A Hartford Courant news article reported yesterday that Stephen Hayes, currently on trial for capital felony murder in New Haven Superior Court, has offered to plead guilty without the benefit of a plea bargain. This is a big deal because the State is seeking the death penalty. In response his public defenders have vowed to try and stop Hayes from pleading guilty.
With all due respect to his criminal defense lawyers, they shouldn't let their personal repugnance for the death penalty interfere with their client's objective. Why? Because lawyers have an ethical duty to abide by a client's wishes--so long as the client is competent. And in Hayes's case, his lawyers had agreed he was competent just moments before he offered to plead guilty.
(Interestingly, Hayes's offer to plead guilty is not necessarily a bad trial strategy because he would not be agreeing to the death penalty, but only that he committed the murders. And there could be other legitimate reasons why he wants to plead guilty. I'll address them in the next post. But for now, let's get back to why I think it would be improper for Hayes's lawyers to fight him on his desire to plead guilty.)
Connecticut Criminal Defense lawyers have a code of conduct--or rules--that they must follow when representing clients. This code is called the "Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct" and they cover just about all aspects of the attorney-client relationship, including the decision whether to plead guilty to a Connecticut crime in Superior Court.
Under Rule 1.2, entitled "Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority between Client and Lawyer," it is the client--not the lawyer--who controls the decision whether to plead guilty. In fact, the rules require a lawyer to abide by the client's decision--so long as the client is competent and not suffering from a diminished capacity.
Here is the applicable language of Rule 1.2:
"A lawyer shall abide by a client's decision whether to settle a matter. In a criminal case, the lawyer shall abide by the client's decision, after consultation with the lawyer, as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive a jury trial and whether the client will testify."
If Hayes is competent and insists on pleading guilty after consulting with his criminal defense lawyers, then his lawyers must help him achieve that goal--not fight him on it. If they cannot in good conscience--for whatever reason--help him with that goal, then they should withdraw from the case. But they cannot let their personal abhorrence of the death penalty interfere with their duty to abide by the client's decision to plead guilty. Even if that decision puts the client one step closer to the death chamber. (But as I said earlier, pleading guilty at this stage in the proceedings is not necessarily a bad trial strategy. See my next post.)
