User:Julialgreenberg/sandbox

= Wikipedia Article Evaluation Exercise = I briefly evaluated the Robert Garrow Wikipedia Article. There's at least one error in the article: Robert Garrow was "Sr." not "Jr." The organization of the "criminal history" is terrible: it's hard to follow, the paragraphs are long, the section includes information about Garrow's trial but also the indictment of one of his lawyers (which was a separate, though related matter). There are very few sources cited and some of the links are broken (:. While the article does appear to be neutral, the lead at top also mixes information about Robert Garrow and about the Buried Bodies Case (which is really about his lawyers). All in all, this page could use an overhaul. The article is rated "start-class" "low-importance." It has one comment on the Talk page.

= Wikipedia Adding Citations Exercise = Ahead of incorporating my full draft to the Buried Bodies Case page, I added a citation to a relevant N.Y. Times article (from back in the 1970s!) - https://www.nytimes.com/1974/06/20/archives/slayers-2-lawyers-kept-secret-of-2-more-killings-two-attorneys-for.html.

= Draft of Buried Bodies Case = = Buried Bodies Case= Note: I made final touches and changes in the live document, so this does not reflect all of the changes ultimately made.

The Buried Bodies Case, also known as the Lake Pleasant Bodies Case, is a mid-1970s upstate New York court case where defense attorneys Frank Armani and Francis Belge refused to disclose the location of the bodies of two women murdered by their client, Robert Garrow, Sr.

The attorneys claimed they were bound by a duty of confidentiality and the attorney-client privilege not to disclose the information, which would likely incriminate their client. Armani and Belge faced criminal and ethical proceedings for their decision. The claims against them were later found to be unwarranted.

The case has since become a touchstone in legal ethics courses. It has also helped shaped the development of ethical rules around confidentiality. The case highlights some ethical questions that can arise for a lawyer.

= History =

Background
In the summer of 1973, attorney Frank Armani was appointed to serve as counsel for Robert Garrow, Sr. Garrow, a 38-year old mechanic of a Syracuse bakery, was charged with murdering Philip Domblewski. Domblewski, an 18-year old college student, was murdered while camping in the Adirondaks. He was tied to a tree and stabbed multiple times. Three friends were also accosted, but escaped. This lead to a twelve day manhunt for the killer, which was the longest manhunt in New York state history at the time. With no experience in murder trials, Armani recruited his friend, Francis Belge, an experienced criminal defense attorney, to help represent Garrow.

Discovery of Buried Bodies
Ahead of trial, Garrow told his attorneys that he killed Domblewski. Garrow also claimed he murdered and hid the bodies of two missing women, Susan Petz and Alicia Hauck. He drew a diagram to show where Petz was buried. Armani later claimed that Garrow began confessing to Belge after Armani hypnotized him.

Following Garrow’s confession, Armani and Belge decided to confirm whether Garrow was telling the truth. They used a diagram he drew to uncover Petz's body in an airshaft of a coal mine. Belge uncovered Hauck's body in a nearby cemetery based on Garrow's description. The lawyers photographed the remains. Belge moved part of Hauck's body that had been dismembered to include it in the photograph. They later destroyed the photographs, the record of their conversation with Garrow, and the diagram he drew indicating the Petz's location.

Belge and Armani told no one. They chose not to alert authorities of their discoveries before trial despite pleas from Hauck’s father for information. Family members and authorities continued to search for the girls. The bodies were discovered accidentally five months after Garrow confessed in private to his attorneys.

Trial
Armani and Belge proposed a plea bargain using the information they had uncovered ahead of trial. They told the prosecutor they might provide information that could help authorities resolve the investigation of the missing women if Garrow were sentenced to life in a mental hospital rather than prison. The prosecutor refused.

In the summer of 1974, Garrow’s trial for the murder of Domblewski began. Armani and Belge pursued an insanity defense, so they allowed Garrow to testify in the trial. While testifying in his own defense, Garrow admitted to murdering four people including Petz and Hauck. During cross-examination of Garrow, Belge asked, “Is that the one I found?” signifying that he was aware prior to trial. The attorneys held a press conference the next day, where they admitted they had known about the dead women for six months.

Garrow was convicted for Domblewski’s murder. He was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison.

Public Scrutiny
Armani and Belge were publicly harassed and threatened by the public for keeping information about the deceased women secret. News outlets claimed they should be found guilty of obstruction of justice or being accomplices after the crime had been committed. The public also criticized lawyers generally for their callousness and lack of concern for the public interest. Armani and Belge faced criminal and ethical proceedings that were later found to be unwarranted.

People v. Belge
A grand jury investigated the conduct of both Armani and Belge. Belge was then indicted for allegedly violating two state public health laws by failing to disclose his discovery of the dead bodies.

In People v. Belge, Belge claimed conversations about the missing girls were "privileged," or protected by the attorney-client privilege that prevents lawyers from disclosing confidential information about their clients, so he could not share the information with authorities. The National Association of Criminal Defense lawyers wrote a brief in support of Belge, arguing that attorney-client privilege would be destroyed if Belge were convicted.

The New York county court dismissed the indictment "in the interests of justice." The court found that Belge had protected the Fifth Amendment constitutional right of his client not to incriminate himself. It also found that Garrow's disclosure of information about the missing women was protected by the attorney-client privilege. In its decision, the court explained: "'The effectiveness of counsel is only as great as the confidentiality of its client-attorney relationship. If the lawyer cannot get all the facts about the case, he can only give his client half of a defense. This, of necessity, involves telling his attorney everything remotely connected with the crime.'"The appeals court confirmed the claims should be dismissed, but indicated concern about the limits of the attorney-client privilege. It noted that attorneys must protect their clients, but must also "observe basic human standards of decency."

New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics Review
One of the victims' parents filed ethics complaints against Armani and Belge with New York State Bar Association disciplinary officials. When Armani was later asked why he chose not to reveal what Garrow told him, he said, “It’s a question of which is the higher moral good.”

The New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics later found that the attorneys acted ethically by refusing to disclose that they had found the missing women. The committee explained that the attorneys would have violated their ethical obligations to keep their client's confidential information secret.

The ethics opinion emphasized that the attorney-client privilege is necessary to ensure clients disclose all possible pertinent information. It further explained that disclosure of all possibly pertinent information allows attorneys to craft the strongest defense and protect their clients' rights to the fullest extent.

Aftermath
Although both lawyers were ultimately exonerated, the Buried Bodies Case took a toll on Belge and Armani. Belge gave up his law practice and moved to Florida. Armani suffered a heart attack. His law practice was also initially destroyed though he later rebuilt it.

Four years after his conviction, Garrow escaped from prison. When authorities searched his cell, they found a hit list including Armani and Belge’s names. Armani gave police advice about where Garrow might have gone. This information led police to discover Garrow hiding near the prison. He was shot and killed.

= Ethical Issues = The central question Armani and Belge faced was whether to disclose their discovery of the missing women's bodies although it would likely incriminate their client and violate their duty of confidentiality to their client.

The case also raises broader ethical questions about the role of the lawyer, and her obligations to her clients and society as a whole. The case showcases the tension between protecting a client's interest and the potential emotional harm that victims or their family might experience. It also shows the potential tension between a lawyer's professional obligations and her personal interests or values.

Some scholars have suggested follow-up ethical questions such as whether Armani and Belge should have assisted the women or disclosed their locations had they been found alive.

= Contemporary Legal Doctrine = Several contemporary legal doctrines are relevant in cases like the Buried Bodies Case.

Duty of Confidentiality
Lawyers have the broad ethical obligation to keep their clients' secrets confidential. (Lerman Book) American Bar Association Model Rule 1.6 provides that a lawyer will not reveal a client's information without the client's consent. (ABA) This duty of confidentiality extends beyond information the client tells the lawyer directly. (Lerman Book) Any information a lawyer learns "relating to the representation of the client" must be kept confidential, including information learned from interviews, photographs, or observations. (Lerman Book) (ABA) If a lawyer violates the duty of confidentiality, she may be subject to disciplinary proceedings. (Lerman Book)

Exceptions
Model Rule 1.6 includes several exceptions. One exception states that a lawyer may reveal information relating to her client if she reasonably believes it is necessary "to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm."

Attorney-Client Privilege
Lawyers cannot be compelled to disclose private lawyer-client communications due to the attorney-client privilege. (Lerman Book) The privilege is typically invoked an adverse party in a litigation seeks information from an attorney. Attorney-client privilege is not an ethical obligation, but rather a procedural rule. (Lerman Book) It applies to communications exchanged between a lawyer and her client where the client seeks legal services. (Lerman Book) A court can quash a request to disclose information that violates the attorney-client privilege. (Lerman Book)

Fifth Amendment
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects criminal defendants against self-incrimination. (V Amendment) = Impact = The Buried Bodies Case attracted significant attention in the mid-1970s in the throes of the Watergate scandal. During Watergate, the American Bar Association (ABA) began reconsidering the ethical obligations of attorneys. Meanwhile, law schools too began reconsidering the form of legal ethics in their curriculum.

Professional Responsibility Rules
The case may have helped shape the development of one of the main exceptions to the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct rule on confidentiality (Model Rule 1.6). Model Rule 1.6 provides that a lawyer will not reveal information relevant to her representation of a client without the client's consent.

Rule 1.6 includes several exceptions. One exception states that a lawyer may reveal information relating to her client if she reasonably believes it is necessary "to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm." This exception, added by amendment in 2002, was hotly contested; lawyers worried the language might erode the duty of confidentiality.

Although ethical rules are governed by state bar associations, the ABA's Model Rules provide a model that is used by 49 states.

Legal Ethics Education
The case has become a touchstone of legal ethics classes. The case is widely taught in law schools to examine concerns that arise from confidentiality and attorney-client privilege. It is a fixture in professional responsibility textbooks. It may have also shaped legal ethics education by providing an example of how ethics can be taught from a human perspective with real world case studies.

It has also been used by business schools to explore the challenges that can arise from role-based obligations.

= Criticism = The mother of Susan Petz, one of the girls murdered by Garrow, remains unsatisfied by the case. In a 2016 interview with Radiolab, she criticized law schools for teaching the case. She suggested that lawyers should consider the victims in addition to criminal defendants when deciding whether to keep information about missing victims confidential.

Some legal scholars have also criticized the case. Some argue the attorneys' refusal to disclose the confidential information did not lead to a better outcome for the client nor did it lead to the client disclosing more. Others say the attorneys' refusal to share information with the women's families was appalling; attorneys should disclose information that might provide closure for victims in a way that would not impact their client. Similarly, some have considered a new exemption to confidentiality rules to allow disclosure if it mitigates victims' emotional harm. Moreover, others criticize the case for exempting lawyers from laws, like the public health code requiring the disclosure of dead bodies, that apply to everyone else.

= Popular Culture = The case has been the subject of numerous books, including Privileged Information by Tom Alibrandi with Frank Armani (1984) and Terror in the Adirondacks: The True Story of Serial Killer Robert F. Garrow by Lawrence Gooley (2009).

It has also been dramatized in the 1987 TV film Sworn to Silence, and a 2003 episode of the TV series Law & Order, “Bodies.”

It was featured in “The Buried Bodies Case” in 2016 on the WNYC podcast RadioLab.

In 2017, Fargo producer Noah Hawley announced the development of a feature film based on the case.

= See also =


 * Attorney-client privilege
 * Confidentiality
 * Duty of confidentiality
 * Fifth Amendment (U.S. Constitution)
 * Legal ethics
 * Physician–patient privilege
 * Priest–penitent privilege
 * Reporter's privilege
 * Spousal privilege
 * State secrets privilege
 * Sixth Amendment (U.S. Constitution)

=Footnotes= = External Links =


 * American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct
 * The Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers (APRL)
 * New York State Professional Rules of Conduct (as amended through June 1, 2018)

= Further Reading =


 * Alibrandi, Tom (with Frank H. Armani). (1984). Privileged Information. New York, NY: Dodd, Mead & Company.
 * Gooley, Lawrence P. (2009).Terror in the Adirondacks: The True Story of Serial Killer Robert F. Garrow. Peru, NY: Bloated Toe Publishing.
 * Schrag, Philip G. and Lisa G. Lerman. (2013). Ethical Problems in the Practice of Law. Aspen Publishers (Third Edition). Pages 164-175.
 * Zitrain, Richard A. and Carol M. Langford (2000). The Moral Compass of the American Lawyer: Truth, Justice, Power, and Greed. Ballantine Books.

Category:Privacy Category:Confidentiality Category:Legal professional privilege

FOR ME ONLY - Photos?
I was not able to find any photos in Wikimedia Commons or the public domain. I had wanted to include a photo of Armani and Belge or Robert Garrow, but was unable to find a photograph that would meet Wikimedia Commons' requirements.


 * Photo of Armani -- http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/the_toughest_call/ ; https://tulsaparalegals.wordpress.com/2017/07/10/client-confidentiality-the-buried-bodies-case/
 * Photos of Garrow - https://www.facebook.com/pg/Garrow36/photos/?tab=album&album_id=774280569340144 ; http://murderpedia.org/male.G/g/garrow-robert-photos.htm

FOR ME ONLY - OTHER SOURCES TO CONSIDER
https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1985&context=llr

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2727&context=facpub

https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1240&context=scholar

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7fe6/44740ab4df4fa53ec594a6ee302c8b945456.pdf

Monroe H. Freedman, Where the Bodies Are Buried: The Adversary System and the Obligation of Confidentiality, 10 Crim. L. Bull. 979, 986 (1974) (defending Armani and Belge's nondisclosure);

David Luban, Freedom and Constraint in Legal Ethics: Some Mid-Course Corrections to Lawyers and Justice, 49 Md. L. Rev. 424, 425 -28 (1990) (concurring with Monroe Freedman that Armani and Belge acted properly);

Kenneth L. Penegar, The Five Pillars of Professionalism, 49 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 307, 358 -59 (1988) (summarizing Belge without comment).