Opinion ID: 1365800
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Candor towards a Tribunal

Text: The Board also alleged that the respondent violated Rule 3.3 in the Gunnoe case. Rule 3.3 states, in part: (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal; (2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client; ... (4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures. ... (c) A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer reasonably believes is false. During the preparations for Mr. Gunnoe's first trial, the respondent alleged various defense theories to the prosecutor and to other defense attorneys. He alleged that the victim's former fiance had committed the crimeeven though he was on an airplane at the time. He alleged that a neighbor had committed the crimeeven though the neighbor was away for a 2-week tour in the National Guard at the time. At trial, the respondent proffered the defense that Mr. Gunnoe's wife had murdered Ms. McCormick. In a sworn statement to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the respondent admitted that he had first voiced to Mr. Gunnoe that Mrs. Gunnoe was the killer, and admitted that Mr. Gunnoe was not the first to raise this theory. The respondent recounted multiple discussions where Mr. Gunnoe kept giving false explanations for what happened. After hearing these alternate explanations, the respondent proposed that Mrs. Gunnoe was the true killer, and Mr. Gunnoe apparently agreed. At both trials, the respondent questioned Mr. Gunnoe and elicited testimony that Mrs. Gunnoe had committed the crime. After testimony began in the first trial, the respondent notified the police that he and/or the respondent's wife had discovered a pair of women's underwear near the apartment complex where the murder had occurred some 3 years earlier. The respondent asserted that the underwear belonged to Mrs. Gunnoe, and that it was stained with blood wiped from her body after killing Ms. McCormick. At one point the respondent asserted he found the underwear, but later asserted his wife found it, even though such information was critical to establishing a chain of custody for the evidence. Furthermore, the day on which the underwear was found varied in the respondent's statements. A later laboratory examination of the underwear found no blood. During the course of Mr. Gunnoe's cross-examination by the prosecutor, Mr. Gunnoe made a reference to a polygraph examination. The circuit judge then gave the jury a cautionary instruction that under the law of the State of West Virginia, polygraph evidence is not admissible and should not be referred to by any parties in this case. Immediately following the circuit judge's cautionary instruction, the respondent stated before the jury Can it be admitted by stipulation, Your Honor? Michelle [Gunnoe] and Doug [Gunnoe] both took the lie detector test. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Gunnoe had ever taken a polygraph test. The Board concluded from this evidence that the respondent had violated Rule 3.3, and had proffered false evidence before the circuit court. iii.