931 F. Supp. 2d 1199
S.D. Fla.2013Background
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing on Stewart's suppression motion on December 3, 2012, and Stewart was tried and found guilty on December 4, 2012.
- Magistrate Judge Matthewman conducted an evidentiary hearing on January 29, 2013, to address counsel's conduct and potential perjury by Stewart.
- The evidentiary hearing found Gershman and Cleary had no actual knowledge that Stewart would commit perjury at the suppression hearing or trial; they believed she might be untruthful but lacked knowledge she would lie.
- Stewart challenged the authenticity of the Government's CP-503 currency declaration form, prompting ethical and professional duties discourse for the defense counsel.
- The Florida Bar Rules' candor toward the tribunal, especially Rule 4-3.3(a)(4), were analyzed, including the distinction between actual knowledge and reasonable belief about false testimony.
- The Court approved and adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, affirming the ethical conclusions and addressing the rule's limitations for criminal defense counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gershman and Cleary complied with professional duties about perjury. | Gershman and Cleary complied. | Potential lack of clarity on duties. | They complied given no actual knowledge. |
| Whether defendants must disclose suspected perjury once known. | No obligation absent actual knowledge. | Obligation to inform if knowledge arises. | No obligation where there is no actual knowledge. |
| Whether Cleary's closing argument violated candor rules by relying on perjurious testimony. | Closing avoided urging perjurious testimony. | N/A or no deliberate reliance. | No violation since Cleary did not know testimony was false. |
| Whether Florida Bar Rule 4-3.3(a)(4) adequately guides criminal defense in perjury scenarios. | Rule's structure can cause dilemmas. | N/A. | Rule lacks guidance for uncertain perjury situations. |
| Whether the court should rely on the Florida Bar rules over Sixth Amendment rights in this context. | Candor rules govern counsel conduct. | Defendant's right to testify must be weighed. | Constitutional right to testify preserved; rules interpreted within that framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ly, 646 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir.2011) (right to testify and perjury considerations in defense)
- Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987) (right to testify is fundamental)
- United States v. Teague, 953 F.2d 1525 (11th Cir.1992) (right to testify under Sixth Amendment (en banc))
- United States v. Scott, 909 F.2d 488 (11th Cir.1990) (recognition of defendant's right to testify)
- Coleman v. Balkcom, 451 U.S. 949 (1981) (concerns about compelled process in civil/criminal contexts)