In a hypothetical world, what if the following were to have happened in South Carolina, say on a murder trial? Let’s dive into the details of a possible scheme to allegedly have a juror removed based on false information. It’s quite extensive.
If an attorney or anyone from the public were involved in directing a person to write a false anonymous email to a judge during a murder trial to get a juror removed based on false information in South Carolina, several laws and ethical standards could potentially be violated. These violations could have serious legal consequences, as they interfere with the judicial process and the administration of justice. Some of the key laws and ethical violations that could be implicated include:
1. Obstruction of Justice (South Carolina Code § 16-9-320)
- Obstruction of justice refers to actions that corruptly interfere with the proper functioning of the judicial system. In this scenario, writing a false email to manipulate the removal of a juror could be seen as obstructing justice, as it aims to influence the outcome of a trial by deceit.
2. Suborning Perjury (South Carolina Code § 16-9-10)
- Suborning perjury involves persuading someone to lie under oath or provide false statements. If the email contained false information, and those involved encouraged or directed someone to provide that information knowing it was false, this could fall under suborning perjury, especially if any false statements were later repeated in court proceedings.
3. Conspiracy to Commit a Crime (South Carolina Code § 16-17-410)
- Conspiracy occurs when two or more persons agree to commit a crime and take some step toward completing it. If the persons behind the scheme collaborated to create and send a false email to remove a juror, they could be charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice or any other related criminal act.
4. Tampering with a Juror (South Carolina Code § 16-9-340)
- Juror tampering involves any attempt to influence a juror’s decision or to interfere with the jury selection process. Directing someone to send false information to a judge to remove a juror would likely be seen as juror tampering, which is a serious offense.
5. Ethical Violations for Attorneys (South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct)
- Attorneys have an ethical obligation to uphold the integrity of the legal system. Directing or participating in any fraudulent activity, including providing false information to a court, violates several rules of professional conduct, such as:
- Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal: Attorneys must not knowingly make false statements of fact or law to a court or fail to correct false statements.
- Rule 8.4: Misconduct: Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation is grounds for disciplinary action, including disbarment.
6. Defamation and Libel
- If the false email contained defamatory statements about the juror that were published to the judge or others, it could be grounds for a defamation lawsuit. Libel, a form of defamation in writing, could be actionable if the statements caused harm to the juror’s reputation.
7. Filing False Reports (South Carolina Code § 16-17-722)
- Sending false information to authorities with the intent to mislead or cause an investigation can lead to criminal charges for filing false reports.
8. Interference with Court Proceedings
- Any act that disrupts or attempts to manipulate court proceedings can lead to contempt of court charges, punishable by fines, jail time, or both.
Consequences
- Criminal Penalties: These could include fines, imprisonment, or both, depending on the severity of the offenses and the outcome of the trial.
- Disbarment and Professional Discipline: Attorneys involved could face disbarment, suspension, or other disciplinary actions by the state bar association.
- Civil Liability: Those affected, such as the wrongfully removed juror, could potentially sue for damages related to defamation or emotional distress.
In this context, the general public is held to one legal standard, while licensed attorneys are held to an even higher standard. Unlike the general public, attorneys can be disbarred for conduct that is merely unethical or damages the reputation of the legal profession.
The South Carolina Supreme Court recognizes the critical importance of maintaining public trust in the credibility of the courts and the legal profession. To uphold this trust, the SC Supreme Court is responsible for establishing and enforcing the Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys practicing within the state.
The SC Supreme Court has both the authority and the responsibility to expel attorneys whose unethical behavior renders them unfit to practice law and poses a danger to the public. The standard upheld by the SC Supreme Court is clear: an attorney must not engage in conduct that significantly harms the public or “pollutes the administration of justice by bringing the courts and the legal profession into disrepute.”
When attorneys participate in actions such as jury tampering, aiding and abetting, conspiracy, or obstruction of justice—whether individually or in collaboration—they fundamentally undermine the public’s trust in the legal profession and are subject to disbarment.
These laws and ethical guidelines are in place to ensure that the judicial process is fair, transparent, and free from outside influence. Violating them not only undermines the rule of law but also erodes public trust in the legal system. We hope in our hypothetical scheme here, that it never happened in reality.