making statements against their clients' interest, it's often unclear precisely where the practically accepted line is. Part of the reason there's a gap between the categorical prohibition on lawyers' making statements against their clients' interest and the realities of lawyers' lives is enforcement. The odds of a communication between an attorney and his wife ever impairing his client's interest are remote. The odds that a client will ever learn of his lawyer's barroom discussion are slim. So for a lot of lawyers, the rule against making a statement against his client's interest has a practical exception — if the odds are low enough that his statement could harm his client's interest, he or she will often talk.
Full coverage of the Jerry Sandusky trial
Ghosts of Sandusky's dreams haunt home where charity was born
It's not appropriate, and I don't teach my students that this is acceptable, but for a lot of lawyers it is the reality. And it would be difficult if not impossible to police the actual rule that forbids any negative statement.
Friday, however, Joe Amendola told a crowd of reporters in the Centre County Courthouse awaiting the verdict that he would be shocked if his client was acquitted of all the counts.
This after months of denying Sandusky's guilt. This after an impassioned and excellent closing argument in which he explained how all the alleged victims had fallen prey to investigators' coaching and then sought to cash in.
And, perhaps most significantly, after the judge issued a gag order expressing forbidding anyone in the case from commenting on Sandusky's guilt or innocence.
This wasn't a comment to fellow lawyers who are unlikely to have any reason to communicate the information to others. This wasn't a private communication to his wife. His statements were made in a mini-press conference in the courtroom where his client had stood trial and where the jury could come and announce its verdict at any time. His comments were made to reporters who have the right — arguably the obligation — to report his words to a national audience that has been captivated by this case.
This wasn't a comment that could never harm his client, in other words. There could be a hung jury, necessitating another trial. And there will surely be civil lawsuits. Amendola's comments, which will be heard throughout Centre County and around the country, could easily prejudice his clients' future interests.
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, this isn't a comment for which there is no ready enforcement mechanism. It is unlikely that Sandusky will file a complaint with the ethics board. But Judge John Cleland, who maintained very strict control over this trial, issued a specific order forbidding comments on guilt or innocence.
Certainly, he must have anticipated the prosecution's making disparaging comments about Sandusky, but his order didn't allow an exception for Sandusky's lawyer to suggest his own client's guilt. Cleland may well regard this as a breach of the decorum he has worked so hard to maintain. And unlike an ethics board, he has the ability to act swiftly and the power to hold Amendola in contempt.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
One can only hope the Judge holds this idiot in contempt. That said, this behavior is vintage Amendola.
I was absolutely shocked when I read that Amendola had made this statement. It so clearly prejudicial against his own client and borders on an admission by him that he thinks his client is guilty. This statement ill have repercussions in the civil trials that are coming and could also influence any retrials on any counts where the jury hangs in the current criminal trial. I certainly hope that the judge hold Amendola in contempt for making this statement and the bar association should immediately begin disbarment hearings against him for this obvious breach of his duty to his client. Making this statement as completely inexcusable, particularly since it was done in front of a bunch of reporters.
yep he should have kept his mouth shut; however the jury is secreted, the lawyers had a impossible defense case, he will be convicted on at least 32 charges; He will spend the rest of his life in prison.
So now does Sandusky get to claim his defense lawyer was incompetent and there for he wants’ a new trial?
@Confussed-1578043 I have my doubts this would affect this trial because the jury is already in deliberations and would not have seen any news on this event however, as JS mentioned it could possibly affect any civil suits that might happen.
I think his statement is being blown out of proportion. It sounded to me like he was making a guess as to the outcome of the trial, not professing his client was guilty of some charges. Is that wrong? probably since there was a gag order but I think some people are taking it all wrong.
Look, this dude Sandusky is a monster, no doubt, but this isn't the time to massacre his lawyer for giving his opinion after the trial on how he thinks the outcome will be. Yes, he probably should have kept his mouth shut.
Bad statement?, yes!
Some punishment?, sure
Disbarment?, think thats a little harsh
I doubt that he will be disbarred. However, a censure of some kind would seem to be called for here.
well ierry know what BUBBA IS WAITING and now you can go from ( tightend to wide receiver )
I hope the judge does! I wondered the moment I read about his comment, how can it be ethical to make a statement like that? Maybe giving Sandusky an appeal motive. "Ineffectual counsel?" or something like that.
I sure hope this isn't grounds for a miss-trial.
@ Cardinals101. That would be a clever move by his lawyer wouldn't it?
@ Michael Johnson-2683868
That would be the coup de grace for our Judicial System.
I think he did it intentionally to attempt to get a mistrial or muck up the works against the prosecution. It'll be another excuse to keep delaying everything.
The defense attorney couldn't cause a mistrial with this statement, otherwise, defense attorneys all over the country would do it.
The odds of a communication between an attorney and her husband ever impairing his client's interest are also remote.
.
It could also be that Amendola is purposely setting up Sandusky for an appeal based upon incompetent legal representation.
In any event, Judge Cleland will probably sanction him come Monday morning for opening up his mouth.
I dont' give a rat's acc what the lawyer said, Sandusky needs to be put to sleep!!...what a scumball.
I hope they sue the University and take them all to the bank. They are all a bunch of bums, they
all protected this scum ball....I can't believe the guy is walking down the street. I can't wait until
it comes out that he was killed in prison. good ridens to bad rubbish.....what a dirtbag....
a queer pedophile.......he won't last long that is for sure.
He's special; there are different prisons for those that have money.
Amendola is stain on the legal profession. Making a statement like this is despicable. He needs to be held accountable. Disbarred and tared and feathered
Gary Freedman - no offense, but have you ever known an attorney that was not a 'stain on the legal' profession?? I don't think that exists. Most of the names that come to mind: Amendola, John Edwards, you know I could go on for days.....
Right, lawyers are scum until you need one. Don't blend ambulance chasers with all lawyers. Some rednecks are racist; that doesn't make all rednecks racist.
OR,,,,,,,maybe we have stumbled upon one of the few honest lawyers in this country, that are more interested in "JUSTICE" than making a name for themselves by winning cases for clients they know are guilty. OJ is a good example,,, the criminal court wouldn't convict him, but he ended up paying for his crimes in civil court. Too bad the rich can hire an expensive attorney and get away with crimes that you or I would be locked up for life for. My respect to any lawyer that will risk his livelyhood to see that this kind of scum is not in a position to cause this kind of damage into the future. Even doctors are required to report to police if they have evidence or suspitions of juvenile abuse,,,,,,,doctor patient/ attorney client,,,where's the difference? Aren't we all supposed to help protect our children?
Ra, I do know of a couple of attorneys that are not stains on the profession. Actually, I should say, I know of a couple of former attorneys that are not stains.... They were ethical people and could not take having to lie all of the time.
Keep your eye on the ball people. So the lawyer's a lowlife. His client is a walking obscenity who will be looking for an air conditioner for eternity.
He did it hoping to get a mistrial. Because now the Judge may ask every juror if they heard about it or not(sequestered or not, juries always hear of stuff like that) and the second one says they did, he can ask for a mistrial and get it granted letting the scumbag walk free yet again
Forget holding the lawyer in contempt...this warrants disbarrment!
Everything else aside, this statement made by Amendola SHOULD be seen for what it is. In light of the very clear fact that Amendola STRONGLY feels that the system worked collectively, at the outset, against his client. As he said, state investigators, police, the DA's office and the defendants collectively colluded and ignored evidence that would exonerate his client. And then he goes on to say what the motivations were, for each.
SO, in view of this realization, is it any wonder WHY he now feels that his client will take a hit on at least a few counts? He has already stated that this case is an uphill battle.
The point I'm making here is that this statement to the press, wrong as it was, should NOT be seen as an admission of guilt by atty, regarding his client.
Dan, I don't think reason and "thinking" is available on this board. The pitchforks are out, the torches have already been lit.
Defense attorneys have a "duty of loyalty" to their clients. This does not mean they can present evidence other than the truth in their client's defense. It DOES mean they cannot have their 15 minutes of fame by throwing their client under the bus. Which is what happened here. Disbarrment is warranted.
"One very famous lawyer routinely jokes about his former client's guilt" I am glad he thinks it is funny that a guilt man went free but of course that is what lawyer jobs can be getting guilty people off. Great profession they should all be proud!
Who cares?
Sandusky is guilty and will receive 100 years in jail.
His lawyer expects this. I wouldn't doubt that his lawyer is equally disgusted by his clients lack of remorse, either.
Let's not get distracted here...there will always be the victims and they deserve our support and attention.
News just in: Sandusky guilty on 45 of the 48 counts.
If the judge gives him 20 years per count, he'll be doing 960 years. I wouldn't be surprised if the judge gives him the maximum sentencing because Sandusky has shown no remorse.
A mistrial, due to his lawyer's comments, seems unlikely. The jurors were sequestered while they were deliberating and had no access to the media.
Lawyers start out as idealists, but before long they become the biggest threat to justice.
Lawyers go home and discuss their cases with their wives, huh? Interesting. My wife is an attorney, and now a judge. And never, in 30 years of marriage, has she discussed her cases with me. Maybe this is why you should have a female attorney.
Exactly Sarge, I hate the perception that all lawyers are some sort of low life with loose lips. This article, I mean opinion piece, is full of hog wash.
The verdict has been reached!!
Maybe he is doing it deliberately so that Sandusky can somehow get another trial because of his lawyer breaking the rules....
Just hold on a minute here. Either you guys don't quite get how the English language works, or you don't know how our jury system works. The statement was, that he would be shocked if his client was acquitted of all the counts. I guess you can find a hidden meaning in that if you want, but that statement in itself says nothing at all regarding his client's ACTUAL guilt or innocence, or Amendola's opinion on that. The statement, having been made after closings and once the jury went into deliberation clearly applies NOT to the defendant, but only says what he thinks the JURY might decide. Even a fool can see that with so many charges and so many coming forward to testify against Sandusky, even a jury of mostly Penn Staters might find it impossible to acquit him of ALL charges. Amendola's comment certainly does NOT rise to the level of violating any ethics, regardless of who he expresses it to.
Personally, when anyone asks me, I say that he will be acquitted of all charges. Certainly NOT because I think he is innocent of ANY of them (and probably guilty of many more). I hope he spends the rest of his life behind bars and maybe even bring a little justice to his victums, but after the Casey Anthony verdict, all bets are off on what a jury will do, and this is a jury of mostly Penn State "loyalists".
Sandusky JUST FOUND GUILTY on 45 of the charges!!!! Yeah!!! My faith in jurors is restored!
Sometimes you wish you could retract some comments, huh? Until your the last paragraph, your comments were perfect.
Glad you're faith has been restored. :-)
This was not a comment on guilt or innocence, Mr. Oliver. This was a comment on the attorney's understanding of the mood of the jury. I suspect that not only would Joe Amendola be surprised by a straight NG, so would every person in America. Especially Jerry Sandusky! It is not a comment on my client's guilt to opine that the jury doesn't believe him. I understand that the lay public can have difficulties with that distinction. It is, however, one that every One-L in America ought to be able to make with ease. Read what "New Milford PA" has to say on the subject. I suspect he and I did rather better in law school than you did.
I was under the impression the jury was sequestered, not "secreted". That sounds messy and painful.
Andrew - I didn't think there was anything about this case that could make me smile, but you succeeded. And with a comment about secretions at that.
"Bravo" for the American jurisprudence system, they finally got one right. Well, actually 45 out of 48! Forget all the other cases America has been subjected to, only to watch inept juries fail to convict obviously guilty perpetrators due to the infamous "reasonable doubt" double standard. Forget the McDonald's million dollar coffee debacle, and forget the ridiculous "OJ" verdict. It appears as though truth, virtue, morals, and principle have once again returned to our legal system of and by a jury or our peers. Thank you.
This lawyer has just closed the doors to future clients, nows the time to, gasp, switch sides. These lawyers know what they are doing, they know what they are saying and to whom, he is just helping his client claim ineffective council if he chooses. He knows he was defending a pervert and should have declined the case in the beginning. He is a bought and paid for lawyer not an appointed one. It must take a person with no morals or conscience to defend the pukes of the earth, I guess they expect us all to believe they actually believe every nasty client they defend is innocent just because they say so. These kinds of people are master manipulators and defense lawyers must be really stupid to believe them all or could it be they will sell their souls to the devil for a few pieces of silver. Most likely the later.
I think Sandusky is a piece of garbage and will deservedly die in prison. However I find his attorney's actions reprehensible, even for a lawyer. He was showboating and being a smartass with Anderson Cooper. He just lost a huge, admittedly probably unwinnable case, and he's making jokes and sucking up to Cooper.
He should be held in contempt for his earlier comments to the press that clearly broke the judge's ruling regarding comments to the press, and he should be disbarred. As an aside his comments to the press during deliberations were to his client's detriment. Not exactly a "dream team" defense. I guess we should be happy about it except that his incompetence and attitude might be grounds for a successful appeal. What a jerk.