50 had been stolen out of the $1,000 in his drawer. The police interviewed Jones and after he admitted that he had ended his friendship over an unpaid $157 debt, they arrested him believing the neighbor's claim to have seen Jones climb out his window when he thought he was dreaming.
You have determined from interviewing several mutual friends of Jones and the neighbor that Jones was indeed owed the $157, and that Jones did commit the burglary, but you can easily subpoena the EZ-Pass records to prove that Jones' car was an hour out of town at the time he claimed to have been sleeping at home when the burglary occurred. The American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct also allows you to use this witness who provided the information about the neighbor's habits during the discovery process to impeach the credibility of the neighbor as well as to prove that he could not have witnessed Jones at the time in question (Rhode, 2003). If you do so, the neighbor's sexual affair will also be revealed in open court and devastate his family.
Moreover, Jones has authorized you to approach the assistant district attorney and offer to repay the money to the neighbor and plead guilty to a lesser charge and the prosecutor has indicated his willingness to recommend a probated sentence in lieu of incarceration, partly in light of Jones' good record, partly because the neighbor admitted to owing Jones the money that was stolen, and partly because of the prosecutor's general preference of not filling up the local jail with nonviolent offenders in order to have room for more dangerous criminals.
Jones could still sue the neighbor in civil court and recoup his debt by proving his case with the witnesses to the debt that you already interviewed. If you tell Jones about the neighbor's affair and you introduce that information in court, his family will be devastated. Your dilemma is whether or not to allow Jones to take the guilty plea or advise him to go to trial and then use the neighbor's lies to prove that he could not have witnessed the crime and that he is of questionable character in terms of his truthfulness as a witness. You know that Jones is guilty because he admitted it and you also know that the neighbor did owe Jones the exact amount that Jones stole from his drawer.
Implementing Cooper's Analysis:
This situation illustrates Cooper's definition (1998) of a complex ethical issue that involves multiple perspectives. You can prove the neighbor lied about witnessing Jones in his apartment even though you know that Jones did, in fact, steal the money that night while the neighbor was with his girlfriend. From the point-of-view of general equitable principles, Jones was morally and ethically entitled to the money that he stole from the neighbor. From the legal perspective, Jones did commit the exact crime of which he stands accused because he resorted to theft to recoup his debt. You use of the witness to impeach the
