# Innocent man stays in jail for 26 years because of client/attorney privilege



## Ceicei (Jan 24, 2008)

This article came out recently on Monday, Jan. 21st.  

A killer who confessed (to pulling the trigger) during a meeting with his attorneys and made this confession in writing with the stipulation it not be released until after he died. For 26 years, a man accused sat in jail for a crime he didn't commit.  The killer died November 2007.

Internet article

Here is a video clip from CNN that came out yesterday about this issue.

What do you think?


----------



## terryl965 (Jan 24, 2008)

Government Blah, this is why we never know what the truth is anymore, anywhere there are so many stupid rules out there.


----------



## thardey (Jan 24, 2008)

It's terrible, and unfortunate, but isn't that one of the risks we take with the 5th Amendment?


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 24, 2008)

Is it any wonder why I hate attorneys?? 
Lets lock THEM up for a crime they didn't commit and then come back 20 years later saying the guy who confessed to YOUR crime finally died so now we can let you go.
The perception of the 5th is skewed here. They KNEW a man was innocent and they KNEW that they had proof of it. Going to a judge and letting the judge know that could've set this innocent man free. 
Oh and it "tore them apart for 20 years..." sitting on this information. GIMME a friggin break here! 
Their client committed a crime and they knew it. They KNEW the truth and sat on it. 

Any wonder why I hate attorneys?? :rpo:


----------



## rutherford (Jan 24, 2008)

I think the only good thing about our justice system is that it's better than anything we've come up with before now.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 24, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Going to a judge and letting the judge know that could've set this innocent man free.



This attorney had a binding obligation not to.  It would have been a gross violation of the ethical rules he agreed to abide by when he began practicing his profession.

That said, I probably would have anyways in his case, even though it would mean the end of my career.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 24, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> This attorney had a binding obligation not to.  It would have been a gross violation of the ethical rules he agreed to abide by when he began practicing his profession.
> 
> That said, I probably would have anyways in his case, even though it would mean the end of my career.


The attorneys chose to follow the ethics rules rather than right and wrong, that is sad.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 24, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> This attorney had a binding obligation not to. It would have been a gross violation of the ethical rules he agreed to abide by when he began practicing his profession.
> 
> That said, I probably would have anyways in his case, even though it would mean the end of my career.


 


Big Don said:


> The attorneys chose to follow the ethics rules rather than right and wrong, that is sad.


 
I think the attorney could have and should have found a solution that would at least have exonerated or cleared the innocent man.  I can't see how, as an officer of the court in possession of certain knowledge that an innocent man was convicted, he could have stood by and done nothing.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 24, 2008)

Big Don said:


> The attorneys chose to follow the ethics rules rather than right and wrong, that is sad.



They're sort of supposed to be the same thing.  That is what makes such a choice a dilemma.  Either way, he is committing a wrong.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 24, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> > Originally Posted by *Empty Hands *
> > This attorney had a binding obligation not to. It would have been a gross violation of the ethical rules he agreed to abide by when he began practicing his profession.
> > That said, I probably would have anyways in his case, even though it would mean the end of my career.
> >
> ...


Exactly. That is what's skewed about it the idea that they are bound to keeping secrets even when it's harmful. The video stated that if someone told their attorney I am GOING to kill my wife then the attorney has a moral (legal?) obligation to inform the police. But if they said "I killed my wife last night..." then they have the obligation to keep quiet about it. That is so screwed up! 
True, an attorney's job is to keep someone from going to jail... IF they're innocent! Especially if they have evidence to prove it. For someone obviously guilty (i.e. Bundy, Dahmler, Gacy, McVie) then the attorney, IMO should ensure that the trail is going fairly enough for their client so that things don't get blown out of proportion. But they shouldn't fight to maintain the innocence of an obviously guilty suspect. 
Same with the bull-crap rule of once an attorney begins a trial to defend a client's supposed innocence and they find out somewhere in the middle of it that the client is guilty they still can't back out of the trail. They can try to change the plea but that's about it. 

This story rubs me wrong in so many ways...
I applaud Empty Hands' willingness to sacrifice a potentially ($$$$$) lucrative ($$$$$) career to do the right thing. And probably there ARE the cases of where attorney's have done that, but most probably won't. 
Ironically I think, there should be changes in the system that protect attorney's from breaking confidentiality in cases like these and where obvious irrefutable evidence of guilt is present. 
Whatever it is that they're teaching at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton and all the other law schools... they need to throw this  to their students and ask them of the morality of it all.


----------



## grydth (Jan 24, 2008)

Ceicei, I'd be delighted to be the dissenter on this thread, and take on all comers who are not on my Ignore List, but I cannot access the sources you gave. This is probably a shortcoming of myself (and/or this infernal device). 

If anybody can point to a source(s) I can look at, I'll give you folks a run for your money.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jan 24, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> This attorney had a binding obligation not to. It would have been a gross violation of the ethical rules he agreed to abide by when he began practicing his profession.
> 
> That said, I probably would have anyways in his case, even though it would mean the end of my career.


 
It is my understanding that from an ethical point of view an attorney should disqualify himself or herself from defending someone who *they know to be guilty*.  That appears to be exactly what did not happen here.

Unfortunately, all too many attorneys believe it is their job to stop people going to jail regardless of the actual circumstances.  It looks like all those ethics lectures they attend at university are just wasted time.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 24, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> True, an attorney's job is to keep someone from going to jail... IF they're innocent!...But they shouldn't fight to maintain the innocence of an obviously guilty suspect.



From Associate Justice Byron White in _United States vs. Wade_: "But defense counsel has no comparable obligation to ascertain or present the truth. If he can confuse a witness, even a truthful one, or make him appear at a disadvantage, unsure or indecisive, that will be his normal course. More often than not, defense counsel will cross-examine a prosecution witness, and impeach him if he can, even if he thinks the witness is telling the truth, just as he will attempt to destroy a witness who he thinks is lying. As part of the duty imposed on the most honorable defense counsel, we countenance or require conduct which in many instances has little, if any, relation to the search for truth."


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 24, 2008)

Steel Tiger said:


> It is my understanding that from an ethical point of view an attorney should disqualify himself or herself from defending someone who *they know to be guilty*.  That appears to be exactly what did not happen here.
> 
> Unfortunately, all too many attorneys believe it is their job to stop people going to jail regardless of the actual circumstances.  It looks like all those ethics lectures they attend at university are just wasted time.



See my post above.  Defendants are entitled to a vigorous defense even when (especially?) their guilt is known.  Those ethics courses teach just this.


----------



## grydth (Jan 24, 2008)

Steel Tiger said:


> It is my understanding that from an ethical point of view an attorney should disqualify himself or herself from defending someone who *they know to be guilty*.  That appears to be exactly what did not happen here.
> 
> Unfortunately, all too many attorneys believe it is their job to stop people going to jail regardless of the actual circumstances.  It looks like all those ethics lectures they attend at university are just wasted time.



This general point on attorney disqualification I can address without accessing the case sources. This is absolutely *not* the case in the USA. Even the guilty are entitled to an aggressive defense.

Let's suppose A shoots B....... but the police plant evidence at the scene and then beat the confession out of A. Can the attorney move to suppress both the doctored evidence and the illegally obtained confession? Absolutely, even if this results in A going free.

This doesn't mean the lawyer can present false evidence of her own or doctor evidence himself to prevent a conviction or jail sentence.

Even if basic guilt cannot be contested, the lawyer can raise evidence to show either a lesser criminal offense or that sentencing should be lenient.

ST, I do understand the laws in Australia differ from ours, so nothing personal here.


----------



## Ceicei (Jan 24, 2008)

Some thoughts going around in lawyer circles that I'd share with you...

1)  If client/attorney privilege cannot be assured to be confidential, the killer probably would never make this confession.  In this situation, the assured innocence of Alton Logan may never be known.

2)  Had the privilege been violated by his lawyers, the confession would not be admissible in court.  A mistrial may be declared and these lawyers would probably be suspended or disbarred.  Without the ability to use the confession as evidence, the prosecution and defense will be forced to look closer at other evidence they had available.  A second trial may not necessarily exonerate Alton Logan as witnesses at the time had (erroneously) placed him at the crime scene.  The strongest evidence they had available was Wilson's prints on the murder weapon.  My guess is the prosecutors thought the witnesses were more reliable than the evidence of someone else's prints.  If there had been a second trial, Alton might have a better chance of being released were other evidence then examined closely.

Personally, I'd wish that #2 did happen as it would, as far as innocence is concerned, be the better "moral action" (in my opinion) to do.  The lawyers did what they were bound to do--abide by their ethical requirements (much as I despite their decision to do so in this particular case).

- Ceicei


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 24, 2008)

grydth said:


> Ceicei, I'd be delighted to be the dissenter on this thread, and take on all comers who are not on my Ignore List, but I cannot access the sources you gave. This is probably a shortcoming of myself (and/or this infernal device).
> 
> If anybody can point to a source(s) I can look at, I'll give you folks a run for your money.


http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidenceprof/2008/01/in-1982-now-54.html may work better.

With regard to the issue of aggressive defense...

Believe it or not -- I actually agree!  I don't hold it against -- and actually respect several defense attorneys -- the counsel for defending their client.  I want them to defend their client to the best of their abillity, because one of my greatest fears is sending an innocent person to jail.

But I do think that this attorney should have found some way to get the guy he KNEW was innocent out, too.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jan 24, 2008)

grydth said:


> This general point on attorney disqualification I can address without accessing the case sources. This is absolutely *not* the case in the USA. Even the guilty are entitled to an aggressive defense.
> 
> Even if basic guilt cannot be contested, the lawyer can raise evidence to show either a lesser criminal offense or that sentencing should be lenient.


 
OK, I'm getting my head around this a bit better now (remember my training is archaeology which is a little bit different).  So what about a situation in which an attorney knows his client is guilty but the client insists on pleading innocent?  Just a curious query.




grydth said:


> ST, I do understand the laws in Australia differ from ours, so nothing personal here.


 
No problem.  Its good to get information about other places and their ways.  I suspect the situation is probably the same here.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 24, 2008)

It is pretty sad that society has gotten to the point where a murderer's lawyers are applauded for their ethics for helping him hide his crime.


----------



## Marginal (Jan 24, 2008)

Big Don said:


> It is pretty sad that society has gotten to the point where a murderer's lawyers are applauded for their ethics for helping him hide his crime.


Dr. Phil's the alternative.


----------



## grydth (Jan 24, 2008)

Big Don said:


> It is pretty sad that society has gotten to the point where a murderer's lawyers are applauded for their ethics for helping him hide his crime.



Quite candidly, nobody is "applauding" anything. This isn't a question of popularity or entertainment - indeed, I expect the usual neg reps from those who won't debate, or often even sign their name.

This is solely a question of legal right and wrong... and that question is much more complex than has yet been explored.

Had the lawyers in fact taken affirmative steps to assist a client in hiding evidence of guilt, as you allege, they would face disbarrment and even criminal prosecution. What these lawyers did was kept a confidence within the attorney-client privilege.... a far, far different matter.

What would be sad in society is if only one point of view were allowed or offered - and it was a flawed one.


----------



## grydth (Jan 24, 2008)

Steel Tiger said:


> OK, I'm getting my head around this a bit better now (remember my training is archaeology which is a little bit different).  So what about a situation in which an attorney knows his client is guilty but the client insists on pleading innocent?  Just a curious query.
> 
> 
> No problem.  Its good to get information about other places and their ways.  I suspect the situation is probably the same here.




Good and fair question..... As a defense attorney, you do have the right to "put the government to its proof" for even a guilty client. The client can plead innocent. You can attack the admissibility of evidence, you can assert the government has failed to legally prove guilt. 

What you cannot do is put in evidence or testimony that you know is false. This last point was a huge topic of debate in the early 1980's, finally being resolved as I stated. Contrary to a prior post, one cannot actively assist a client in hiding guilt - that makes the attorney criminally liable in potentially a variety of ways.

< Off topic - our oldest wants to visit Australia for a fossil dig - he's a paleontology/geology major>


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 24, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> From Associate Justice Byron White in _United States vs. Wade_: "But defense counsel has no comparable obligation to ascertain or present the truth. If he can confuse a witness, even a truthful one, or make him appear at a disadvantage, unsure or indecisive, that will be his normal course. More often than not, defense counsel will cross-examine a prosecution witness, and impeach him if he can, even if he thinks the witness is telling the truth, just as he will attempt to destroy a witness who he thinks is lying. As part of the duty imposed on the most honorable defense counsel, we countenance or require conduct which in many instances has little, if any, relation to the search for truth."


 
For Justice White:

artyon:


----------



## grydth (Jan 24, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidenceprof/2008/01/in-1982-now-54.html may work better.
> 
> With regard to the issue of aggressive defense...
> 
> ...



Genuine thank you for that cite, which led me to another article in the Chicagoist. This is much more complex than I had expected, and there are some key things I did not see addressed.

How did Mr Wilson's lawyers even come to be talking with Mr Hope? Didn't he have an attorney? Did that lawyer know about what Hope was saying to Wilson's counsel? If so, what action did that lawyer take?

I would note There were people I did not go after when I was a military prosecutor because I was not convinced on their guilt - you're right, you don't want to send an innocent guy up the river.

The only viable avenue that I could think of, in the "some way" category, would be to approach the DA with a general assertion that, " a man was wrongfully imprisoned. Give my guy, client X, complete immunity and we can work with this."


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 24, 2008)

There is a saying in our system of justice ... something about 'Better that 10 guilty men go free, than 1 innocent man go to jail'.  It is a premise upon which our system is built. 

There are many who participate here that show not one shred of mercy. And they seem to be outraged the system worked as it is designed. There was a comment here recently about how we should kill a man who was arrested fifty times; no comment about the trials in that discussion. Just the fact he was arrested many times was sufficient for one of us to call for his execution. And to prove the point that our system is broken. 

This is the system we have. 

And the mistakes made in this particular instance are grevious. But, the whole of this situation can not be laid at the feet of the actual criminal's attorney. What of the jury that convicted the innocent man? What of the prosecutors who prosecuted the innocent man? What of the innocent man's defense attorney's? What of the appeals systems?  Apparently, none of those safety mechanisms caught the error, either. 

I find it interesting that those who cry for extreme and severe jurisprudence are, in this instance, wringing their hands.


----------



## grydth (Jan 24, 2008)

Ceicei said:


> Some thoughts going around in lawyer circles that I'd share with you...
> 
> 1)  If client/attorney privilege cannot be assured to be confidential, the killer probably would never make this confession.  In this situation, the assured innocence of Alton Logan may never be known.
> 
> ...



These are some of my most serious concerns as well. 

Our society recognizes certain privileges.... between spouses, priest/penitent, patient/physician, attorney/client....... those serve essential societal interests. In a society where privacy and confidentiality are definitely endangered species, are we willing to pay the personal and societal costs of eliminating these?

Even had the lawyers violated the confidence, the privilege belongs to the clients. A violation by the lawyers would very likely not resulted in an admissable statement anyway. So what good would destroying attorney/client privilege have done?   Now, ask what damage could be done...


----------



## grydth (Jan 24, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Is it any wonder why I hate attorneys??
> Lets lock THEM up for a crime they didn't commit and then come back 20 years later saying the guy who confessed to YOUR crime finally died so now we can let you go.
> The perception of the 5th is skewed here. They KNEW a man was innocent and they KNEW that they had proof of it. Going to a judge and letting the judge know that could've set this innocent man free.
> Oh and it "tore them apart for 20 years..." sitting on this information. GIMME a friggin break here!
> ...



Okay, at the outset, I cannot do anything about you hating me, except to wish you good fortune with that hate. I suspect you will find, as many unfortunates have, that after awhile you do not have the hate. Rather, it possesses you.

Like it or not, believe it or not, lawyers must abide by rules. So does most everyone else. The rule here is clear and longstanding, this is not the first time such a case has arisen. There is indeed no "skewed perception" in play here. 

If you have an issue with the law, then work to change it... but beware of the Pandora's box you will open in eliminating such privileges in a society where privacy is already under assault on so many fronts.

I must candidly say that the course you espouse, that the lawyers should have violated the confidence, to me is itself ethically questionable.

No one is forced to become a lawyer; those that do know the rules from Day #1. Anyone can walk out and take up a different trade. Once admitted, no lawyer need accept a client - and many refuse individual cases or types of cases. But to voluntarily join the profession, voluntarily take Wilson's case, voluntarily elicit and transcribe his confession under the false pretense of confidentiality.... that conduct I find despicable, duplicitous, unprofessional and societally damaging in and of itself. Nobody who would act in that fashion has any business criticizing these men.

Methinks the cure of hate and duplicity worse than the illness.


----------



## grydth (Jan 24, 2008)

Ceicei said:


> This article came out recently on Monday, Jan. 21st.
> 
> A killer who confessed (to pulling the trigger) during a meeting with his attorneys and made this confession in writing with the stipulation it not be released until after he died. For 26 years, a man accused sat in jail for a crime he didn't commit.  The killer died November 2007.
> 
> ...



See, I think it is phrased wrong at the outset. Attorney/client privilege did not put Logan in jail. Alton Logan was sent to jail after being  convicted of a major felony in a court of law. Now, there MAY have been misconduct here - if one can trust reports, the police and DA's office MAY have tunnel visioned this case, focusing only on Hope and Logan when there was evidence pointing to others. We don't know what Hope told his own lawyer, and when....... and what evidence was made available to Logan's lawyer at trial, and did he competently and aggressively  defend Logan?  Did they contest the case or did they plead guilty? Logan was id'd by witnesses - were they unreliable or dishonest?

There may indeed have been legal malfeasance to Alton Logan's detriment, but it isn't with these 2 lawyers.

Most everyone seems to conclude Wilson's affadavit conclusively proves Logan is innocent. But Wilson *appears* to have been guilty of murdering two police officers.... how reliable and trustworthy is he?


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jan 24, 2008)

grydth said:


> Good and fair question..... As a defense attorney, you do have the right to "put the government to its proof" for even a guilty client. The client can plead innocent. You can attack the admissibility of evidence, you can assert the government has failed to legally prove guilt.
> 
> What you cannot do is put in evidence or testimony that you know is false. This last point was a huge topic of debate in the early 1980's, finally being resolved as I stated. Contrary to a prior post, one cannot actively assist a client in hiding guilt - that makes the attorney criminally liable in potentially a variety of ways.
> 
> < Off topic - our oldest wants to visit Australia for a fossil dig - he's a paleontology/geology major>


 
That's very interesting and it makes me wonder where this situation will eventually lead.  I expect the legal community to be discussing it for quite a while yet.



The paleontology work down here is excellent.  We have a very unusual fossil record from the time of the dinosaurs right throught to the end of the last ice age.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 24, 2008)

Steel Tiger said:


> OK, I'm getting my head around this a bit better now (remember my training is archaeology which is a little bit different). So what about a situation in which an attorney knows his client is guilty but the client insists on pleading innocent? Just a curious query.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


grydth said:


> Good and fair question..... As a defense attorney, you do have the right to "put the government to its proof" for even a guilty client. The client can plead innocent. You can attack the admissibility of evidence, you can assert the government has failed to legally prove guilt.
> 
> What you cannot do is put in evidence or testimony that you know is false. This last point was a huge topic of debate in the early 1980's, finally being resolved as I stated. Contrary to a prior post, one cannot actively assist a client in hiding guilt - that makes the attorney criminally liable in potentially a variety of ways.


 
A few quick addenda to the issues of guilty, not guilty and innocence.

First, regarding pleas, a defendant in the US is generally entitled to one of four primary options regarding how they answer the charges.  They can plead guilty, essentially admitting that they did it.  They can plead no contest, more or less admitting that the evidence is there to convict them -- but they just aren't going to admit their guilt.  (This is often done because of civil ramifications of the guilty plea.)  They can stand mute, which has the same effect as a plea of not guilty.  Pleading not guilty does not mean that the defendant is saying that they are innocent; it's really just saying "Prove it!" to the prosecution.  

Second, regarding verdicts, a verdict of not guilty is not the same as being innocent.  Many people who were "guilty as sin" were found not guilty, for lots of reasons.  I'll stick with an imaginary ideal, and ignore things like jury nullification and/or corruption, for the moment.  A verdict of not guilty simply means that the jury (or judge in a bench trial) didn't find there to be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt.  This could be as simple as disbelieving an eyewitness identification or accepting an alibi that the prosecution felt was disproved.



grydth said:


> Genuine thank you for that cite, which led me to another article in the Chicagoist. This is much more complex than I had expected, and there are some key things I did not see addressed.
> 
> How did Mr Wilson's lawyers even come to be talking with Mr Hope? Didn't he have an attorney? Did that lawyer know about what Hope was saying to Wilson's counsel? If so, what action did that lawyer take?
> 
> ...


 
While I support and understand the reasons behind the various privileges... this case bothers me.  I simply cannot see how the attorneys in question could live with themselves for 20 years knowing that an innocent man was imprisoned.  I don't pretend to know all the facts, nor do I know the rules of the court or the ethics rules for an attorney intimately -- but I have to believe that something could have been done.  Or at least, if I had been in that attorney's shoes, would have had to honestly believe I did all I could to get the investigation re-opened.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 25, 2008)

Is there any other evidence that supports what was said?  The argument could be made by the state that this person "admitting" to it and waiting until his death to release it is just a ploy to set someone free.  There is no way to check facts of his statement or collaborate it since he is dead.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 25, 2008)

Okay I believe everyone has the right to a rigorous defense and applaud attorney's who provide it.  

I also believe the state has a duty to go about things in the right way and I expect them to do so.

Now as to the attorney's who did this.  Well they may have followed the rules but will have to live with the moral consequences for the rest of their life.  They may also have to live with the civil consequences for the rest of their life and this is turn may also affect their children's lives.  Legally and ethically within their job they may have done the right thing but morally they are worse for it *and to be despised* for letting someone rot in prison when they were innocent! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Of course the above is all predicated on the truth of the matter! (what is the truth)


----------



## arnisador (Jan 25, 2008)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Legally and ethically within their job they may have done the right thing but morally they are worse for it *and to be despised* for letting someone rot in prison when they were innocent!



I agree. This is a situation where I think an _ethical_ person would follow the attorneys' ethical code but a _moral_ person would find another way. In the worst of all situations, I believe that a moral attorney would have spoken to the judge despite the risk of his own career; if disbarred, he should have accepted that outcome and found other work rather than remain comfortable while knowing he slept in comfortable while an inncoent man rotted in jail. If there's a law school in America that would have refused to give such a person a job afterwards, _shut it down_. "It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known."

I do understand the bigger policy issues here. If the lawyer broke the attorney/client privilege, the argument goes, _every_ person who went to an attorney for _any_ matter would be more likely to shade the truth and everyone would suffer. Yet all members of professions with such privileges are not only allowed but expected to break confidences in cases of threats to another person, public safety, etc. Seeing a man languish in jail for 20+ years is surely in that categroy. Beyond that, I just believe that if this lawyer set his mind to it he'd have found an elegant solution. That's what lawyers do.



> Of course the above is all predicated on the truth of the matter! (what is the truth)


Yes, a crucial caveat. It's easy to imagine that there was reason to doubt the veracity of the "actual killer" and that there were other complications and grey areas.


----------



## exile (Jan 25, 2008)

arnisador said:


> I do understand the bigger policy issues here. If the lawyer broke the attorney/client privilege, the argument goes, _every_ person who went to an attorney for _any_ matter would be more likely to shade the truth and everyone would suffer. *Yet all members of professions with such privileges are not only allowed but expected to break confidences in cases of threats to another person, public safety, etc. *Seeing a man languish in jail for 20+ years is surely in that categroy. Beyond that, I just believe that if this lawyer set his mind to it he'd have found an elegant solution. That's what lawyers do.



Excellent point, Arni, and here's the reductio that it brings to mind:

What if the 'misconvicted' chap hadn't been able to arrange a deal, and had instead been given the death penalty? Many appeals later, his time has run out. Does lawyer/client priviledge require&#8212;or _entitle_&#8212;the actual killer's lawyer to take the same line that these guys did?

The person on the TV interview linked in the OP pointed out that there is exactly one kind of exemption for this confidential information requirement: when you have reason to believe that your client will commit a crime unless you act. But in the thought-experiment I'm suggesting, that's not the case. So does being an ethical lawyer then allow you to say, sorry, my professional code of ethics means that I have to let an innocent man die? That attorney/client privilege, in light of the question of 'the greater good', looms larger than the life of this man, someone's husband, father, son, friend?

If the answer is, no, it doesn't, then there is a major slippery slope argument that I myself would want to pursue: so if you aren't bound by 'privilege' when the defendent's quick death by lethal injection or whatever is involved, what makes the slow death by life imprisonment, and the dehumanization of life in prison&#8212;_especially because you're innocent and you know it!_&#8212;ethically acceptable? Where do you draw the line? If you are allowed to breach confidentiality when 'punctual' death is threatened, why does the same not hold when 'protracted' death is?

And if the answer is yes&#8212;that even when imminent unjust death threatens the innocent, you are 'ethically' obliged to keep your mouth shut... hell, I really don't want to go there.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 25, 2008)

exile said:


> If the answer is, no, it doesn't, then there is a major slippery slope argument that I myself would want to pursue: so if you aren't bound by 'privilege' when the defendent's quick death by lethal injection or whatever is involved, what makes the slow death by life imprisonment, and the dehumanization of life in prison_especially because you're innocent and you know it!_ethically acceptable? Where do you draw the line? If you are allowed to breach confidentiality when 'punctual' death is threatened, why does the same not hold when 'protracted' death is?
> 
> And if the answer is yesthat even when imminent unjust death threatens the innocent, you are 'ethically' obliged to keep your mouth shut... hell, I really don't want to go there.


That's the thing, ethically would they stick to their guns and keep their mouths shut regardless and afterwards call it a tragic mistake or a tragic miscarriage of justice? It's been said that it's what we do that defines who we are.


----------



## thardey (Jan 25, 2008)

I haven't watched the video or whatnot, but I'm guessing that the guilty guy had a defense attorney, the innocent guy had a defense attorney, and there was at least one prosecuting attorney.

The defense attorney for the guilty guy was "bound" by the privilege of his client to defend. But, could the defense attorney not provide some kind of help the other defense attorney to help keep the innocent man out of jail, even if it did not mean the conviction of his client?

Yes, the guilty guy got clean away with it, that's sad, but I agree with michaeledward that that's a part of our system, deal with it or change it. We can't pick and choose which of the Bill of Rights we want to accept whether the 2nd or the 5th, slippery slopes included. The attorney/client privilege is there to help protect the 5th.

The really sad part is that an innocent man got his life taken away - but that was a trial all its own. The "poor" defense attorney should have found another way to defend the innocent, if not convict the guilty.


----------



## grydth (Jan 25, 2008)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Okay I believe everyone has the right to a rigorous defense and applaud attorney's who provide it.
> 
> I also believe the state has a duty to go about things in the right way and I expect them to do so.
> 
> ...



Some points.... you are free to despise whomever you wish. But before you do - what would you have done? 

What adverse societal consequences do you see in eliminating the privileges I set forth?

On the caveat about "the truth of the matter" : Why do some here assume that Logan is innocent, even with Wilson's statement?  Wilson appears to be a double cop killer. Candidly, I am concerned that there are a lot of facts we do not have... such as what were the criminal connections between these four men? Wilson is the cop killer, but has the murder weapon from the security guard killing - - - how'd that happen?  I'm not ready to assume Logan is innocent - and the appellate courts may not be, either.


----------



## diamondbar1971 (Jan 25, 2008)

Everyone does have a right to the best defense possible, regardless if innocent or guilty, but not at the expense of another.  That is a contradiction of ethics, a fair trial, due process, not to mention common sense, and its ridiculous guidelines like this that just destroys our legal system.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 25, 2008)

grydth said:


> Some points.... you are free to despise whomever you wish. But before you do - what would you have done?
> 
> What adverse societal consequences do you see in eliminating the privileges I set forth?
> 
> On the caveat about "the truth of the matter" : Why do some here assume that Logan is innocent, even with Wilson's statement? Wilson appears to be a double cop killer. Candidly, I am concerned that there are a lot of facts we do not have... such as what were the criminal connections between these four men? Wilson is the cop killer, but has the murder weapon from the security guard killing - - - how'd that happen? I'm not ready to assume Logan is innocent - and the appellate courts may not be, either.


 
I would have done alot more than these individuals nor would I have allowed somone to rot in jail for a crime they did not commit. 

Though I will give you this in that I do not feel that we have all the details here regarding the situation particularly behind the scene, nor everything that is involved and hence why I wrote before:  Of course the above is all predicated on the truth of the matter! (what is the truth)  In other words I am not assuming anything.  

However you are right on one thing: I can despise whoever I wish! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




As to the particular's of this case well I am sure things will eventually work there way out and it will be interested to see what happens.  I imagine the lawyer's that withheld this information will be in trouble possibly legally but most assuredly civillaly.  That of course is all to be worked out in due time.  By the way the prosecutor's that I know all want to do what is right and the lawyer's that I know are similar and several have turned away cases where they thought their ethics and morals would be compromised.  I respect them all for what they do!


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 25, 2008)

grydth said:


> Some points.... you are free to despise whomever you wish. But before you do - what would you have done?
> 
> What adverse societal consequences do you see in eliminating the privileges I set forth?
> 
> On the caveat about "the truth of the matter" : Why do some here assume that Logan is innocent, even with Wilson's statement?  Wilson appears to be a double cop killer. Candidly, I am concerned that there are a lot of facts we do not have... such as what were the criminal connections between these four men? Wilson is the cop killer, but has the murder weapon from the security guard killing - - - how'd that happen?  I'm not ready to assume Logan is innocent - and the appellate courts may not be, either.


I agree; the facts as given in the press (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-secretjan19,0,4387223.story) and the blog that started the thread don't prove that Logan is innocent.

But they do raise a serious doubt.  Apparently, the key evidence against Logan was eyewitness testimony; nothing in the article seems to tie him to the guns.  The second defendant in the Mcdonald's robbery appears to have made statements that Logan was innocent, as well.  I'd like to see pictures of Logan and Wilson from 1982; I'd like to see how closely they resemble each other.  Eyewitnesses aren't always all they're made out to be -- especially if there's some resemblance between the suspects.

The issue of the attorney/client privilige is a lot more complicated.  I understand the need and importance of the privilege; as much as I'd love to have the records of the attorney in a case, for example, it'd be far from fair for the defendant to be unable to talk to his attorney without having the discussion subject to prosecution discovery.  I think I would be much less disturbed by this if I saw good evidence that Wilson's two attorneys tried to get the prosecution to look into the case more, or tried over the intervening years to get Wilson to come forward.  In a loose comparison, I've been told by Catholic priests that if someone confessed to a murder under the seal of the confessional, they wouldn't bring the information forward -- but they would try to make the confessing person do so as a part of the penance imposed, and would work to urge that person to do so.  I think that may be a reasonable compromise for the (I hope!) rare situation like this; the attorney/priest/therapist/etc. can't sacrifice their promise, or their career, but they can do all they can to get the person to come forward themselves.


----------



## grydth (Jan 25, 2008)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I would have done alot more than these individuals nor would I have allowed somone to rot in jail for a crime they did not commit.
> 
> Though I will give you this in that I do not feel that we have all the details here regarding the situation particularly behind the scene, nor everything that is involved and hence why I wrote before:  Of course the above is all predicated on the truth of the matter! (what is the truth)  In other words I am not assuming anything.
> 
> ...



Brian, I respect you highly, but you dodged my question. I asked what you would have done were you in the lawyers' position. Simply saying "a lot more" tells us nothing. What specific actions would you have taken? As I also asked, what do you feel the implications would have been?

You contend the lawyers will be in trouble, "most assuredly civilly". I think most assuredly they will not be. They were following a legally mandated course of action on behalf of their client, who was Mr Wilson. Under what theory do you contend that they can be successfully sued?


----------



## grydth (Jan 25, 2008)

diamondbar1971 said:


> Everyone does have a right to the best defense possible, regardless if innocent or guilty, but not at the expense of another.  That is a contradiction of ethics, a fair trial, due process, not to mention common sense, and its ridiculous guidelines like this that just destroys our legal system.



While respecting your martial arts accomplishments, I think you're dead wrong on this. 

How exactly do we get "due process" when lawyers are expected to violate the law and reveal client's confidences?  

Every criminal verdict may clearly be said to be at somebody's "expense"..... the accused if he's convicted and jailed, society and the victim if he is acquitted and freed. How does introducing this further the debate?

Many scholars feel that by maintaining the privileges we have, of which attorney/client is but one, we are guaranteeing fairness and due process.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Jan 25, 2008)

Kinda makes you wonder how many "national security" situations are actually just protecting big wigs with government contracts or significant economic interests...


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 25, 2008)

grydth said:


> Brian, I respect you highly, but you dodged my question. I asked what you would have done were you in the lawyers' position. Simply saying "a lot more" tells us nothing. What specific actions would you have taken? As I also asked, what do you feel the implications would have been?
> 
> You contend the lawyers will be in trouble, "most assuredly civilly". I think most assuredly they will not be. They were following a legally mandated course of action on behalf of their client, who was Mr Wilson. Under what theory do you contend that they can be successfully sued?


 
*Respect is mutual I assure you, Grydth!*

Well I did not intend to dodge. (at least no more than a lawyer would :rofl However I have been in a couple of situations if not like this particular one but still where I had a difficult choice to make. I made the choice to do the right thing. In this case I am confident that I would make the right choice *based on the information at hand*. There is I am sure information that we are not privy to that could possibly change everything. Still having said that I would do everything in my power to insure that an innocent man did not go to jail. That would certainly include up to leaving my position in that field if necessary, disbarment, etc. (as you can see a defense lawyer I would not make) Anyway's *we are in theory here* as I have never been in this situation nor will I be as I won't be a practicing defense lawyer. (though I have all the respect in the world for people who do this if done ethically and morally) Prosecutor, well maybe (would not totatlly rule it out) but probably not as I am at this time not interested in pursuing a career in this field and I am a little older now. (though I once was very interested) 

As to the lawyer's yes they were following a defined action in their field. Still that action had consequences that deprived someone to time, career, etc. Nor is that actioned defined as a golden rule or prevents a lawyer from being sued for it or the consequences. (though it certainly would be difficult but I am sure a good lawyer might give it a shot and potentially succeed) If so they are responsible for their actions. If their actions dictated that a man was placed in jail for twenty some years and they knew this. Then I have a feeling that there will be a lawsuit. Whether they will be found responsible is a whole different issue. However their karma is pretty bad and I would not want to be anywhere near them.

Bottom line some times doing the right thing is very, very hard. This has been proven to myself on several occasions. In this particular incident based on what we know the lawyer's in question decided to *play it safe* and in so doing they ruined someone else's life. That is well just terrible. 

Having said all this I understand that someone has to have a good vigorous defense and everything that this entails. Sometimes in our legal system things do not always work the best. Having said that in the grand scheme of things it is a good system with many checks and balances along the way. Still quite a few innocent people have been incarcerated somaybe there are some major flaws.

As to your point that the individual incarcerated was done so at the foot of the prosecutors and because of their attorney's defense. Well it is hard to argue with that. Still it does not mitigate these two defense attorney's inaction or lack of action. Morally they failed! Some essence of humanity was not there.

Now on another note, what would you do? Would you sit to the side and let someone go innocently to prison? Would you ruin not just their life but everyone around them? You see simply I would not. Nope, nada, no job is worth that. Other work is always out there. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




On a different note: If you had a police officer who knew someone was innocent but just let that person go to prison what would you think of that? Different field but same consequence with an innocent person going to prison. That would stink in my book too.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 25, 2008)

Seriously though we are talking in theory as the situation in this case needs to work it's way through the system.  

*As to Lawyer's of all kinds whether defense, prosecutor's, civilian, corporate.  I think you all do a hard job and respect you for your work.*  Yes I have good friends that work on all sides and a few judges that are a blast to talk to when we get together. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I am also pragmatic enough to know that no system is perfect and that things do happen both good and bad.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 25, 2008)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Bottom line some times doing the right thing is very, very hard. This has been proven to myself on several occasions. In this particular incident based on what we know the lawyer's in question decided to *play it safe* and in so doing they ruined someone else's life. That is well just terrible.


 
That's not really what they did.  What they did was in keeping with the ethical tenets of their profession.  It wasn't safe, and it apparently wasn't easy for them (they did report that they suffered anguish over the years).  I think this might be more in line with a police officer being given an order to do something that they personally are against, but which is legal, like provide security at a KKK rally.  The ethical code of their profession says that they cannot violate confidentiality.  I think, were I in their shoes, I'd have been contacting every professor or expert in legal ethics I could for guidance.  



> Having said all this I understand that someone has to have a good vigorous defense and everything that this entails. Sometimes in our legal system things do not always work the best. Having said that in the grand scheme of things it is a good system with many checks and balances along the way. Still quite a few innocent people have been incarcerated somaybe there are some major flaws.
> 
> As to your point that the individual incarcerated was done so at the foot of the prosecutors and because of their attorney's defense. Well it is hard to argue with that. Still it does not mitigate these two defense attorney's inaction or lack of action. Morally they failed! Some essence of humanity was not there.


 
I agree that these two attorneys are not directly to blame for the failure of Logan's defense.  Neither is the blame to be laid at the feet of the prosecution or police -- at least not without more information.  I worked a silly graffiti case where the "artists" signed their names.  Several confessed immediately.  One denied involvement, but admitted that the writing looked like theirs, and their name was spelled correctly... but their body language said they were likely being untruthful.  And they had a reputation for dishonesty.  On reinterview, they confessed -- and all the body language and behavior was consistent with a "true" confession!  Only because I tried to corroborate the story, and found holes -- and someone else came forward and confessed -- were they not charged.  Who would have been at fault?  The evidence matched, the timing matched... all that didn't match were parts of the confession, and only because I tried to corroborate it.  Had that person been convicted -- would I have been at fault?  Would the prosecutor?  



> n a different note: If you had a police officer who knew someone was innocent but just let that person go to prison what would you think of that? Different field but same consequence with an innocent person going to prison. That would stink in my book too.


 
I personally have, in more than one case, chosen not to bring a case for prosecution when I uncovered evidence that cast confessions into doubt.  

But, I think a different question is more in keeping here...  The prosecution and police are required to disclose any exculpatory evidence they find.  Even if the guilt is clear despite that evidence, failing to do so can overturn a case on appeal.  Obviously, a defendant generally is happy to disclose evidence that makes him look innocent; equally clearly, there is no requirement on one defendant to disclose exculpatory evidence about another defendant...  But should there be some sort of duty?

This is a tough question; as I've said, the defendant needs to feel free to discuss matters with their attorney -- but, in this case, something apparently went pretty wrong, and a man who it appears may well be innocent has done more than 20 years.  I can't see an easy or quick answer...  which is one reason that I'm not judging the attorneys without knowing what efforts they made, within the bounds of the law and of the ethical code, to bring that information forward earlier.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 25, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> That's not really what they did. What they did was in keeping with the ethical tenets of their profession. It wasn't safe, and it apparently wasn't easy for them (they did report that they suffered anguish over the years). I think this might be more in line with a police officer being given an order to do something that they personally are against, but which is legal, like provide security at a KKK rally. The ethical code of their profession says that they cannot violate confidentiality. I think, were I in their shoes, I'd have been contacting every professor or expert in legal ethics I could for guidance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I am with you jks9199 that there is no easy, quick answer but maybe we need to explore the possibilities.  Doctor's, Priest's, etc. generally have an out when imminent danger to someone is coming. ie. someone tells them they are going to kill someone, etc. (this has developed over time)  Should a lawyer that knows someone is innocent be required to hand over evidence when imminent harm is approaching someone? (imminent harm could be implied to several things) I do not know but I believe this needs to be looked at more.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 25, 2008)

Am beginning to wonder if the innocent man has grounds for a civil suit against the attorneys. He lost 26 years of his life because of this crap. The attorneys said they agonized over it for so long. Agonized? Hmm... does that mean to say that they did not have ONE enjoyable day in their lives for the last 26 years? That they didn't enjoy watching their children grow up, loving their wives, having some laughs with the guys after work, watching the game on tv on a sunday afternoon, going on vacations, watching a great movie, and so on? That the attorneys didn't enjoy any of that because of the knowledge that a innocent man is sitting in prison because of a confidentiality they had to withhold simply on the basis of ethics? 
How do you give a man back 26 years?


----------



## arnisador (Jan 25, 2008)

They're protected; they followed their code of ethics and the law. They did their job in protecting their client. 

I certainly see *jks9199*'s viewpoint, and ordinarily would whole-heartedly support it. Somehow here everyone made the "right" decisions and the wrong thing still happened. Sometimes that can't be prevented, and I suppose hard cases like this make for bad law. But assuming all is as described in the story for purposes of discussion, I think the real question is this: Given that the lawyers did what was _ethical_, did they also do what was _right_?

If they believed their client, I think they could have found a way. I don't see this as a case of a greater good being served--the needs of the many vs. the needs of the one. They needed to speak up, even if it meant bagging groceries for the rest of their lives. A theoretical argument about attorney-client privilege is unconvincing here, for me.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 25, 2008)

arnisador said:


> They're protected; they followed their code of ethics and the law. They did their job in protecting their client.
> 
> I certainly see *jks9199*'s viewpoint, and ordinarily would whole-heartedly support it. Somehow here everyone made the "right" decisions and the wrong thing still happened. Sometimes that can't be prevented, and I suppose hard cases like this make for bad law. But assuming all is as described in the story for purposes of discussion, I think the real question is this: Given that the lawyers did what was _ethical_, did they also do what was _right_?
> 
> If they believed their client, I think they could have found a way. I don't see this as a case of a greater good being served--the needs of the many vs. the needs of the one. They needed to speak up, even if it meant bagging groceries for the rest of their lives. A theoretical argument about attorney-client privilege is unconvincing here, for me.


Well as the lady in the video stated no attorney in their right mind is going to sacrifice their practice. So apparently one man's life isn't worth the right thing to do. 

Any wonder why I hate lawyers?


----------



## exile (Jan 25, 2008)

I don't want to be a pain in the ***, I really don't. But to my way of thinking, the key to this whole issue lies in the question I posed earlier, that no one who has supported the 'legal-ethics' position of the attorneys in the story has addressed. It's very simple.

According to what we've been told, the sole basis for breaching attorney/client confidentiality is the prevention of an imminent future crime that would be expedited by preserving that confidentiality. And that extenuation does not come into this very plausible possibility I'm bringing up, one that might well have happened:

If the convicted, but innocent man in this story had instead been sentenced to death, and the only way of preventing the execution, after all appeals had been exhausted, was for the defense attorneys for the apparently guilty party to make their own client's confession public, _*would they be justified IN LAW&#8212;by the legal 'ethics' they invoked in the actual situation&#8212;to let the man they had reason to believe to be innocent die at the hand of the State, in case their own client hadn't predeceased the convicted man's execution?*_ The prevention of a future crime would not have entered into it, and there would therefore be no professionally 'ethical' basis in the lawyers' breaching their privileged knowledge in such a case (but bear in mind, the basis for trying to prevent a future crime would be to protect society from violence against the legally innocent. And have no doubt, I'm going to hammer this point hard if the answer to my question is what I suspect, and fear, it will be). The sole difference in what actually happened and what I'm asking you all to consider would be only in the severity of the penalty to which the convicted/innocent man was subject.

I want to know what the opinion of the lawyers, and of others participating in this discussion with insights into legal reasoning, is. Would the defense lawyers for the convicted killers' remaining silent while this other man was put to death be regarded as the right thing to do by the legal profession? Surely not a complex question, eh? Would this have been the professionally ethical thing to do? Will someone _please_ address this point?


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 26, 2008)

exile said:


> I don't want to be a pain in the ***, I really don't. But to my way of thinking, the key to this whole issue lies in the question I posed earlier, that no one who has supported the 'legal-ethics' position of the attorneys in the story has addressed. It's very simple.
> 
> According to what we've been told, the sole basis for breaching attorney/client confidentiality is the prevention of an imminent future crime that would be expedited by preserving that confidentiality. And that extenuation does not come into this very plausible possibility I'm bringing up, one that might well have happened:
> 
> ...



The only straight answer I think you can get for that question (and it is a legitimate one and a very good one at that :asian would be from the attorneys who were holding that information which would spare the innocent from a wrongful death by execution. Would THEY as individuals go past their lawyer ethics to prevent this particular thing from happening? Who knows? We would like to think they would and make appeals to the Bar Association to make an exception in their case in that the breech of confidentiality would in fact save an (innocent) man's life. 
But reality. Would they? My gut says probably not and maybe it's because I'm biased, or *maybe* it's because dammit it could just as well happen to me or anyone that I know/care about, and that it has happened.
Because if they wouldn't risk their careers to free a man who is considered dead anyway spending life in prison (instead of getting capital punishment), so why risk their careers for someone who would die sooner?  Again, I say, if they were so torn apart by the morality of their ethical delimma then why didn't they try harder and if they did wouldn't their efforts extend further past a notarized note locked away in a safe deposit box for 25+ years?? C'mon. Please. Tell me that they tried harder than _that_.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 26, 2008)

Exile I personally feel that someone who is innocent being locked away in prison falls into that imminent harm position.  I think the lawyer's in this case did not live up to moral standard nor did they try very hard if all they did was lock it away in a safety deposit box.  Your question is simple in my mind in that in a case where imminent harm is coming to someone a doctor, priest, etc. has an out.  Why not a Lawyer and in this case a sentence of life in prison should be considered imminent harm in my opinion?


----------



## exile (Jan 26, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> The only straight answer I think you can get for that question (and it is a legitimate one and a very good one at that :asian would be from the attorneys who were holding that information which would spare the innocent from a wrongful death by execution. Would THEY as individuals go past their lawyer ethics to prevent this particular thing from happening? Who knows? *We would like to think they would and make appeals to the Bar Association to make an exception in their case in that the breech of confidentiality would in fact save an (innocent) man's life. *
> But reality. Would they? My gut says probably not and maybe it's because I'm biased, or *maybe* it's because dammit it could just as well happen to me or anyone that I know/care about, and that it has happened.
> Because if they wouldn't risk their careers to free a man who is considered dead anyway spending life in prison (instead of getting capital punishment), so why risk their careers for someone who would die sooner?  Again, I say, if they were so torn apart by the morality of their ethical delimma then why didn't they try harder and if they did wouldn't their efforts extend further past a notarized note locked away in a safe deposit box for 25+ years?? C'mon. Please. Tell me that they tried harder than _that_.





Brian R. VanCise said:


> Exile I personally feel that someone who is innocent being locked away in prison falls into that imminent harm position.  I think the lawyer's in this case did not live up to moral standard nor did they try very hard if all they did was lock it away in a safety deposit box.  *Your question is simple in my mind in that in a case where imminent harm is coming to someone a doctor, priest, etc. has an out.*  Why not a Lawyer and in this case a sentence of life in prison should be considered imminent harm in my opinion?



See, this is the take I have on it as well. And if this isn't a valid way of reasoning, then I would _really_ like to know exactly what the logic of the 'ethical' legal position is which would still justify someone with privileged informationinformation strongly suggestive of a defendent's innocence_withholding_ that information while that defendent was executed.


----------



## grydth (Jan 26, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Am beginning to wonder if the innocent man has grounds for a civil suit against the attorneys. He lost 26 years of his life because of this crap. The attorneys said they agonized over it for so long. Agonized? Hmm... does that mean to say that they did not have ONE enjoyable day in their lives for the last 26 years? That they didn't enjoy watching their children grow up, loving their wives, having some laughs with the guys after work, watching the game on tv on a sunday afternoon, going on vacations, watching a great movie, and so on? That the attorneys didn't enjoy any of that because of the knowledge that a innocent man is sitting in prison because of a confidentiality they had to withhold simply on the basis of ethics?
> How do you give a man back 26 years?



This is right where hate leads you.

On Page 1, Post 4, you were repeatedly telling this Forum how you hate lawyers. Now, we get to Page 4 and you're telling us the solution....... is to bring in more lawyers? 

I would enjoy knowing under exactly what theory a civil lawsuit would proceed under. The lawyers you condemn acted according to well established rules and served their client - who was Wilson, not Logan.

Whether or not the lawyers in question agonized, produced children, cheered for sports teams or had lots of sex is completely irrelevant.

One can come up with cases like this for *every* privilege and right that Americans have - - - now think about what society would be without those rights and privileges, and what that would cost everyone.


----------



## buldog (Jan 26, 2008)

Can anyone tell me what recourse, if any, the innocent man has in gaining compensation for 26 yrs of his life?  As already stated, the attourneys are protected by the ethics clause.  Where else can he seek redress?


----------



## grydth (Jan 26, 2008)

buldog said:


> Can anyone tell me what recourse, if any, the innocent man has in gaining compensation for 26 yrs of his life?  As already stated, the attourneys are protected by the ethics clause.  Where else can he seek redress?



As a prior gentleman has noted, it is still too early to be certain that this fellow is in fact innocent, and if he is, whose malfeasance landed him in jail.

In general, defendants frequently target trial lawyers for ineffective assistance of counsel. They try to gain reversal of conviction from an appellate court, and may file professional grievances and civil suits against the lawyer.

In some cases, there can be suits against those who lied or falsified evidence.

I have seen suits against the government by the freed person.


----------



## Ceicei (Jan 26, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> But they do raise a serious doubt.  Apparently, the key evidence against Logan was eyewitness testimony; nothing in the article seems to tie him to the guns.  The second defendant in the Mcdonald's robbery appears to have made statements that Logan was innocent, as well.*  I'd like to see pictures of Logan and Wilson from 1982; I'd like to see how closely they resemble each other.*  Eyewitnesses aren't always all they're made out to be -- especially if there's some *resemblance between the suspects.*



I found an article that shows pictures of Alton Logan, Edgar Hope, and Jackie Wilson (brother of Andrew Wilson).

http://www.crimefilenews.com/2008/01/americas-criminal-justice-system-is-not.html

Below is an article showing a picture of Andrew Wilson.

http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/andrewwilson/

Below is the pdf file of Prison Review Board regarding Edgar Hope that details what the State says what happened (starting on page 3 of 13 page pdf document, section A.) on the day of the security guard shooting:

http://www.statesattorney.org/Edgar Hope.pdf

- Ceicei


----------



## Ceicei (Jan 26, 2008)

buldog said:


> Can anyone tell me what recourse, if any, the innocent man has in gaining compensation for 26 yrs of his life?  As already stated, the attourneys are protected by the ethics clause.  Where else can he seek redress?



I guess now that this information of Wilson's confession is out, I suppose Logan's lawyers are in the process of figuring out what options are available for him.   I think we'll find out more soon within the next few weeks about this case.  I hope this situation doesn't go into oblivion without further action.

- Ceicei


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 26, 2008)

grydth said:


> This is right where hate leads you.
> 
> On Page 1, Post 4, you were repeatedly telling this Forum how you hate lawyers. Now, we get to Page 4 and you're telling us the solution....... is to bring in more lawyers?



Metaphorically I hate lawyers. If I REALLY hated them then I'd be writing this from prison for walking into high rise attorney offices and firebombing them. 
Please don't over blow my own feelings when I say I hate or love or like or dislike something/one. As it's been said on the internet it's VERY difficult to ascertain a person's tone of voice and inflection when they type out something. 
Yes I detest/hate lawyers but also understand that they too have a function in our (societies). So let me redress by saying I hate what Lawyers DO. I'm sure individually they're wonderful people... when they're not practicing law. 
Trying not to be a hypocrite (which I hate more than lawyers actually... if that were possible ) by saying I hate lawyers on one post and then saying we need to bring in more lawyers in another. 
Too late for me to edit: so clarification of what I meant and should've typed in the first place; We need the Bar Association to reassess the confidentiality (issue?) so that if information about a person's innocence can be proven then the confidence can be broken. How they go about protecting the guilty who confessed in confidence is another headache entirely. 

:asian: is that better?


----------



## grydth (Jan 27, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Metaphorically I hate lawyers. If I REALLY hated them then I'd be writing this from prison for walking into high rise attorney offices and firebombing them.
> Please don't over blow my own feelings when I say I hate or love or like or dislike something/one. As it's been said on the internet it's VERY difficult to ascertain a person's tone of voice and inflection when they type out something.
> Yes I detest/hate lawyers but also understand that they too have a function in our (societies). So let me redress by saying I hate what Lawyers DO. I'm sure individually they're wonderful people... when they're not practicing law.
> Trying not to be a hypocrite (which I hate more than lawyers actually... if that were possible ) by saying I hate lawyers on one post and then saying we need to bring in more lawyers in another.
> ...



Honestly, no.

Normally, I would resort to, well, a lawyer's tactic of just letting the quoted post sit and speak for itself. (We call it moving for summary judgment). But you are a Mentir here, you contribute a great deal across the board and you are better than the above post. I am hoping you will learn from this.

Adding generalized emotions never advances a debate and makes you look prejudiced. Starting and ending Post #4 with "I hate" doesn't add anything to the point you want to make. Proceeding to add  in a red flame breathing emoticon makes it difficult to accept that the other guy is "over blowing your feelings"...... Leave the feelings out and you already have a stronger case!

Know what you are criticizing. Here, privileges will not be changed by "the bar association". They run higher than that (upheld by courts) and wider than that (privileges covering other professions). 

Consider the consequences of any change you want.... eliminating confidentiality may free Alton Logan, who nay be inncoent.....now imagine a country where what you tell your lawyer, your clergy, your doctor shows up in government files or on the Internet. How many millions of innocents will suffer irreparably from those broken confidences. Who wants to live in that Amerika?


----------



## Ray (Jan 27, 2008)

This society pays a pretty penny for constitutional rights.  Sometimes the guilty go free because of it; sometimes the innocent are punished because of it.  Never are our rights a free gift without strings attached, never should we forget the effort needed to maintain them.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 27, 2008)

grydth said:


> Know what you are criticizing. Here, privileges will not be changed by "the bar association". They run higher than that (upheld by courts) and wider than that (privileges covering other professions).
> 
> Consider the consequences of any change you want.... eliminating confidentiality may free Alton Logan, who nay be inncoent.....now imagine a country where what you tell your lawyer, your clergy, your doctor shows up in government files or on the Internet. How many millions of innocents will suffer irreparably from those broken confidences. Who wants to live in that Amerika?



This is why I haven't offered an easy, quick solution.  I know there is none.  The necessity of open communication with certain professionals or between spouses requires that those communications be privileged.  A simple example:  I am required to receive a work physical every other year; it's good and reasonably thorough -- but I also get a physical from my regular doctor, too.  Why?  Because there are things I'm not going to tell the doctor who's report may put me on light duty; they're going to check the major stuff themselves -- but that nagging knee injury?  Nope; my regular doc can check that one out.  And that's why the crisis counselors will not do mental fitness for duty evaluations; they need us to be honest with them.

In this particular case, I have problems that the attorneys allowed Logan to spend the 20+ years in jail, while knowing that there was substantial evidence suggesting his innocence.  I don't see an easy solution; that's why I personally would have been contacting someone for guidance.  It's my understanding that each bar association has an ethics panel whose members are respected and are expected to play just that role.  It may be there was no way; I don't know.  I think I'd have, at a bare minimum, been in regular contact with Wilson, urging and begging him to let me release that information.  It may not have worked -- but at least I'd have been trying.  And I'd probably have contacted the prosecutors to urge them to reinvestigate the case because I had privileged information that there's a problem with it.  I may not have been able to say anything more -- but I hope that would at least have led to a closer look.


----------



## exile (Jan 27, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> In this particular case, I have problems that *the attorneys allowed Logan to spend the 20+ years in jail, while knowing that there was substantial evidence suggesting his innocence.*



And once again... what if he had been sentenced to death? With the attorneys for Wilson having excellent reason to believe that an innocent man was facing unfair execution. Exactly how much good do the justice system in this country for that kind of thing to happen&#8212;a whole network of human relationships torn apart because the only people in a position to shed light on a lethal miscarriage of justice are bound by 'ethical' principles which putatively take precedence over the human responsiblity to protect the innocent and do no harm when none is necessary?





jks9199 said:


> I don't see an easy solution; that's why I personally would have been contacting someone for guidance.  It's my understanding that each bar association has an ethics panel whose members are respected and are expected to play just that role.  It may be there was no way; I don't know.  I think I'd have, at a bare minimum, been in regular contact with Wilson, urging and begging him to let me release that information.  It may not have worked -- but at least I'd have been trying.  And I'd probably have contacted the prosecutors to urge them to reinvestigate the case because I had privileged information that there's a problem with it.  I may not have been able to say anything more -- but I hope that would at least have led to a closer look.



Yes. One can hope... but in the end, if Wilson were determined to keep silence, then it was _their _ silence which deprived someone&#8212;who is very likely to turn out to be innocent&#8212;of a third of his life. And the problem is that exactly the same professional code would dictate their silence even if Logan were facing imminent execution.


----------



## Kacey (Jan 27, 2008)

Ray said:


> This society pays a pretty penny for constitutional rights.  Sometimes the guilty go free because of it; sometimes the innocent are punished because of it.  Never are our rights a free gift without strings attached, never should we forget the effort needed to maintain them.



This is, I think, a key point.  Our system is not perfect - I have yet to see a system that is - but the solution is to do _something_; it matters less what you do than that others see you do it, so that they, too, will do something.  Only a widespread level of grass roots support for change will have any impact on those who make the laws.


----------



## grydth (Jan 27, 2008)

I'm not surprised at the venom directed at the two lawyers. What's amazing to me, though, is that this far into the thread there has been surprisingly little condemnation directed at 2 other guys: Hope and Wilson. 

You know, the guys who actually murdered cops, shot guards and brutalized average citizens.

Thanks to Ceicei's support, we have some background and insight into these killers. The inaptly named Hope seemed to think Logan's predicament was funny. 

Wilson, never shy about pulling the trigger on innocent folks, filed a lawsuit alleging he had been brutalized by police. While he hadn't the courage to testify at risk to free Logan, he did show up to testify in his bid to win a big civil judgment for himself. What a guy!

It would seem Hope and the Wilson brothers were variously involved in murdering 3 police officers, trying to kill a fourth; murdering a guard and trying to kill a second all over a heist at Micky D's, and various shootings/beatings and robberies of citizens...... I mention this because I am not convinced that Wilson's statement is definitive evidence of Logan's innocence. I'd believe this killer about as far as I could throw him. But he would not come forward.

So folks, when you're taking shots, just remember to include those who fired the shots. Hope and Wilson could have gone to the DA themselves, any time they wanted. They did not.


----------



## exile (Jan 27, 2008)

grydth said:


> So folks, when you're taking shots, just remember to include those who fired the shots. Hope and Wilson could have gone to the DA themselves, any time they wanted. They did not.



I haven't taken any shots in this thread, I hope (and believe); I've just asked a question, in various forms, which may well have bearing on the way law is practiced and justice is pursued in America.

Hope and Wilson are/were worthless sociopaths, in my opinion, but there is no point in devoting attention to them, because this case isn't about the existence and behavior of worthless sociopaths, who will, I fear, always be with us. What this thread is about is the rest of us, the people who design the justice system in the hope that it will actually _bring justice_. The problem that was created by this case for our conceptions of how the notion of 'legal ethics' and the notion of 'justice' should connect wasn't created by the crime itself, but by the way in which people who are part of overseeing justice in the aftermath of the crime behaved. Yes, they have a professional ethical code of conduct, and it's precisely when this sort of thing arises that the contradictions and potential fallacies built into that code of conduct emerge. Certainly, the logic of the code is tested. How is it shaping up? That's the point of my question: how does the system of legal ethics, designed by well-intentioned people (as I believe) and trying to accomodate all kinds of possibly conflicting 'good' ends, come out in the wash here?

Bringing in the loathsome refuse whose behavior posed this problem may be a comforting distraction, but that's all it is. The real question is, does the 'logic' of the 'legal ethics' code wind up leading to a reductio ad absurdem, where we have to sanction the execution of an innocent man (as per my thought experiment) in order to serve the 'greater good' of an optimum justice system? Hope and Wilson are completely irrelevant to that question, and that's the really important question that needs addressing, IMO.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 27, 2008)

grydth said:


> I'm not surprised at the venom directed at the two lawyers. What's amazing to me, though, is that this far into the thread there has been surprisingly little condemnation directed at 2 other guys: Hope and Wilson.
> 
> You know, the guys who actually murdered cops, shot guards and brutalized average citizens.



This is an excellent point.  

I thought that I saw where Hope said that Logan wasn't involved -- but I'm not certain where at the moment.  

And Logan did accept the plea offer; he definitely played a role in his own defense - or lack thereof.  I can't imagine the circumstances where I'd plead guilty to something I hadn't done.  

Either Wilson or Hope had the opportunity to come forward and declare Logan's innocence anywhere in the 20+ years...  But, given the totality of their actions, I wouldn't expect them to do so.  I have greater expectations of an attorney.  Note, though, that I've consistently tried to make it clear that I am far from certain how or what the attorneys could have done, within the bounds of their ethical obligation to their client.


----------



## Ceicei (Jan 27, 2008)

grydth said:


> I'm not surprised at the venom directed at the two lawyers. What's amazing to me, though, is that this far into the thread there has been surprisingly little condemnation directed at 2 other guys: Hope and Wilson.
> 
> You know, the guys who actually murdered cops, shot guards and brutalized average citizens.


 
The outrage from the citizenry were not toward Hope and Wilson, because they were where they're supposed to be--serving time in prison.  Very few expressed any real sympathy for Wilson's death.

However, the outrage expressed by many regarding the lawyers is because they knew of the alleged innocence of Logan, even after both Hope and Wilson had told them, and these lawyers apparently (as viewed in the minds of many) did nothing more to attempt to have Logan be released.  The lawyers supposedly are to represent justice, and an innocent man serving time for something he didn't do is not considered fair by the majority.


			
				grydth said:
			
		

> So folks, when you're taking shots, just remember to include those who fired the shots. Hope and Wilson could have gone to the DA themselves, any time they wanted. They did not.


Whether Hope and Wilson could have done something further is not really the point here.  They did say their part (Hope in giving a tip that led to Wilson and Wilson in giving a written, sealed confession).  

The question on the mind of many who follow this Logan case:  Could these two lawyers, who supposedly are to represent what is right, have done more, found another way?  

This case strikes at the hearts of many--what if this situation could have happened to any of us?  This is the underlying reason of our outrage.

- Ceicei


----------



## Ceicei (Jan 27, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> And Logan did accept the plea offer; he definitely played a role in his own defense - or lack thereof. I can't imagine the circumstances where I'd plead guilty to something I hadn't done.


 
Perhaps Logan's lawyer told him it was in his best interest--I wasn't there at the trial to see what happened.  There were many various articles of recent times, however, that point out Logan had always maintained his innocence from the very beginning.  

I've been trying to find more details, but I haven't had any luck.  Perhaps someone may be able to find a way to locate court papers of Logan's original trial.  I'll keep on looking.

- Ceicei


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 27, 2008)

Ceicei said:


> Perhaps Logan's lawyer told him it was in his best interest--I wasn't there at the trial to see what happened.  There were many various articles of recent times, however, that point Logan had always maintained his innocence from the very beginning.
> 
> I've been trying to find more details, but I haven't had any luck.  Perhaps someone may be able to find a way to locate court papers of Logan's original trial.  I'll keep on looking.
> 
> - Ceicei


The system is predicated on the idea that an innocent person won't plead guilty to an offense they didn't commit.  In fact, in my experience, the judge always ask the accused a series of questions to establish that they understand that they are admitting they committed the offense, that they waive many appeal rights by pleading guilty, that they have discussed the plea with their attorney,a nd are pleading guilty because they "are, in fact, guilty."  I've seen a judge stop proceedings, and send the accused back to discuss the case with their attorney in more detail when the judge wasn't satisfied that the plea was being entered knowlingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.

As I said -- I can't imagine the situation where I would plead guilty to something I didn't do.  At the very least, I'd force a trial on the facts.  If I was convicted, at least I'd have gone down swinging...  and I'd be appealing every issue I could.


----------



## grydth (Jan 27, 2008)

exile said:


> I haven't taken any shots in this thread, I hope (and believe); I've just asked a question, in various forms, which may well have bearing on the way law is practiced and justice is pursued in America.
> 
> Hope and Wilson are/were worthless sociopaths, in my opinion, but there is no point in devoting attention to them, because this case isn't about the existence and behavior of worthless sociopaths, who will, I fear, always be with us. What this thread is about is the rest of us, the people who design the justice system in the hope that it will actually _bring justice_. The problem that was created by this case for our conceptions of how the notion of 'legal ethics' and the notion of 'justice' should connect wasn't created by the crime itself, but by the way in which people who are part of overseeing justice in the aftermath of the crime behaved. Yes, they have a professional ethical code of conduct, and it's precisely when this sort of thing arises that the contradictions and potential fallacies built into that code of conduct emerge. Certainly, the logic of the code is tested. How is it shaping up? That's the point of my question: how does the system of legal ethics, designed by well-intentioned people (as I believe) and trying to accomodate all kinds of possibly conflicting 'good' ends, come out in the wash here?
> 
> Bringing in the loathsome refuse whose behavior posed this problem may be a comforting distraction, but that's all it is. The real question is, does the 'logic' of the 'legal ethics' code wind up leading to a reductio ad absurdem, where we have to sanction the execution of an innocent man (as per my thought experiment) in order to serve the 'greater good' of an optimum justice system? Hope and Wilson are completely irrelevant to that question, and that's the really important question that needs addressing, IMO.



I think you are incorrect this time out. 

The thread topic seeks to address why the (possibly) innocent man spent 26 years in jail. With all due respect, as thread originator it was for CeiCei, and not for you, to determine the scope of the debate.

It is hardly a "distraction" to point out that among those most directly responsible are Hope and Wilson, the killers who (allegedly) had personal knowledge that Logan wasn't the triggerman. Nor would it be irrelevant to note that Logan went to jail with this long sentence as a result of a criminal trial with eyewitness testimony. Wilson's lawyers did not send Logan to jail and it is not upon their authority that he remains there.

This is more than a legal nicety or academic point, as Hope and Wilson were the sole individuals who could have waived the legal privilege.... and who could have provided the direct eyewitness testimony that could have freed Logan years ago (assuming Logan is innocent, and assuming the lawyers weren't along on the crime spree). Now, if evidence obtained in violation of privilege faces severe admissibility hurdles in court, how can we fail to discuss that in any debate over what the lawyers should have done?

I strongly disagree with your assertion that there is no reason to devote debate to the likes of Hope and Wilson as they are "worthless sociopaths...who will always be with us,"  

Having been both a defense attorney and a prosecutor, I fail to understand how anyone can assess lawyers' actions, and formulate future codes of conduct, without understanding what these lawyers have to deal with. What's more, it certainly is not accurate to generalize all criminal defendants in that group.

Having done the job, I can say that the defense lawyer does not have the luxury of intellectually dismissing a man. He has the duty to zealously defend the client irregardless of whether he be a "worthless sociopath" to others, a man wrongfully accused, or something in between. That duty, of which the attorney-client privilege is a part, is what these lawyers carried out. 

To make a blanket assumption about defendants, to fail to consider background and real life experience, to imagine there can be one code for some and another for the "worthless".... well, it's nice for a classroom. But it won't fly in real life.


----------



## grydth (Jan 27, 2008)

Ceicei said:


> Perhaps Logan's lawyer told him it was in his best interest--I wasn't there at the trial to see what happened.  There were many various articles of recent times, however, that point Logan had always maintained his innocence from the very beginning.
> 
> I've been trying to find more details, but I haven't had any luck.  Perhaps someone may be able to find a way to locate court papers of Logan's original trial.  I'll keep on looking.
> 
> - Ceicei



I applaud your continued support of the thread you've created.

I do not see how Logan could plead guilty, but later claim he'd always asserted his innocence. What, exactly, does he imagine a guilty plea means? 

Now, I haven't seen the transcript of Logan's case, but every time I ever was in court for a gulty plea, the judge would question the accused in detail as to whether (s)he really committed the crime and understood their rights to contest at trial.

These are central questions to the primary  issue you originally raised. Is Logan in fact even innocent? Why has he been in jail all these years? 

It is entirely possible that Logan is properly in jail as a rightfully convicted felon.... and that the actions/inactions of Wilson's lawyers are. legally and morally, no part of that. 

If Logan is not innocent, all the rest is rain on a hot side walk.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 27, 2008)

grydth said:


> I think you are incorrect this time out.
> 
> The thread topic seeks to address why the (possibly) innocent man spent 26 years in jail. With all due respect, as thread originator it was for CeiCei, and not for you, to determine the scope of the debate.



She did. She wrote:
*Innocent man stays in jail for 26 years because of client/attorney privilege
*
(_Emphasis _added.) That's why the debate focuses on that aspect of it. As to the other two, I concur with *exile*: What point is there in expecting scum to be anything else? Lawyers hold themselves to an (allegedly) high moral code, but _There is no honor among thieves_. If we are to debate whether or not criminals should stop being bad and start being good, I rather expect it'd be a one-sided debate.

For there to be a discussion, we have to agree on a few things that we take to be true and/or relevant. Setting the scope by *Subject*: and adding in the position via the word "because" did much of that. Yes, the true killer could be lying--in which case he's bad and should be punished. No debate (see The Scorpion and the Frog). It's the attorneys' role that is of interest; and that is where reasonable people could disagree.


----------



## Ceicei (Jan 27, 2008)

(I was going to add to this post, but lost the attachment).  I'll return...


----------



## grydth (Jan 27, 2008)

arnisador said:


> She did. She wrote:
> *Innocent man stays in jail for 26 years because of client/attorney privilege
> *
> (_Emphasis _added.) That's why the debate focuses on that aspect of it. As to the other two, I concur with *exile*: What point is there in expecting scum to be anything else? Lawyers hold themselves to an (allegedly) high moral code, but _There is no honor among thieves_. If we are to debate whether or not criminals should stop being bad and start being good, I rather expect it'd be a one-sided debate.
> ...



With all due respect, given the thread topic you have highlighted, it is scarcely irrelevant to point out:

A) Logan may well not be innocent
B) Logan was neither sent to jail nor kept there on the deeds or authority of these lawyers.
C) The holders of the legal privilege, and the supposed eyewitnesses, are Hope and Wilson.
D) Controversy exists over key facts that we dare not "take to be true."

Now, if those factors  are considered immaterial to the core issues raised, I'm in the wrong place folks. I just do not see how you can debate actions and formulate policy without considering this.


----------



## grydth (Jan 27, 2008)

Ceicei said:


> If Logan is innocent, what benefit is it for Hope and Wilson to make this claim, especially since Wilson wanted to be sure the confession isn't released until he dies?  If Logan isn't innocent and did indeed play a part with the McDonald security guard shooting, why would Hope and Wilson say that Logan didn't do it? Regardless, if Logan is indeed innocent and the lawyers knew of this, why allow him to languish in prison for something he didn't do?
> 
> - Ceicei



Hope never made a written statement, and does not appear to have contacted Logan's attorney.  That lawyer does not seem to have known of this. He seemed to think it was funny, as I recall. Make of that what you wish.

Wilson would have had a motive to slap back at the legal system. While quite free in brutalizing innocents himself, Wilson had filed a lawsuit alleging police brutality. What's he got to lose by creating all of this uproar - and, one suspects, may be having quite the laugh in Hell right now.

You don't need at accept my experience, but I have seen informants finger the wrong guy, I have seen accused either try to put off all guilt on the other defendants or try to take all the guilt to get a buddy off. 

There's a surprising variety among these "worthless sociopaths" when you get right down to it.


----------



## exile (Jan 27, 2008)

grydth said:


> I think you are incorrect this time out.
> 
> The thread topic seeks to address why the (possibly) innocent man spent 26 years in jail. With all due respect, as thread originator it was for CeiCei, and not for you, to determine the scope of the debate.



Topics often contain inherent questions, regardless of the intentions or interests of the thread creator. And the pivotal issue in this discussion is that a man spent 26 years in jail, _and might well have been unjustly executed_, because those with the ability to direct the justice system in a certain direction chose not to. I do not see how you can plausibly argue otherwise.



grydth said:


> It is hardly a "distraction" to point out that among those most directly responsible are Hope and Wilson, the killers who (allegedly) had personal knowledge that Logan wasn't the triggerman. Nor would it be irrelevant to note that Logan went to jail with this long sentence as a result of a criminal trial with eyewitness testimony. Wilson's lawyers did not send Logan to jail and it is not upon their authority that he remains there.



When a man who may well be innocent turns out to have spent time in jail, or been executed, for a crime he did not commit, that very statement presupposes the existence of a crime, no? But given that a crime was committed, if it was indeed committed by someone else, _why did he spend that time in jail?_ Saying, well, someone did the crime, and they're the ones responsible, seems to me to abandon inquiry just at the point when the social consequences get serious. A crime was committed, that's the given, but the fallout from the crime in this case implicates the way the justice system and the professional ethical code of the law profession are structured. Again, I don't see how you can deny that. Saying that Wilson's lawyers did not send Logan to jail is setting up a huge straw man, grydth, surely you recognize that. Who is saying that they sent him to jail? But he _stayed_ in jail, for 26 years, because of their choices; and he might have been killed by the state, or have been sentenced to death, because of their choices, if they were being consistent. I think most of the people reading this thread understand that point very well. 



grydth said:


> This is more than a legal nicety or academic point, as Hope and Wilson were the sole individuals who could have waived the legal privilege.... and who could have provided the direct eyewitness testimony that could have freed Logan years ago (assuming Logan is innocent, and assuming the lawyers weren't along on the crime spree). Now, if evidence obtained in violation of privilege faces severe admissibility hurdles in court, how can we fail to discuss that in any debate over what the lawyers should have done?



The admissiblity of evidence in court is a separate issue. The fact is that there were several parties who had knowledge of the severe contraindications to Logan's guilt. Two of these were dyfunctional street thugs. Two were well-educated gentlemen familiar with the law and professionally trained it, who had studied both its theory and application in law school and presumably understood that the point of the law is to serve some normative idea of justice. We do not look to the first pair for ethical decision-making, taking into account the balance of rights on various sides. We look to the second pair, and this is what they chose to do. Their choice was a _necessary_ condition for Logan's incarceration. It was not sufficient, because someone else had to do the crime that Logan appears to have been incorrectly convicted for, but it was necessary. They were, so to speak, _accomplices_ in the outcome. I speak figuratively, you understand, but the situations are similar.

And believe me, I'm not looking at this matter as an academic issue.



grydth said:


> I strongly disagree with your assertion that there is no reason to devote debate to the likes of Hope and Wilson as they are "worthless sociopaths...who will always be with us,"
> 
> Having been both a defense attorney and a prosecutor, I fail to understand how anyone can assess lawyers' actions, and formulate future codes of conduct, without understanding what these lawyers have to deal with. What's more, it certainly is not accurate to generalize all criminal defendants in that group.



But it is a given that we will need a justice system and laws in place just as long as people in a society carry out actions that jeopardize the basic civil pact that provides the basis for that society. From that point of view, people like Hope and Wilson are _givens_ in any society which has the need for a legal system; if we don't have anyone like them, then we very likely have no need for criminal laws or a criminal court system, period. Your position on Hope/Wilson strikes me as perilously close to answering the question, `What was the cause of the American civil war' with the reply, 'Because Fort Sumpter was fired on by the Confederate military'. What arises here as an issue is a particular way in which certain sanctioned arrangements between legal counsel and client may have the effect of blocking the implementation of justice. That is something that _cannot_ go undiscussed in a case like this, I believe.



grydth said:


> Having done the job, I can say that the defense lawyer does not have the luxury of intellectually dismissing a man. He has the duty to zealously defend the client irregardless of whether he be a "worthless sociopath" to others, a man wrongfully accused, or something in between. That duty, of which the attorney-client privilege is a part, is what these lawyers carried out.



You misunderstand me very seriously here, grydth: I am not saying that the lawyers in question were supposed to regard the two perps in this case as worthless sociopaths. I am saying that what I see as the crucial question this case raises is _predicated_ on the existence of the two worthless sociopaths in question; it only exists because of their actions, and having acted the way they did, they left this ethical and legal mess for the larger society to sort out. I am talking about the irrelevance of these two worthless sociopaths to questions of what happens when worthless sociopaths not only kill innocent people themselves, but put innocent members of the society they've thereby damaged at risk of being wrongly incarcerated or executed by members of that same society. The criminals, having done what they did, are no longer part of the picture: that there is crucial information that could have led to freedom for a man who, by all appearances, deserved it as much as you or I do. And the problem is how that information was handled by people whose jobs are located within the American justice system. Hope/Wilson's lawyers' attitudes to their own clients have nothing at all to do with what I'm talking about&#8212;surely that's evident?



grydth said:


> To make a blanket assumption about defendants, to fail to consider background and real life experience, to imagine there can be one code for some and another for the "worthless".... well, it's nice for a classroom. But it won't fly in real life.



Again: regardless of background or real life experience or whatever, certain aspects of the legal profession's code of ethics led an apparently innocent man to stay imprisoned in spite of the fact that those in a position to know better&#8212;who themselves were in no way implicated in the crime&#8212;chose not to act on that knowledge, and who, by the logic they followed, would not have done so even if the innocent man had been at risk of execution for what could easily have been a capital charge. How am I saying that there is one code for some and a different code for the other? Again, I am simply saying that this whole situation is _based_ on an action carried out by worthless sociopaths, and talking about them and how rotten what they did was is a way of avoiding the significant issue _for us:_ is this how the supposedly valid professional arrangements of the legal system are supposed to play out in such cases? What do Hope and Wilson have to do with _that_ question&#8212;a question which cries out to be addressed, given what the facts appear to be? _That's_ what I'm saying.


----------



## grydth (Jan 27, 2008)

Ceicei said:


> The outrage from the citizenry were not toward Hope and Wilson, because they were where they're supposed to be--serving time in prison.  Very few expressed any real sympathy for Wilson's death.
> 
> However, the outrage expressed by many regarding the lawyers is because they knew of the alleged innocence of Logan, even after both Hope and Wilson had told them, and these lawyers apparently (as viewed in the minds of many) did nothing more to attempt to have Logan be released.  The lawyers supposedly are to represent justice, and an innocent man serving time for something he didn't do is not considered fair by the majority.
> 
> ...



This has been a terrific topic, and you've supported it ably..... but I think its time I bow out.

I never thought that this was about, "what is considered right by the majority" or "citizen outrage" about lawyers. If that's really what the thread was to be confined to, then I owe you and exile my sincere regrets.... but, you know, that should have been made much clearer at the start. I'd honestly never have posted at all had I known that.

As a last point, the killers Hope and Wilson most certainly did NOT, "say their part". Either could have contacted* Logan's* lawyer *before* trial. Neither did. Either one could have come forward at any time to the DA or Warden. They never did. Wilson, as the true holder of the attorney-client privilege, and the ONLY one who could waive it.... didn't. The only two who could have provided a trial court, or an applellate court on review, eyewitness testimony.... never did so. It is these cowards and murderers who bear a *primary responsibility* if Logan is innocent.


----------



## exile (Jan 27, 2008)

grydth said:


> I never thought that this was about, "what is considered right by the majority" or "citizen outrage" about lawyers. If that's really what the thread was to be confined to, then I owe you and exile my sincere regrets.... but, you know, that should have been made much clearer at the start. I'd honestly never have posted at all had I known that.



As I think I made clear in my last post, citizen outrage or anything else has nothing to do with my point, and I'm troubled that you've assimilated my argument to something like that. My argument is about the logic of the professional ethical code that lawyers are expected to follow and apparently are happy to avail themselves of. I see a contradiction emerging between the notion of justice, which arises in a certain kind of democratic society in the first place, and the literal interpretation of, and adherence to that code. By treating what I'm saying as something to do with the popular view of lawyers, you are avoiding confronting my argument. 



grydth said:


> As a last point, the killers Hope and Wilson most certainly did NOT, "say their part". Either could have contacted* Logan's* lawyer *before* trial. Neither did. Either one could have come forward at any time to the DA or Warden. They never did. Wilson, as the true holder of the attorney-client privilege, and the ONLY one who could waive it.... didn't. The only two who could have provided a trial court, or an applellate court on review, eyewitness testimony.... never did so. It is these cowards and murderers who bear a *primary responsibility* if Logan is innocent.



You are, I think, refusing to confront the difference between 'necessary' on the one hand and 'sufficient' on the other. There were four players in this situation besides the injured party in the case, Mr. Logan. Two of those players were behaving exactly as you suggest: as cowards and murderers. But two others were behaving as members of the justice-administration system we have in place to ensure that society is protected against such individuals to the extent possible. And it's the behavior of these second two, whose collaboration with their clients' refusal to admit the truth was _necessary_ for Mr. Logan to be incarcerated for a quarter of a century, that are a central issue raised by this case for legal policy in America. The fact that Hope and Wilson could also have told the truth and released Mr. Logan is beside the point, because the behavior of their lawyers was also necessary for things to turn out as they did, and that behavior was mandated by a code of 'professional ethics' that seems to have led to an abhorrent outcome in this particular case. We are not debating whether or not the perps were cowardly muderers;  there is no question that they were. But Mr. Logan would not have spent all that time in jail, or faced possible execution, if the other two players involved had chosen differently. I think that a careful reassessment of this code of behavior, and some kind of adjustment so that such cases do not recur,  is certainly a defensible outcome based on this case, myself.


----------



## Ceicei (Jan 27, 2008)

grydth said:


> This has been a terrific topic, and you've supported it ably..... but I think its time I bow out.
> 
> I never thought that this was about, "what is considered right by the majority" or "citizen outrage" about lawyers. If that's really what the thread was to be confined to, then I owe you and exile my sincere regrets.... but, you know, that should have been made much clearer at the start. I'd honestly never have posted at all had I known that.



No, you did your posts perfectly fine here in this thread.  You are *exactly* what we needed to help us understand how and why these attorneys did this the way they did.  People, in general, follow what they feel is "their interpretation of what's right" but that "sense of right/moral way" may not always be the legal/ethical way.  The law does not follow what is felt, but follow on what facts are available.  The law is supposed to be blind to emotions and opinions.  The attorneys did what they were required to do, according to the rules of conduct.  This is something people are trying to understand....

This comes down to the age-old question--can justice and mercy work together?

Still, this perceived conflict in the minds of many people does not make the situation any easier to understand.  So much information is left out/withheld/unknown, that we may never know the entire story.  Nevertheless, this case does bring up the question, can something be done differently in the future so that there will not be another "Logan" out there languishing unnecessarily in prison when innocence is known, but not revealed timely?

- Ceicei


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 27, 2008)

Ceicei said:


> This comes down to the age-old question--can justice and mercy work together?



Or... the difference between justice, morality, ethics, and the justice system.

They're not at all the same things.  A legally correct decision can very easily be immoral under a specific code (abortion leaps to mind so close to the anniversary of Roe v Wade), and an ethically correct course of actions may be illegal -- or even unjust.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 27, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> > Originally Posted by *Ceicei *
> > This comes down to the age-old question--can justice and mercy work together?
> 
> 
> ...


That's the thing... A society of (civilized) people makes the decision of the level of justice and decides what's a crime and what isn't. A society decides what is ethical and what isn't. Sure we have a basis of a place to start (here in the U.S. it started with the 10 commandments [the Puritans were here long before the Revolutionary war okay?] and went from there). 
So as we grow up in whatever society we live in we adapt to whatever laws are around us. Thus our reactions will (usually) fit the majority view of society as a whole. Now there is (fortunately) room for individual view points and that's what helps us to grow and change (hopefully for the better) as a society. 
Justice and mercy working together? If they ever do it'll be a very fine line indeed. Is it merciful to put a convicted serial killer to death? What about a serial rapist? Is it merciful to keep them in prison for the rest of their natural lives? Or merciful to their victims past and future? 
Do those who show mercy deserve mercy, and those who do not, don't? Is it justice? 
Who determines that?


----------



## Ceicei (Feb 15, 2008)

I checked the news... there are no updates on the Alton Logan case. Hopefully, something will happen resulting from this situation, if nothing else than to clarify when and how attorney/client confidentiality rules could be bent.

If I find out anything more, I'll add to this thread.

- Ceicei


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 6, 2008)

Latest article today from CBS News:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/06/60minutes/main3914719.shtml

There is also a videoclip:

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3915614n

The quote below comes from the article in the first link:


> The lawyers did get permission from Wilson, to reveal upon his death his confession to the murder Logan was convicted for. Wilson died late last year and Coventry and Kunz came forward. *Next Monday, a judge will hear evidence in a motion to grant Logan a new trial. It's the first step in what could be a long process. "They are quick to convict but they are slow to correct their mistakes," says Logan. *


It will be interesting to see what happens next Monday.

- Ceicei


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 6, 2008)

Ceicei said:


> Latest article today from CBS News:
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/06/60minutes/main3914719.shtml
> 
> ...


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 6, 2008)

I was thinking, after reading the article I recently posted, of some questions regarding legal and judicial procedures.

Why would the government not just let him go?  Would requesting a re-trial mean that the State isn't sure of his innocence? 

Is he only innocent of just one part and not of the other parts (meaning does he have another role in the original situation, just not as the triggerman of the murders?  Would the culpability of other charges explain the need for re-trial?

If he is truly innocent of the entire situation and had nothing to do with it, why make him go through a trial after he "wasted" 26 years being incarcerated?   

If the lawyers were wrong with their conduct by withholding information, would this require another trial?

- Ceicei


----------



## Ceicei (Apr 13, 2008)

Latest article on this intriguing situation.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24083675/



> Logan already had been charged with the McDonald's shooting, which left one guard dead and another injured. Another man, Edgar Hope, also was arrested, and assigned a public defender, Marc Miller.
> 
> Miller says he was stunned when his client announced he didn't know Logan and had never seen him before their arrests. According to Miller, Hope was persistent: "You need to tell his attorney he represents an innocent man."
> 
> Hope went a step further, Miller says: He told him Wilson was his right-hand man &#8212; "the guy who guards my back" &#8212; and urged the lawyer to confirm that with his street friends. He did.


In defense of the silence the lawyers took all these years:





> Knowing the affidavit had to be secret, Wilson's lawyers looked for ways to help Logan without hurting their client. They consulted with legal scholars, ethics commissions, the bar association.
> 
> Kunz says he mentioned the case dozens of times over the years to lawyers, never divulging names but explaining that he knew a guy serving a life sentence for a crime committed by one of his clients.
> 
> There's nothing you can do, he was told.


Hopefully, there will be a new trial and more information comes out.  


> On April 18, Logan will be in court as his lawyer, Harold Winston, pushes for a new trial. Along with the affidavit, Winston has accumulated new evidence, including an eyewitness who says Logan wasn't at McDonald's and a letter from an inmate who claims Wilson signed a statement while in prison implicating himself in the murder &#8212; and clearing Logan.


We'll have to wait until April 18, 2008 and see what will happen.

- Ceicei


----------



## FearlessFreep (Apr 13, 2008)

Through all of this I keep thinking of a saying by Isaac Asimov

"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right."


----------



## exile (Apr 13, 2008)

FearlessFreep said:


> Through all of this I keep thinking of a saying by Isaac Asimov
> 
> "Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right."



_The Foundation Trilogy_, right? Salvor Hardin, maybe? That's a very nice, subtle point he's making there....


----------



## FearlessFreep (Apr 13, 2008)

exile said:


> _The Foundation Trilogy_, right? Salvor Hardin, maybe? That's a very nice, subtle point he's making there....



I don't recall actually... and when I looked it up I just found it be attributed to Asimov himself, but it sure sounds like Hardin there.  It often comes to my mind when discussing "professional ethics"


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Apr 14, 2008)

I hadn't seen this thread until the recent updates; thank you, Ceicei, for keeping the threat updated.  I'm in law school right now, and can definitely sympathize with the defense lawyers' dilemma.

It's very easy, I think, for some to get on their high horses and condemn the defense lawyers for not doing the right thing, but in doing so, one has to consciously ignore that there's more than one "right thing" conflicting here.  Attorney-client privilege isn't just some trade tool used by lawyers, it's one of the founding principles of the judicial system.  It's what allows everyday people who aren't familiar with the law to seek counsel without fear of reprisal.  You can dismiss this by bad-mouthing all lawyers or claiming you'd "do the right thing in a heartbeat" (funny how those far removed see no conflict and see everything as being simple and one-sided, huh?), but the truth of the matter is that the defense lawyer was right smack in the middle of a serious moral dilemma.


----------



## diamondbar1971 (Apr 15, 2008)

I disagree on this one! At some point and time, common sense has to kick in and dictate as to what is actually right or wrong or what is the real moral misjudgement in a situation as this one. This is one of those times that there should be an exemption for any attorney to be able to make information of this type known, especially if the outcome would be inprisionment, or god forbid, execution. This should be another wake-up call for all of us. I don't think that the founding principle was meant to be used in this manner and if attorneys knowingly allow this, then they are just as guilty as the real guilty party. To even think that an action like this should be allowed within a civilized society is utterly beyond comprehension and to even to begin to think otherwise is a cop out and the attorneys little code book needs a major revamping. To unjustly do something like this to another human being and then use the attorney client privledge clause to protect themselves, and then have the nerve to use the word "ETHICS".


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Apr 15, 2008)

I'd be interested to find out how many of those decrying the situation as being so cut-and-dry actually have legal experience beyond jury duty.  The defense attorneys didn't use attorney-client privilege as a shield for their actions, attorney-client privilege is the reason they didn't inform anyone of their client's confession.  For gods' sake, Ceicei even quotes a followup that shows the defense attorney tried to find a means of telling someone without violating his DUTY.  They quite simply couldn't find one.  It's an unfortunate play of fate, and one that I hope doesn't happen to me when I begin my legal career, but this is not a linear cut-and-dry issue.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 15, 2008)

oh no. They could have made the confession known, it just would have caused them a change in jobs.

Me? i would have gladly given up my job to do the right thing. this wasnt a parking ticket, this was 26 YEARS of a mans life GONE.

I couldnt have done it. I could not have let that happen. Legal ethics be damned. of course I realize thats easy for me to say, I wasnt in that particular pickle.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Apr 18, 2008)

And for the individual lawyer(s), violating their duty would mean, at the very least, disbarment for ethics violation and a malpractice suit; that's a bit more severe then getting fired from Starbuck's.  For the court, breaching confidentiality will lead to a mistrial, since no fair trial could be performed once this confession were released.  There's a reason attorney-client privilege is covered in the first year of law school.

The defense attorney(s) performed their duty, as painful as doing so had to have been.  

You're right, 26 years in prison for a crime one didn't commit demands justice, but they shouldn't be laid at the feet of the defense attorney(s) who's only crime was fulfilling the duty given to them.  How about the zealous prosecutor, or the innocent man's own defense attorney, either or both of whom obviously screwed up big time and are a lot closer in the causal link to the innocent man's imprisonment then the real criminal's defense attorney(s).  

Consider the position the defense attorney(s) were put in: either keep the information to yourself as the advocate of the guilty party, which is required of you by both your obligation to the defendant and your obligation to the court, which will cost an innocent man 26 years, or break those obligations, thus freeing the innocent man but obstructing the justice system, eliminating any possibility of the actually guilty party being convicted and ruining your own legal career forever.  

There's damn good reasons to go with either decision; if not, then it wouldn't be a moral dilemma; for gods' sakes, the defense attorney sought out a means of revealing the information without compromising his legal obligations.  It's disingenuous to treat this as a clear-cut easy decision and blame the failure to 'do the right thing' on selfishness.


----------



## Ceicei (Apr 19, 2008)

Alton Logan is now free after posting bail, awaiting a new trial.


> *CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) * -- A man locked away 26 years for murder was granted a new trial and freed on bail Friday with the help of two attorneys who came forward with a client's confession after the client died in prison.
> 
> Alton Logan's family took up a collection in the lobby of the Cook County Criminal Courthouse and quickly came up with the $1,000 they needed to post bail.





> It would be up to Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office to prosecute the case because of a conflict of interest for the Cook County state's attorney's office. Madigan's spokeswoman, Robyn Ziegler, said that no decision had been made about a retrial.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/19/wrongly.convicted.ap/index.html

- Ceicei


----------

