Goodwin, Matter of
| Decision Date | 26 July 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 21965,21965 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | In the Matter of Joy S. GOODWIN and W. Gaston Fairey, Appellants. In the Contempt Matter of Joy S. GOODWIN and W. Gaston Fairey, Appellants. In re STATE of South Carolina, Respondent, v. Louis COVINGTON, Defendant. In the Matter of The BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF the DEFENDER CORPORATION OF RICHLAND COUNTY, An Eleemosynary Corporation Under the Laws of South Carolina, John Gregg McMaster (Chairman), Dallas D. Ball, Barry B. George, Terrell L. Glenn, Harold W. Jacobs, Lincoln W. Kirkland, T. Travis Medlock, Henry C. Nelson, Jr., John M. Young, Public Defender, W. Gaston Fairey, Carol Conner Murphy, Joy S. Goodwin, Garland P. McWhirter, Venable Vermont, Jr., Thomas J. Quinn, Martha B. Discus, and David G. Belser, Appellants. |
Jack B. Swerling and Kenneth M. Suggs, Columbia, for appellants.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Retired Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Sol. James C. Anders, Columbia, for respondent.
This case requires us to determine the appropriate course of conduct for an attorney who discovers his client, the defendant in a criminal case, intends to commit perjury.
Appellant Goodwin, an attorney employed by the Richland County Defender Corporation, was appointed to represent Louis Covington in a criminal trial. Appellant Fairey was to assist Ms. Goodwin in conducting the defense. During the course of the trial, Ms. Goodwin became aware that Covington intended to take the stand and present perjurious testimony. Immediately upon learning of Covington's plan, Ms. Goodwin moved to be relieved of her duties as counsel.
The trial judge held an in camera hearing to determine the validity of Ms. Goodwin's motion. At this hearing, Covington refused to waive his attorney-client privilege to allow Ms. Goodwin to disclose the conflict. However, Ms. Goodwin informed the court her continued representation of Covington would result in violations of DR2-110(B)(2) and DR7-102(A). The trial judge denied Ms. Goodwin's motion to withdraw and ordered her to proceed with the trial. Ms. Goodwin refused, and the trial judge then ordered Mr. Fairey to proceed with the trial. Mr. Fairey also refused to go forward, on the same grounds as Ms. Goodwin.
In another hearing, the trial judge held Ms. Goodwin and Mr. Fairey in contempt of court for disobeying his order to proceed, but significantly, imposed no sanctions. Additionally, the trial judge enjoined the Richland County Defender Corporation from paying salaries to any of its attorney employees. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The first issue is whether the trial judge erred in ordering Ms. Goodwin and Mr. Fairey to continue to represent Covington, and in holding them in contempt for refusing. We find no error.
While an attorney has an ethical duty not to perpetrate a fraud upon the court by knowingly presenting perjured testimony, the defendant has a constitutional right to representation by counsel. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963). Had the trial judge allowed the withdrawal, any new attorney he appointed would, if faced with the same conflict, have moved to withdraw, potentially resulting in a perpetual cycle of eleventh-hour motions to withdraw. Worse, new counsel might fail to recognize the problem and unwittingly present false evidence.
Since counsel cannot violate the attorney-client privilege to disclose the specific conflict, motions to withdraw must lie within the sound discretion of the trial judge. In making the decision, the trial court must balance the need for the orderly administration of justice with the fact that an irreconcilable conflict exists between counsel and the accused. The court should consider the timing of the motion, the inconvenience to the witnesses, the period of time elapsed between the date of the alleged offense and the trial, and the possibility that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Johnson, D026826
...162, 167-168; People v. Taggart (1992) 233 Ill.App.3d 530, 558-559, 174 Ill.Dec. 717, 737, 599 N.E.2d 501, 521; Matter of Goodwin (1983) 279 S.C. 274, 277, 305 S.E.2d 578, 580; State v. Layton (1993) 189 W.Va. 470, 484-485, 432 S.E.2d 740, 754-755 ["the trial court appropriately weighed the......
-
People v. Guzman
...at p. 4.255; see Lowery v. Cardwell (9th Cir.1978) 575 F.2d 727; State v. Fosnight (1984) 235 Kan. 52, 679 P.2d 174; Matter of Goodwin (1983) 279 S.C. 274, 305 S.E.2d 578; Coleman v. State (Alaska 1980) 621 P.2d 869; People v. Salquerro (1980) 107 Misc.2d 155, 433 N.Y.S.2d 9 We ultimately h......
-
State v. Blakely, 5114.
...of a capital case in support of its decision to affirm the PCR court's finding of ineffective assistance of counsel); Matter of Goodwin, 279 S.C. 274, 277, 305 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1983) (noting the ABA standards' suggested procedure for a trial court's handling of a conflict between counsel an......
-
Riley v. Cartledge
...questions of law and fact is de novo." (citing Jones v. Jones, 163 F.3d 285, 299-300 (5th Cir. 1998)). 10. See In the Matter of Goodwin, 279 S.C. 274, 305 S.E.2d 578 (1983) (attorney has an ethical duty not to perpetuate a fraud upon the court by knowingly presenting perjured testimony). 11......