People v. Fentress
Citation and Court
103 Misc. 2d 179 (N.Y. County Ct. 1980), New York County Court
Facts
Fentress was charged with murder. His defense attorney, during the course of the representation, came to believe that his client had committed the murder and possessed information about his client’s guilt. The issue arose whether the attorney was obligated or permitted to disclose information about the client’s past crime, and how the attorney should navigate the tension between the duty of confidentiality and the duty not to assist in fraud or crime.
Issue
Whether defense counsel who learns through confidential communications that his client committed the charged crime may or must disclose that information, and what obligations the attorney has in continuing the representation.
Holding
The court addressed the attorney’s duties of confidentiality and the permissible scope of the defense in light of the attorney’s knowledge of guilt, holding that the attorney-client privilege and duty of confidentiality prevent disclosure of client confidences even where the attorney knows the client is guilty.
Rule / Doctrine
The attorney-client privilege and the duty of confidentiality are fundamental to the adversarial system and apply even when the attorney has direct knowledge of the client’s guilt. Defense counsel may not disclose privileged communications but must also not assist the client in presenting false testimony. The attorney may continue the representation and hold the government to its burden of proof, but may not suborn perjury or engage in affirmative deception.
Significance
People v. Fentress is a significant criminal defense ethics case illustrating the tension between the duty of confidentiality and the prohibition against assisting client fraud. It is commonly taught alongside the “Lake Pleasant Bodies” case to explore the outer limits of the attorney-client privilege in criminal defense and the ethical obligations of defense counsel who possess incriminating client information.