4.2.12 WC: 191694 court cross examination by Tyson's trial lawyer, the issue of the contingency fee agreement was explicitly raised. Yet, the prosecutor did everything in his power to keep the truth from coming out. He arranged for the Washington family to take the courtroom pass away from their lawyer, so that he could not attend the trial and feel ethically compelled to stand up and correct the Washingtons' testimony when they falsely denied any contingency fee or written agreement with him. (The prosecutor also had an ethical obligation to correct the false testimony given by his witness. Indeed he had an even greater obligation because he was the one who put on the testimony that he knew was false.) The ploy worked—at least for a while. But the Rhode Island lawyer soon learned that his clients were not being straight with the jury. He began to worry that he might have an ethical obligation to blow the whistle on his clients, as lawyers do when their clients or witnesses are committing perjury. So the lawyer went to the Rhode Island Disciplinary Counsel—the attorney in charge of enforcing the ethical rules that govern lawyers—to obtain guidance. She referred the matter to the Rhode Island Supreme Court which issued an unprecedented opinion concluding that “the attorney had an obligation to disclose the existence of his contingent fee agreement to the [Indiana] criminal trial court.” The state’s highest court found that the agreement’s “existence might well have had a bearing upon the jury’s determination.” The Rhode Island court then directed the attorney to disclose to the Indiana court the information that the Washingtons had withheld. He did so but the Indiana courts ignored this new information, despite the conclusion of the Rhode Island Supreme Court that it might well have affected the jury’s verdict. Indeed, what could be more important than the fact—unbeknownst to the jury—that Desiree Washington had millions of dollars riding on whether Mike Tyson was co