Statement of Facts
There was a wave of seemingly related murders ravaged the area of Flagstaff, Arizona. On March 14, 2009, Stewart retained the services of Careful and Cautious, LLP, during the initial consultation; Stewart told James Careful the following:
“Well, Mr. Careful, the truth is that I’m behind the six recent murders in the area. I’m really a good guy and I hate to kill people. But sometimes, I just can’t help myself. I don’t want to continue killing people but these voices in my head… they’re just so logical and irresistible.”
James Careful then contacted the local police and reported his conversation with Stewart. Stewart was arrested for capital murder. At trial, James Careful testified against him. Careful related the entire March 14 conversation to the jury. Stewart was eventually found guilty of six counts of capital murder and was sentenced to death.
Issue
The issue is whether or not Stewart can petition for a writ of habeas corpus and whether or not Mr. Careful violated the attorney-client confidentiality privilege.
Rule
The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (ABA MPRC) has changed the landscape of attorney-client relations by creating an exception to confidentiality. Under the MRPC Rule 1.6(b) (1) a lawyer may "reveal" or "use" confidential information "to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm.”
McClure v. Thompson, 323 F.3d 1233 (9th Cir. Or. 2003)
Petitioner sought habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 after being convicted for three aggravated murders. Petitioner claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging that his original defense attorney improperly disclosed the locations of the bodies of two children whom petitioner was ultimately convicted of killing. Although the appellate court held that petitioner's consent was not fully informed, the disclosure was nevertheless proper because it was necessary to prevent further criminal acts. The attorney believed that the children could have been alive based on petitioner's statement that "Jesus saved the children." The attorney thus believed he was preventing two murders. Although this statement was vague, the appellate court deferred to the district court's determination that petitioner manipulated the facts, and that when the attorney informed petitioner that he had an obligation to disclose the children's whereabouts if there was a chance they were alive, petitioner did not tell him they were dead. The district court also found that the attorney reasonably investigated whether the children were alive under extremely difficult circumstances. Finally, the appellate court rejected the argument that the attorney had a conflict of interest in that he was more concerned for the children than his client's interests. The attorney repeatedly referred to his concern that petitioner's kidnapping charges could have become murder charges if the children were allowed to die. The United States District Court for the District of Oregon denied the petition and petitioner appealed.
The attorney-client privilege, A.R.S. § 13-4062(2), belongs to the client and concerns communications between the attorney and the client. The reason for the privilege is not to protect the client, but to encourage free exchange of information between the attorney and the client and to promote the administration of justice. State v. Alexander, 108 Ariz. 556, 503 P.2d 777 (1972). Neither the client nor the attorney can be compelled to disclose these communications against the client's wishes, unless it falls under the MRPC Rule 1.6(b)(1) a lawyer may "reveal" or "use" confidential information "to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm.”
Analysis
In this case Stewart told his attorney “I just can’t help myself. I don’t want to continue killing people but these voices in my head… they’re just so logical and irresistible.”
There are specific reasons for the attorney-client privilege as in the case of State v. Alexander. Attorney-client privilege has exceptions if it is used to prevent death or bodily harm.
As in the case of McClure v. Thompson, 323 F.3d 1233 (9th Cir. Or. 2003) the attorney believed that the children could have been alive based on petitioner's statement that "Jesus saved the children." The attorney thus believed he was preventing two murders.
Mr. Careful has a responsibility to tell the authorities as Stewart stated “I can’t help myself” would indicate he would hurt or kill someone again.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the use of this confidential communication with Stewart’s attorney was in fact proper. Stewart’s rights were not violated as this case fell under the MRPC Rule 1.6(b) (1).
Stewart will not be granted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus as his attorney did not violate any attorney-client confidentiality laws.