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

[grydth]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

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]

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:

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]

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?

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]

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]

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.

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.

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."

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

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]

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]

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]

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.