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

[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.

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

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

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

- Ceicei

 

[jks9199]

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

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

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

 

[MA-Caver]

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

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

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

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

 

[Ceicei]

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

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

- Ceicei

 

[Ceicei]

Latest article today from CBS News:

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

There is also a videoclip:

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

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

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

It will be interesting to see what happens next Monday.

- Ceicei

 

[MA-Caver]

Latest article today from CBS News:

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

There is also a videoclip:

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

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

It will be interesting to see what happens next Monday.

- Ceicei


Indeed and what compensation the man will be granted for his wrongful imprisonment... 26 years of one's life wasted ...
Glad he will get a reprieve but sad to think that probably the most they will do is pat him on the back and say "sorry big fella but we lawyers have ethics".

 

[Ceicei]

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

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

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

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

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

- Ceicei

 

[Ceicei]

Latest article on this intriguing situation.

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

Logan already had been charged with the McDonald's shooting, which left one guard dead and another injured. Another man, Edgar Hope, also was arrested, and assigned a public defender, Marc Miller.

Miller says he was stunned when his client announced he didn't know Logan and had never seen him before their arrests. According to Miller, Hope was persistent: "You need to tell his attorney he represents an innocent man."

Hope went a step further, Miller says: He told him Wilson was his right-hand man — "the guy who guards my back" — and urged the lawyer to confirm that with his street friends. He did.

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

Knowing the affidavit had to be secret, Wilson's lawyers looked for ways to help Logan without hurting their client. They consulted with legal scholars, ethics commissions, the bar association.

Kunz says he mentioned the case dozens of times over the years to lawyers, never divulging names but explaining that he knew a guy serving a life sentence for a crime committed by one of his clients.

There's nothing you can do, he was told.

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

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

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

- Ceicei

 

[FearlessFreep]

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

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

 

[exile]

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

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

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

 

[FearlessFreep]

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

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

 

[RandomPhantom700]

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

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

 

[diamondbar1971]

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

 

[RandomPhantom700]

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

 

[Twin Fist]

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

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

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

 

[RandomPhantom700]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ceicei]

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

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- A man locked away 26 years for murder was granted a new trial and freed on bail Friday with the help of two attorneys who came forward with a client's confession after the client died in prison.

Alton Logan's family took up a collection in the lobby of the Cook County Criminal Courthouse and quickly came up with the $1,000 they needed to post bail.

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

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

- Ceicei