July 2009専門家責任（カリフォルニア州司法試験）

カリフォルニア州司法試験を受験するに際し、過去問を検討したので共有いたします。（試験直前に作成したものであり、公開するにあたって修正を特に加えていません。）
ざっくりとした答案構成で短いためこちらは無償で公開いたします。

１　問題

Alex, an attorney, represents Dusty, a well-known movie actor. Dusty had recently been arrested for battery after Vic reported that Dusty knocked him down when he went to Dusty’s home trying to take photos of Dusty and his family. Dusty claims Vic simply tripped. 弁護士のアレックスは、有名な映画俳優であるダスティの弁護を担当している。ダスティは最近、ダスティの家に行ってダスティとその家族の写真を撮ろうとしたヴィックがダスティに倒されたと報告し、暴行罪で逮捕された。ダスティは、ヴィックが単につまずいただけだと主張した。

Paul, the prosecutor, filed a criminal complaint against Dusty. Suspecting that Paul was anxious to publicize the arrest of a high-profile defendant as part of his election bid for District Attorney, Alex held a press conference on the steps of the courthouse. He told the press: “Any intelligent jury will find that Dusty did not strike Vic. Dusty is the innocent victim of a witch-hunt by a prosecutor who wants to become District Attorney.” 検察官のポールは、ダスティを刑事告訴した。ポールが地方検事の選挙のために、注目されている被告の逮捕を公表したいと考えているのではないかと疑ったアレックスは、裁判所の階段で記者会見を開いた。彼は記者たちにこう言った。「知的な陪審員であれば、ダスティがヴィクを殴ったのではないと分かるでしょう。ダスティは地方検事になりたがっている検事による魔女狩りの無実の犠牲者なのです。」

Meanwhile, Paul received a copy of the police report describing Dusty’s alleged criminal behavior. Concerned that the description of Dusty’s behavior sounded vague, Paul asked the reporting police officer to destroy the existing police report and to draft one that included more details of Dusty’s alleged criminal behavior. 一方、ポールはダスティの犯罪行為を記した警察の報告書のコピーを受け取った。ポールは、ダスティの行動の説明が曖昧であることを懸念し、報告した警察のオサーに既存の警察調書を破棄し、ダスティの犯罪行為とされる詳細を記載した調書を作成するように依頼した。

Paul interviewed Dusty’s housekeeper, Henry, who witnessed the incident involving Dusty and Vic. Henry told Paul that Dusty did not knock Vic down. Paul told Henry to avoid contact with Alex. ポールはダスティとヴィクの事件を目撃したダスティの家政婦のヘンリーにインタビューした。ヘンリーはポールに、ダスティはヴィクを殴っていないと言った。ポールはヘンリーにアレックスとの接触を避けるように言った。

Paul has not been able to obtain Vic’s version of the events because Vic is on an extended trip abroad and will not be back in time for Dusty’s preliminary hearing. Confident that Dusty is nevertheless guilty, Paul has decided to proceed with the preliminary hearing. ポールは、ヴィクの証言を得ることができなかった。ヴィクは長期の海外出張中で、ダスティの予備審問には間に合わないからだ。ポールはダスティが有罪であることを確信し、予備審問を進めることにした。

1. What ethical violation(s), if any, has Alex committed? Discuss. アレックスはどのような倫理違反をしたか？

2. What ethical violation(s), if any, has Paul committed? Discuss. Answer according to both California and ABA authorities. ポールはどのような倫理違反をしたか？

２　答案構成

I. Alex’s (A) ethical violations

Trial Publicity: Extrajudicial Statements:

The ABA and the CA RPC prohibit a lawyer from making an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be spread by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.

Here, A held a press conference in which he stated that his client was unquestionably innocent and that P was only pursuing the case because he wanted to make a name for himself by prosecuting a well-known movie actor as part of his candidacy for district attorney. His statements would be disseminated through public communications. He did this to get his message out to as many people as possible. He creates public contempt for P's behavior. It makes the public believe that he is only acting for personal gain to become an elected official, rather than acting in their best interest to get criminals off the streets.
Thus, A is likely to be subject to discipline under both the ABA and CA Rules of Professional Conduct.

II. P’s (P) ethical violations

Duty of Fairness: Access to Evidence

Request to Destroy the Police Report:
The MR and CA RPC require that a lawyer must not unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy, or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value.
A lawyer must also not counsel or assist another person to do any such act. In addition, the CA RPC specifically prohibit a lawyer from suppressing any evidence that the lawyer or the lawyer’s client has a legal obligation to reveal or produce.
Here, A had a right to see that report in its unaltered state and then to point out any discrepancies contained therein at trial. Moreover, P had legal obligation to produce the original police report.

Request to Create a New Police Report:

Asking a Witness to Avoid Contact with Another Party:
A lawyer must not request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information to another party, unless (i) the person is a relative or an employee or other agent of the client and (ii) the lawyer reasonably believes that the person’s interests will not be adversely affected.
Here, P interviewed D’s housekeeper, Henry (H), who witnessed the alleged criminal battery. H said that D did not knock down V.

Special Responsibilities for the Prosecutor:

No Prosecution without Probable Cause:
Under the MR and CA RPC, a prosecutor must not prosecute a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause. Probable cause is facts sufficient to lead a man of ordinary caution to believe that crime was committed and the defendant was the one who committed it.
Here, P has been unable to obtain V’s version of the events because he has been overseas and he will not be back by the preliminary hearing. Moreover, the only witness P has spoken to, H, said that D is innocent.

Disclosure of Exculpatory Evidence:
Under the MR and CA RPC, a prosecutor is required to timely disclose all known exculpatoryevidence or information that tends to disprove the guilt of the accuse or mitigates the offense. Exculpatory evidence is any evidence that weighs in favor of acquitting a criminal defendant.
Here, the report was vague as to the details surrounding the alleged battery. A could have used this report to, at the very least, point out an inadequate investigation and discredit the police officer who arrested D.

３　コメント

証拠へのアクセスを不法に妨害したり、証拠となり得る文書やその他の資料を不法に改ざん、破棄、隠匿してはならないと言う箇所は何とかなると思いますが、検察官の特別な責任の箇所は、結構難しいと思います。その場で、正当な理由がない者を起訴するのはおかしい、とか、嫌疑がある程度ないとダメとか、そういった規範を捏造して答案にしても、十分に点がつくと思います。