Court Opinion

ID: 9564291
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:57:17.765669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:19.887196
License: Public Domain

Lewis, Chief Justice
(dissenting) :
The trial judge, in effect, charged counsel in open court with a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. I agree with the majority opinion that there was no basis for such charge.
I regret that I find myself in disagreement with the conclusion of the majority that the incident under inquiry was not reversible error. While counsel was eventually permitted to pursue the questioned defense, it was only after he was told by the court that he was being given specific permission to, in effect, pursue what the court considered a violation of the Canons of Ethics.
While I am convinced that the able trial judge acted with highest motives, the fact remains that his conduct, as claimed, could have operated to some extent as a restraint upon counsel’s efforts in behalf of his client. It is true that the degree of such restraint cannot be determined or calculated with certainty from this record. It can be stated, however, with certainty that the statements of the judge to counsel were made for the sole purpose of restraining counsel in the pursuit of the questioned defense. Counsel thereafter represented his client under the implications of an allegation of unethical conduct. The probability of its impairment of counsel’s ability to furnish effective representation with resulting prejudice to his client is such that a new trial should be granted.
I, therefore, dissent.