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

[grydth]

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!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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?



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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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—by the legal 'ethics' they invoked in the actual situation—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]

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—by the legal 'ethics' they invoked in the actual situation—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?

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?