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

[Ceicei]

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

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

Internet article

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

What do you think?

 

[terryl965]

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

 

[thardey]

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

 

[MA-Caver]

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

Any wonder why I hate attorneys?? :rpo:

 

[rutherford]

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

 

[Empty Hands]

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

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

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

 

[Big Don]

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

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

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

 

[jks9199]

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

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

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

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

 

[Empty Hands]

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

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

 

[MA-Caver]

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

Originally Posted by Big Don
The attorneys chose to follow the ethics rules rather than right and wrong, that is sad.

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

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

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

 

[grydth]

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

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

 

[Steel Tiger]

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

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

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

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

 

[Empty Hands]

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

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

 

[Empty Hands]

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

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

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

 

[grydth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ceicei]

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

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

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

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

- Ceicei

 

[jks9199]

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

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

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

With regard to the issue of aggressive defense...

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

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

 

[Steel Tiger]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Big Don]

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

 

[Marginal]

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

Dr. Phil's the alternative.