In 1975 Sam Bronfman. heir to the Bronfman/Seagram liquor fortune was kidnapped. The two individuals arrested for his kidnapping- NYC Fireman Mel Patrick Lynch and his friend Dominic Byrne had surveilled Sam Bronfman - who had just graduated from college- over 30 times at the home he shared with his mother who was divorced from Edgar Bronfman, the patriarch of the family.
The kidnapping, the trial of the kidnappers, and the extraordinary deathbed confession of defendant Lynch's trial counsel- Peter DeBlasio- are detailed in a compelling NY Times story here.
Peter DeBlasio at the Bronfman trial |
To cut to the chase of the matter, despite Sam Bronfman being rescued from Lynch's apartment where he was located bound and gaged with tape- tape that removed part of his skin and in which his facial hair had grown into over nine days of being abducted and gagged- and despite confessions- Lynch was acquitted at a trial that Attorney DeBlasio called "the greatest trial victory" of his long and storied career.
DeBlasio trial strategy was that his client and Bronfman were gay lovers (a supremely scandalous allegation in 1976) and that Bronfman had engineered his kidnapping to secure funds from his family. To that end DeBlassio put his client Lynch on the witness stand and by all accounts Lynch was an exceptionally compelling witness whose story the prosecution was unable to shake after four days on the witness stand. After the trial, multiple jurors stated that they were certain Bronfman faked his kidnapping.
Peter DeBlasio passed away at age 91 in December 2020 (only the good die young which is why criminal defense attorneys routinely live into their mid-90's and beyond). In July of 2020 Mr. DeBlassio published his memoirs. In his memoirs he admitted that his defense was made up and that his client did not have a homosexual relationship with Mr. Bronfman and that Mr. Bronfman did not participate in his kidnapping:
From the NY Times article:
“About Sam,” Mr. DeBlasio wrote toward the end of his memoir. Noting that Mr. Lynch and Mr. Byrne were both dead, he felt compelled to set the record straight before his own death. “I want it to be clear to all who may ever read these pages that Samuel Bronfman was not a part of the kidnapping.” He added, “Neither he nor Lynch were gay as far as anyone ever knew and certainly they were not lovers.”
So dear readers, here is the question: Did Peter DeBlasio violate the rules of ethics about setting the story straight on his client and the Bronfman case at a time when his client and the co-defendant were dead?
Are there any cases on you conscience that would engender a deathbed confession? (Rumpole's conscience is 100% entirely clear).
See Mel Black's defense of his client, who was charged with robbing Judge Highsmith.
ReplyDeleteDid he violate the rules by setting the record straight? Seriously? That's your question? Give me a break.
ReplyDeleteHow about, did he suborn perjury?
“counsel is precluded from taking steps or in any way assisting the client in presenting false evidence or otherwise violating the law.” Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 166 (1986).
“both the Model Code and the Model Rules do not merely authorize disclosure by counsel of client perjury; they require such disclosure.” Id. at 168.
"In short, the responsibility of an ethical lawyer, as an officer of the court and a key component of a system of justice, dedicated to a search for truth, is essentially the same whether the client announces an intention to bribe or threaten witnesses or jurors or to commit or procure perjury. No system of justice worthy of the name can tolerate a lesser standard." Id. at 174.
He should be vilified for his unethical and unlawful representation, and cautiously thanked for finally coming clean. And that "coming clean," btw, did very little since it came after the maligned was dead and had to suffer his whole life under the cloud of accusations that he perpetrated his own kidnapping.
I believe that is Sam Bronfman in the picture and not Peter DeBlasio. According to the NY Times article, DeBlasio represented Byrne and not Lynch. I could be wrong, but the way I read the article DeBlasio piggybacked his defense of Bryne onto that of Lynch's. He went along with the Bronfman as mastermind theory and argued that Bryne was coerced into participating and that he was even trying to help Bronfman. If my reading is correct, I guess you could posit did he KNOW know? Or did he just know. I would say the real answer as to the truth of the mastermind theory would lie with the Legal Aid attorney that represented Lynch since the story started with Lynch.
ReplyDeleteUnethical and damaging.
ReplyDeleteSwidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399 (1998).
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe Captain Reports:
COVID-19 ADVISORY #102
SELF-MONITORING NOTICE
Six (6) individuals who worked at the locations and on the dates listed below have tested positive for COVID-19.
Persons identified as having been in close proximity to the confirmed individuals are being notified and will be asked to take all necessary precautions.
Individual #1
Richard E. Gerstein Justice Building, 1351 NW 12 Ave.:
Courtroom 2-1 on 7/28-29/2021 and 8/10/2021
Courtroom 2-8 on 7/29/2021 and 8/10/2021
Courtroom 4-8 on 8/2/2021
Courtroom 6-4 on 8/2/2021
Courtroom 7-4 on 7/28/2021
Last date onsite: 8/10/2021
Individual #2
Lawson E. Thomas Courthouse Center, 175 NW 1st Ave.:
Courtroom 17B on 7/28-30/2021, 8/2-4/2021 and 8/9/2021
Room 152 on 8/9/2021
Room 1620 on 8/4/2021
Room 1718 on 7/28-30/2021, 8/2-4/2021 and 8/9/2021
Room 1745 on 8/9/2021
Last date onsite: 8/9/2021
Individual #3
Richard E. Gerstein Justice Building, 1351 NW 12 Ave.:
Courtroom 6-2 on 7/28-29/2021 and 8/9-11/2021
Last date onsite: 8/11/2021
Individual #4
Richard E. Gerstein Justice Building, 1351 NW 12 Ave.:
Courtroom 1-5 on 7/28-30/2021 and 8/2-6/2021
Room 322 on 7/28-30/2021 and 8/2-6/2021
Last date onsite: 8/6/2021
Individual #5
Miami-Dade Children’s Courthouse, 155 NW 3rd St.:
Courtroom 11-4
Room 13329
Last date onsite: 8/12/2021
Individual #6
Lawson E. Thomas Courthouse Center, 175 NW 1st Ave.:
Courtroom 2A on 8/2-4/2021
Courtroom 2B on 8/2-4/2021
Courtroom 2C on 8/2-4/2021
Last date onsite: 8/4/2021
Maybe he didn’t violate the Rules of Ethics with his “deathbed confession”, but he certainly suborned perjury at trial. As cool as it might seem, this is not a story that makes us look good as criminal defense lawyers.
ReplyDeleteSwidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399 (1998) is not applicable. That had to do with client notes taken 9 days before a witness's death and the subsequent subpoena of those notes. The notes were protected by the attorney/client privilege even after death. However, there is no indication that the lawyer at issue knew or had reason to know of a false statement under oath before it was made.
ReplyDeleteIn Rumpole's example, if the defense lawyer knew, or had reason to know, before the defense was asserted on the stand that it was false, the defense lawyer had an affirmative duty to break the attorney/client privilege and reveal the existence of the perjured testimony. Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 168 (1986).
Brian Tannebaum's opinion on ethics is the only opinion I rely on.
ReplyDeleteI am old enough to remember a local judge going to trial in the late '80's for taking a bribe. Everyone knew he was guilty. He took the stand and claimed that the bribe was in fact a re-payment of a loan that his bagman owed him. Total BS. He was acquitted. What's the difference? His lawyer had to know it was all a lie. But it worked.
ReplyDeleteHey Rump,
ReplyDeleteWaiting on your opinions from the new Cocaine Cowboys documentary on the extremely shady practices of some of our local defense bar.... Curious as to your thoughts on the following topics from the documentary (which is excellent by the way):
1 - $25 million in legal fees being paid out by 2 defendants that were local high school dropouts with no employment history
2 - The defense practice of listing the government snitch witnesses in the nationwide prison magazines and watching many of these witnesses getting murdered before trial
3 - The fact that these attorneys either knew or should have known that several members of the jury were paid off to acquit (the fact that the foreperson knew to ask for jury sequestration makes be believe an attorney was giving that advice. I find it extremely hard to believe they didn't know at the very least)
Very curious as to your thoughts on these issues, the documentary, and what being a criminal defense attorney was like in those days.
I second 5:24:00
ReplyDeleteThank you 5:24.
ReplyDeleteFinally someone is commenting on the truly despicable behavior of the defense attorneys on that case.
The publishing of the names of potential government witnesses in a prison magazine was the low point. I lost all respect for them. It was a hit list which resulted in many "unavailable" witnesses. They got away with murder and all the smug, slick, glib rationalizations they come up with to justify their actions won't change that fact.
Sal was found not guilty of the murders. Show some respect. The man is doing 200 years in Florence for paying his lawyers the way they asked to be paid.
DeleteI just read the Times article yesterday. Blood-boiling stuff.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, Anonymous #3 is correct. Initially, De Blasio, who represented Byrne, intended to portray Lynch as a monster who concocted a real kidnapping and coerced his client (who wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed) into participating. But Lynch's four days of testimony, fabrications and all, were apparently so compelling that De Blasio shifted gears and adopted that same theme. (I'd love to know if he took time in his closing argument to explain the shift.) Byrne didn't testify, so no one refuted the perjury.
That said: there should be a special place in hell reserved for attorneys like De Blasio. Not only for suborning perjury, but also for betraying client confidentiality. As Prof. Gillers says in the article: that duty exists forever, even after the client's death. What De Blasio said in his "confession" is that his client, who was acquitted of kidnapping (they were both convicted of extortion, a lesser charge), was in fact a kidnapper. Who among us would ever consider ratting out our own clients like that?
As for Anonymous #10: I remember the same judge you're speaking about. Given all the other baggage that dude was carrying around, that defense was not entirely implausible.
ReplyDeleteMore important: the judge himself testified, which was his absolute right. Which tied the lawyer's hands in a way an uncharged witness would not have.
@2:12:
ReplyDeleteHis disclosure -- as made, when made -- was incapable of curing the perjury, so Nix is weak support, if any, for his action.
And while yes, the facts are substantially different, Swidler's core holding -- that ACP survives the death of the client -- is the starting point here.
Pretty clearly suborning the perjury in the first place is right out under any understanding of the rules. But rump's question was whether De Blasio's disclosure was ethical.
There is nothing wrong or unethical in conducting some "opposition research" on the scum the government uses as snitches.
ReplyDeleteHere we go-smart ass, smog rationalizations! "Opposition research" is one thing-publishing a "hit List" is another.
ReplyDelete