Your client has been falsely accused of a robbery committed at 16th & P Streets at 11:00 PM in the City of Crimeville in the State of Patel-Simon. He tells you at first that at no time on the evening of the crime was he within six blocks of that location. You are able to persuade him that he must tell you the truth and that doing so will in no way prejudice him. He then reveals to you that he was at 15th & P streets [one block away from the scene of the crime] at 10:55 PM that evening, but that he was going east, away from the scene of the crime, and by 11:00 PM, he was six blocks away.

At the trial, there are two prosecution witnesses. The first mistakenly, but with some degree of persuasiveness, identifies your client as the criminal. The second prosecution witness is an elderly woman who is somewhat nervous and who wears glasses. She testifies truthfully and accurately that she saw your client at 15th and P streets at 10:55 PM. She has corroborated the erroneous testimony of the first witness and made conviction extremely likely. However, on cross-examination her reliability is thrown into doubt through demonstration that she is easily confused and has poor eyesight.

Your client then insists upon taking the stand in his own defense, not only to deny the erroneous evidence identifying him as the criminal, but also to deny the truthful, but highly damaging, testimony of the corroborating witness who placed him one block away from the intersection five minutes prior to the crime. If he tells the truth and thus verifies the testimony of the corroborating witness, the jury will be more inclined to accept the inaccurate testimony of the principal witness, who specifically identified him as the criminal.

What should you do? Identify and interpret applicable rules from the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and any other relevant law from this course. Use cases, comments to the Rules, policy positions, and ethical considerations to support your interpretation.