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

[grydth]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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—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?

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—who is very likely to turn out to be innocent—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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[grydth]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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—surely that's evident?

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—who themselves were in no way implicated in the crime—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—a question which cries out to be addressed, given what the facts appear to be? That's what I'm saying.

 

[grydth]

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.

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

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]

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.

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.