NationStates Jolt Archive

An innocent man was convicted and went to prison for life 26 years ago because the people with the proof could not divulge the information due to lawyer-client confidentiality. Such a sad, sad story that this guy missed half his life because of one little thing. He's having his third trial and is not guaranteed release still. Is it a surprise that his skin color is dark?

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080412/ap_on_re_us/the26_year_silence)

CHICAGO - For nearly 26 years, the affidavit was sealed in an envelope and stored in a locked box, tucked away with the lawyer's passport and will. Sometimes he stashed the box in his bedroom closet, other times under his bed.

It stayed there — year after year, decade after decade.

Then, about two years ago, Dale Coventry, the box's owner, got a call from his former colleague, W. Jamie Kunz. Both were once public defenders. They hadn't talked in a decade.

"We're both getting on in years," Kunz said. "We ought to do something with that affidavit to make sure it's not wasted in case we both leave this good Earth."

Coventry assured him it was in a safe place. He found it in the fireproof metal box, but didn't read it. He didn't need to. He was reminded of the case every time he heard that a wronged prisoner had been freed.

In January, Kunz called again. This time, he had news: A man both lawyers had represented long ago in the murder of two police officers, Andrew Wilson, had died in prison.

Kunz asked Coventry to get the affidavit.

"It's in a sealed envelope," Coventry said.

"Open it," Kunz said, impatiently.

And so, Coventry began reading aloud the five-line declaration the lawyers had written more than a quarter-century before:

An innocent man was behind bars. His name was Alton Logan. He did not kill a security guard in a McDonald's restaurant in January 1982.

"In fact," the document said, "another person was responsible."

___

They knew, because Andrew Wilson told them: He did it.

But that was the catch.

Lawyer-client privilege is not complete; most states allow attorneys to reveal confidences to prevent a death, serious bodily harm or criminal fraud. But this case didn't offer that kind of exception.

So when Andrew Wilson told his lawyers that he, and not Alton Logan, had killed the guard, they felt powerless — aware of information that could free a man they believed to be innocent, but unable to do anything with that knowledge. And for decades, they said nothing.

As they recall, Wilson — who was facing charges in the February 1982 murders of police officers William Fahey and Richard O'Brien — was even a bit gleeful about the McDonald's shooting. To Kunz, he seemed like a child who had been caught doing something naughty.

"I was surprised at how unabashed he was in telling us," he says. "There was no sense of unease or embarrassment. ... He smiled and kind of giggled. He hugged himself, and said, 'Yeah, it was me.'"

Alton Logan already had been charged with the McDonald's shooting that 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 Alton 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 Andrew 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.

Miller says he eventually did tell Logan's lawyer his client was innocent, but offered no details.

First, though, he approached Kunz, his fellow public defender and former partner.

"You think your life's difficult now?" Miller recalls telling Kunz. "My understanding is that your client Andrew Wilson is the shooter in the McDonald's murder."

Coventry and Kunz brought Wilson to the jail law library and this, they say, was when they confronted him and he made his unapologetic confession. They didn't press for details. "None of us had any doubt," Coventry says.

And, he adds, it wasn't just Wilson's word. Firearms tests, according to court records, linked a shotgun shell found at McDonald's with a weapon that police found at the beauty parlor where Andrew Wilson lived. The slain police officers' guns also were discovered there.

Now the lawyers had two big worries: Another killing might be tied to their client, and "an innocent man had been charged with his murder and was very likely ... to get the death penalty," Kunz says.

But bound by legal ethics, they kept quiet.

Instead, they wrote down what they'd been told. If the situation ever arose where they could help Logan, there would be a record — no one could say they had just made it up. They say they didn't name Wilson, fearing someone would hear about the document and subpoena it. They didn't even make a copy.

But on March 17, 1982, Kunz, Coventry and Miller signed the notarized affidavit: "I have obtained information through privileged sources that a man named Alton Logan ... who was charged with the fatal shooting of Lloyd Wickliffe ... is in fact not responsible for that shooting ... "

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.

Coventry had another idea. He figured Wilson probably would be executed for the police killings, so he visited him in prison and posed a question: Can I reveal what you told me, the lawyer asked, after your death?

"I managed to say it without being obnoxious," Coventry says. "He wasn't stupid. He understood exactly what I was asking. He knew he was going to get the death penalty and he agreed."

Coventry says he asked Wilson the same question years later — and got the same answer.

But ultimately, Wilson was sentenced to life in prison without parole.

His death penalty was reversed after he claimed Chicago police had electrically shocked, beaten and burned him with a radiator to secure his confession. (Decades later, a special prosecutor's report concluded police had tortured dozens of suspects over two decades.)

Logan's case was working its way through the courts, too. During the first of two trials in which he was convicted, Coventry walked in to hear part of the death penalty phase. "It's pretty creepy watching people deciding if they're going to kill an innocent man," he says.

The lawyers had a plan if it came to that: They would appeal to the governor to stop the execution. But with a life sentence, they remained silent.

Still, there were whispers. When Logan changed lawyers before his second trial, Miller says the new lawyer approached him. He had heard that Miller knew something more.

Please, he asked, can you help?

Miller says he told him he could do nothing for him. But he says he repeated the words he had uttered to Logan's first lawyer, more than a decade earlier:

"You represent an innocent man."

___

In prison, Alton Logan heard the news: First, Andrew Wilson had died. Second, there was an affidavit in his case.

"I said finally, somebody has come (forward) and told the truth," Logan says. "I've been saying this for the past 26 years: It WASN'T me."

In January, the two lawyers, with a judge's permission, revealed their secret in court.

Two months later, Marc Miller testified about his client's declaration of Logan's innocence.

But an affidavit and sworn testimony do not guarantee freedom — or prove innocence.

And Alton Logan knows that. After spending almost half his 54 years as an inmate, this slight man with a fringe of gray beard, stooped shoulders and weary eyes seems resigned to the reality that his fate is beyond his control.

"I have to accept whatever comes down," he says, sitting in a visitor's room at the Stateville Correctional Center in Joliet.

He insists he's not angry with Edgar Hope — the man who first said he was innocent — or even Andrew Wilson. He says he once approached Wilson in prison and asked him to "come clean. Tell the truth." Wilson just smiled and kept walking.

Nor is Logan angry with the lawyers who kept the secret. But he wonders if there wasn't some way they could have done more.

"What I can't understand is you know the truth, you held the truth and you know the consequences of that not coming forward?" he says of the lawyers. "Is (a) job more important than an individual's life?"

The lawyers say it was about their client — Wilson — not about their jobs, and they maintain that the prosecutors and police are at fault.

Kunz says he knows some people might find his actions outrageous. His obligation, though, was to Andrew Wilson.

"If I had ratted him out ... then I could feel guilty, then I could not live with myself," he says. "I'm anguished and always have been over the sad injustice of Alton Logan's conviction. Should I do the right thing by Alton Logan and put my client's neck in the noose or not? It's clear where my responsibility lies and my responsibility lies with my client."

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.

But obstacles remain.

Logan can't depend on Edgar Hope. According to his attorney, Hope probably will exercise his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

And he'll have to deal with eyewitnesses. His lawyer says one person changed her story in the two trials, but a second, the security guard injured in the shooting, did not. (A third, who has since died, had acknowledged that Wilson and Logan looked alike.)

Logan prefers not to look too far ahead or think too far back. He refuses to dwell on missed opportunities — marriage, children, job. "You cannot live with the situation I'm in and say, 'What if?'"

He says if he is released, he'll move to Oregon to be with his brother. "After spending 26 years in this hellhole, I want to get as far away from here as I possibly can," he says.

Last month, the Chicago Sun-Times, in an editorial, urged the attorney general or governor to release Logan, noting his claims of innocence "ring achingly true." (The state has declined comment on the case.)

Logan keeps a copy of the 26-year-old affidavit in his cell. Every now and then, he reads the single paragraph, trying to divine what the lawyers were thinking and if this piece of paper will help unlock the prison doors.

He's not banking on it.

"I'm not sold on it," he says. "The only time I'll be sold is when they tell me I can go."

For now, though, Alton Logan waits. The heavy prison doors clank behind him as he walks down the corridor to his cell. He does not look back.

This isn't really a "technicality."

This... This is horrible! Why the heck is he still in there if they have the evidence! This just goes to show how ineffective our judicial system is!:mad:

They actually don't have the evidence, they have the testimony of an alread deceased individual. It should be enough to hopefully get him released, with compensation for his time in jail (Although really, how can you compensate somebody for that?), but it's not actually evidence of his innocence.

The fact is, although attorney-client confidentiality can sometimes cause problems like this, it is a crucial and integral part of our justice system and without it, our entire system of justice might fall apart.

The fact is, although attorney-client confidentiality can sometimes cause problems like this, it is a crucial and integral part of our justice system and without it, our entire system of justice might fall apart.

Among other things, if the rules were different there's a good chance Wilson would never have told his lawyers anything.

The fact is, although attorney-client confidentiality can sometimes cause problems like this, it is a crucial and integral part of our justice system and without it, our entire system of justice might fall apart.

Can you elaborate, please?

Can you elaborate, please?

simple. Guilty or not guilty is, for a defense attorney, an irrelevant proposition. Their job is to not prove their clients innocent, but demonstrate that there is not sufficient evidence for them to prove them guilty. To do that, the attorney must know the truth of the situation so that he may adequately craft the defense the defendant is constitutionally entitled to.

In order for that to happen, people need to have absolute faith in their lawyers so they may feel comfortable telling them what happened. If an attorney was allowed to disclose what a client told him, then a court could compel that attorney to do so. If people could not trust their lawyers, they would not be able to have sufficient faith in their lawyers for full disclosure. Without full disclosure, defense attorneys could not do their job.

The fact is, although attorney-client confidentiality can sometimes cause problems like this, it is a crucial and integral part of our justice system and without it, our entire system of justice might fall apart.

If it leads to cases like this, maybe it needs to.

Life sucks. Get over it.

This man shouldn't be in there, but neither should others.

If you think that I'm being a douche, I really don't care.

If it leads to cases like this, maybe it needs to.

the constitutional right for all people to an adequate defense is more important than the life of any one person. Unfortunate things can occur, but without the attorney-client privlidge, people could not be assured their constitutional right to an adequate defense. And to be truly frank, if you have a better idea, I, and every other lawyer in the country, would love to hear it.

the constitutional right for all people to an adequate defense is more important than the life of any one person.

If an innocent man is behind bars can he really be said to have had an "adequate" defense?

If an innocent man is behind bars can he really be said to have had an "adequate" defense?

sure. Our system requires guilt to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Not all doubt. It's possible for an innocent person to appear guilty, absent evidence to the contrary. In this individual's case there appears to have been sufficient evidence to cause the jury to believe that he was guilty, beyond reasonable doubt.

Do mistakes occur? Absolutly. Is it regretable? Completely. Should people who are wrongfully convicted by compensated? Without a doubt.

But I'll reiterate my prior statement. If you have a better idea, I'd love to hear it.

If you have a better idea, I'd love to hear it.

Two words: Truth-belt

Is keeping one's law licence really worth 26 years of a man's life?

Is keeping one's law licence really worth 26 years of a man's life?

and again, it's not just about one person's position. It's about the integrity of the system.

An innocent man was convicted and went to prison for life 26 years ago because the people with the proof could not divulge the information due to lawyer-client confidentiality. Such a sad, sad story that this guy missed half his life because of one little thing. He's having his third trial and is not guaranteed release still. Is it a surprise that his skin color is dark?

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080412/ap_on_re_us/the26_year_silence)

If he was innocent, then what the deuce could the jury have convicted him on? I mean, I thought jurors were somewhat gullible pinheads, but this takes the cake. Obviously, since he was innocent, unless evidence was planted on him, they convicted him without solid proof of any sort. Was it enough that the guy who was seen at the scene and the defendant were both black to make a "positive I.D."?

I can hardly think straight right now.......

If he was innocent, then what the deuce could the jury have convicted him on? I mean, I thought jurors were somewhat gullible pinheads, but this takes the cake. Obviously, since he was innocent, unless evidence was planted on him, they convicted him without solid proof of any sort. Was it enough that the guy who was seen at the scene and the defendant were both black to make a "positive I.D."?

I can hardly think straight right now.......

again, there can be many situations that exist in which the evidence aligns in such a way as to cause the appearance of guild beyond reasonable doubt, when such guilt does not as a matter of fact exist. our system is designed to minimize that, but no system of justice can prevent it entirely.

There's plenty of ways an innocent man could be convicted: Mistaken witness identification (Apparently the two men looked alike), improperly handled evidence (Yes, that includes deliberately falsified information, but also simply mistakes made by police and technicians, who are only human and thus fallible), guilt presumed by association or past acts, etc.

Though I am a believer in the jury system, and am in fact going to go to law school after graduation, there are many, many ways for a wrongful conviction.

and am in fact going to go to law school after graduation

Don't do it man!

How can I not, when I'm apparently being recruited by Cornell University (I don't freaking get it, but apparently my parents are receiving literature inviting me to Cornell, when I haven't even begun the most preliminary of application processes. I haven't even spoken to my advisor yet)

How can I not, when I'm apparently being recruited by Cornell University (I don't freaking get it, but apparently my parents are receiving literature inviting me to Cornell, when I haven't even begun the most preliminary of application processes. I haven't even spoken to my advisor yet)

My undergrad sent me a lot of literature about considering "continuing my education" with them in lawschool. I applied. I got rejected. I felt cheated.

and again, it's not just about one person's position. It's about the integrity of the system.

Now, I don't know the law in the least, but out of curiosity, if the lawyers came forward with said information, would it even be admissible in court? I know that stolen documents, under certain circumstances, are not, and that information gained illegal, under certain circumstances, is not, but what of this? Basically, if a lawyer were to break confidentiality, would it even be admissible in court?

If not, then they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't, so to speak.

I wanted to grow up to be a lawyer once. Fortunately, I realized a long time ago that it wasn't about sending criminals to jail, it was about defending your client.

Stories like this? I would never be able to handle being in that situation.

And to be truly frank, if you have a better idea, I, and every other lawyer in the country, would love to hear it.

Perhaps extend the client-lawyer confidentiality to a special judge in certain circumstances - like when someone is wrongfully convicted which would not have happened if the confidentiality had not been there ?

That judge would not be allowed to share the information given to him by the lawyers, nor be allowed to act on it to punish the guilty party. He/she would however be able to free the innocent person.
Priests that take confessions might also like this system.

Now, I don't know the law in the least, but out of curiosity, if the lawyers came forward with said information, would it even be admissible in court?

Most likely, no, it wouldn't. That's the point I was getting at. Lawyers who have privlidges information don't even have the option of breaking that privlidge. Even if they tried it would accomplish nothing. A DA might out of the kindness of his own hart nulpros, but that's highly unlikely.

If it leads to cases like this, maybe it needs to.

It's unfortunate, but for every one of these, there are thousands of cases which worked only because of our legal structure. If someone can come up with a better system, that'd be great, but so far I haven't heard any great ideas.

simple. Guilty or not guilty is, for a defense attorney, an irrelevant proposition. Their job is to not prove their clients innocent, but demonstrate that there is not sufficient evidence for them to prove them guilty. To do that, the attorney must know the truth of the situation so that he may adequately craft the defense the defendant is constitutionally entitled to.

In order for that to happen, people need to have absolute faith in their lawyers so they may feel comfortable telling them what happened. If an attorney was allowed to disclose what a client told him, then a court could compel that attorney to do so. If people could not trust their lawyers, they would not be able to have sufficient faith in their lawyers for full disclosure. Without full disclosure, defense attorneys could not do their job.

Ah, okay. I figured that, but I thought certain other people might need it fully spelled out, hence why I asked.

If it leads to cases like this, maybe it needs to.

It would achieve nothing. It's not even strong evidence; they would break one of the most legal principals of the legal professions only to turn up at court and have the person say 'I never said that'. What would that have achieved?

Even if he did admit it in court, and the court did allow the evidence to be admitted, there is still no guarantee that anything would have been different. Juries don't have to believe confessions, and they're not necessarily going to believe it comes from a man who is clearly a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

The article doesn't talk about it, but there must have been some evidence, no matter how weak, that sent this man to prison in the first place. Even with the lawyers coming forwards there is no guarantee that anything different would have happened, other than the lawyers being struck off.

Most likely, no, it wouldn't. That's the point I was getting at. Lawyers who have privlidges information don't even have the option of breaking that privlidge. Even if they tried it would accomplish nothing. A DA might out of the kindness of his own hart nulpros, but that's highly unlikely.

So, basically, the lawyers had two options:

A)Breaking privilege, them losing their jobs, and nothing happening.

and

B)Them not breaking privilege, and nothing happening.

So, in the end, it is losing their jobs and not losing their jobs, as nothing happening is a result no matter what.

Like I said, damned if ya do, damned if ya don't.

and again, it's not just about one person's position. It's about the integrity of the system.

So you're happy 2 lawyers sat on evidence that could have freed an innocent man?
Pray tell how thats different from a policeman who sits on evidence that could free a man wrongfully convicted?

So you're happy 2 lawyers sat on evidence that could have freed an innocent man?
Pray tell how thats different from a policeman who sits on evidence that could free a man wrongfully convicted?

the police dont have attorney client privilege limiting what they can do.

So you're happy 2 lawyers sat on evidence that could have freed an innocent man?

Learn to read.

Pray tell how thats different from a policeman who sits on evidence that could free a man wrongfully convicted?

A policeman is not bound by laws of confidentiality.

So you're happy 2 lawyers sat on evidence that could have freed an innocent man?

He's not, but he's saying there isn't much of a better alternative when considered as a legal system, as opposed to individual cases.

Good to see this story's been picked up by the national circuit (or, at least the Yahoo newsfeed.) My local press has had pretty good coverage for a while now -- if anyone's interested, here's a link (http://blogs.chicagoreader.com/news-bites/2008/03/11/60-minutes-alton-logan/#comments) to one of Mike Miner's* follow-up blog entry to his column on Logan. He links to Jamie Kunz's (one of the affidavit-signers) sarcastic, heartfelt letter to the editor, which more or less follows Neo Art's line of argument, and to Chicago Public Radio's piece, which includes interviews with Kunz and Coventry (the other affidavit-signer.)

One thing that Miner mentions -- and covers more explicitly in the blog comments, IIRC -- is that not only did police & prosecutors not follow up on evidence that Wilson, not Logan, killed the security guard (major evidence, like the murder weapon being found at Wilson's residence,) but they also screwed up Wilson's conviction by torturing a confession out of him, leading eventually to Wilson serving life instead of getting the death penalty. I'm not saying Wilson's defense lawyers are morally blameless here, but you can also make the argument that Alton Logan is serving 26+ years for a crime he didn't commit because the police and prosecutors didn't do their fucking job.

*Mike Miner is the chicago-media critic for the Chicago Reader -- no, he's not a lawyer, but he's awesome when it comes to covering the coverage. Had to put in a plug for my favorite columnist ever.

This was on 60 minutes (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/06/60minutes/main3914719.shtml) a month ago...

Sad story - but I think they did the best they could. At least they did something, and followed it up.

But it does leave some questions - why they would be willing to speak up if he was sentenced to death, but not when he was sentenced to life...

But it does leave some questions - why they would be willing to speak up if he was sentenced to death, but not when he was sentenced to life...

The attorney-client privlidge is not absolute and can be broken in some circumstances, one of which is when violating that privlidge could prevent death. Were he sentenced to capital punishment the privlidge could be circumvented because doing so would prevent his death.

What's with the "privlidge"? You're all lawyerly & crap. Or did you get tired of correcting people and decide if you can't beat 'em, join 'em? Jest Aksing.

What's with the "privlidge"? You're all lawyerly & crap.

......I'm a lawyer.

......I'm a lawyer.

Sorry, I didn't include my invisible "kidding" tags on the last post. I know you're a lawyer, you're just the first lawyer I've met who's not superduperfinicky about spelling and I was curious if there was a reason. "What's with the 'privlidge'?" as in why not "privilege". Just thought you maybe gave up on correcting us badd spelers...Oh, never mind, I'll go soak my head before you tell me to.

Sorry, I didn't include my invisible "kidding" tags on the last post. I know you're a lawyer, you're just the first lawyer I've met who's not superduperfinicky about spelling and I was curious if there was a reason. "What's with the 'privlidge'?" as in why not "privilege". Just thought you maybe gave up on correcting us badd spelers...Oh, never mind, I'll go soak my head before you tell me to.

ahh, heh, yeah, that's the funny thing. I'm a HORRID speller. Totally terrible. I can't spell for shit. I'm so bad at spelling that I didn't even realise you were pointing out the fact that I spelled it wrong.

I have an extremely overworked legal secretary who does all my spell checking for me.

I have an extremely overworked legal secretary who does all my spell checking for me.

That's funny, because I am an extremely overworked sales assistant who does all the spell checking for my two brokers. Byzantine English Spelling = Job security for secretaries everywhere!:)

If it leads to cases like this, maybe it needs to.
Exceptions should never be the reason to abandon something as fundamental as the attorney-client privilege. It does make one more argument against the death penalty, though.

I saw this story on 60 Minutes some weeks back, and it's certainly very unfortunate, but I don't really know what else the lawyers could have done. Some people seem to think the dilemma revolved around keeping their jobs, but I really don't think that was it at all. It revolves more around the idea that attorney-client privilege is a vital part of our justice system, and that attorneys MUST represent their clients to the best of their ability, regardless of whether they like the client or believe the client to be innocent. Morally, I'm sure, we'd all rather that guilty people get lousy defenses from their attorneys, but until a law degree grants one infallibility, it is absolutely necessary that a lawyer's obligation to his or her client not depend on whether the lawyer believes that client to be guilty. Coventry and Kunz had an obligation to Wilson, and much as I'm sure they wished they could ignore that obligation and free an innocent man from prison, doing so would undermine the entire system of justice as we know it.

The attorney-client privlidge is not absolute and can be broken in some circumstances, one of which is when violating that privlidge could prevent death. Were he sentenced to capital punishment the privlidge could be circumvented because doing so would prevent his death.

I know, and I phrased my post inaccurately. I meant more like:

They could speak out if he risks death. Should they be able to speak out where he risks life imprisonment, de lege ferenda?

I'm a bit torn, but I'm still siding with no...

I know, and I phrased my post inaccurately. I meant more like:

They could speak out if he risks death. Should they be able to speak out where he risks life imprisonment, de lege ferenda?

Maybe they should...but they couldn't. And, as a point was raised earlier, if they could then they probably would never have been told in the first place

I have an extremely overworked legal secretary who does all my spell checking for me.
I hope she's paid what she's worth. :p

and again, I am in agreement to Neo Art. the lawyer's hands were tied.

Maybe they should...but they couldn't. And, as a point was raised earlier, if they could then they probably would never have been told in the first place

But would the real criminal have been aware of that loophole? He told them before it was determined that the death penalty couldn't be used, as far as I remember...

I don't blame these two lawyers. Lawyer-client privilege is an important part of our system.

Unfortunately, our system is flawed in many, many ways. Considering the high rate of exonerations in the Innocence Project, coupled with the fact that half or more of prisoners in America have been convicted of crimes that should never have been crimes in the first place (i.e. consensual "crimes", or "crimes" against themselves), I suspect that at least 3/4 of prisoners should not be behind bars. Furthermore, considering the unwillingness of the courts to reconsider cases where the innocence of the convicted persons becomes obvious at a later date, the situation in the United States is human rights disaster. I'm wondering when the day will come when the U.S. government demands that China release a political prisoner, and the Chinese government will suggest an exchange. Perhaps Steven Schurgard or Dr. Bruce Craft (both in jail for political speech, though of different stripes, but both framed in the same fashion).

The chief problems I see are that Prosecutors and the Police have great motivation to put people behind bars in order to be perceived as protecting the public, but little motivation to care whether those convicted are actually guilty, and a public that demands that prosecutors and police act in this way because they refuse to acknowledge that not all problems and not all crimes can be solved - and thus create new, greater problems while trying to solve smaller problems.

But this case is just the tip of the iceberg. I recall a case in Virginia where at least three men were in jail long after it was obvious that NONE of them were involved in the crime. All three, plus two others who served shorter sentences, were coerced into giving false confessions by the local police. Despite the fact that none of their "confessions" matched the details of the crime, that no evidence linked them to the crime, that their "confessions" also managed to include accusations of three men who didn't even exist, they were all convicted - and when another man confessed that he had committed the crime, by himself, and his account of the crime matched what was found at the crime scene, the court refused to review the case. At least in a sign of racial equality, these falsely convicted were white.

As long as the American people demand blood rather than justice, the American people will continue to suffer.

I'm wondering when the day will come when the U.S. government demands that China release a political prisoner, and the Chinese government will suggest an exchange. Perhaps Steven Schurgard or Dr. Bruce Craft (both in jail for political speech, though of different stripes, but both framed in the same fashion).

While I agree with you that there are far too many people in jail because of police apathy or misconduct, I think you could find a better example -- the Chinese government asking for the release of kiddie-porn fans is highly, highly unlikely to say the least. It's not as if they're more permissive than we are on that subject. Unless you're implying that the Chinese consider political speech to be the equivalent of kiddie porn, not vice versa? (Also, I imagine that Bruce Craft would be horrified that you lumped him in with Schurgard. But all this is really another thread.)

I hope she's paid what she's worth. :p

and again, I am in agreement to Neo Art. the lawyer's hands were tied.

Doesn't he usually prefer to be the one tying?
:confused:

Oh, wait you're talking about the lawyer in the article...
:(

the original quoted passage sounds (to me) like a chain email.
did this actually really happen?
link?

the original quoted passage sounds (to me) like a chain email.
did this actually really happen?
link?

They're scattered throughout the thread, so you may have missed them if you just scanned. I added a couple.
Chicago Tribune story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-secretjan19,0,4387223.story?coll=chi_news_local_transportation_xpromo) January 19
Chicago Reader Reaction (http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/hottype/080131/index.php?cAction=%20%20%20my%20hot%20type) January 31
60 Minutes (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/06/60minutes/main3914719.shtml) March 8
AP Recap (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hc5Mmnop76_ulpSQ5_xPiVGuSCoAD900FE680) April 12

Professor Burkhoff (U. Pittsburgh) taught me Legal Ethics, and in describing a case similar to this, said, "Sometimes you have to forget your ethics and do what's right."

Serving Justice > Attorney-Client Priviledge

Professor Burkhoff (U. Pittsburgh) taught me Legal Ethics, and in describing a case similar to this, said, "Sometimes you have to forget your ethics and do what's right."

At the cost of the integrity of the system?

At the cost of the integrity of the system?

"Systems" don't suffer. Humans do. Protecting a "system" at the expense of a suffering person is pure evil.

"Systems" don't suffer. Humans do. Protecting a "system" at the expense of a suffering person is pure evil.

The system breaking down ends up in hurting more humans though.

The system breaking down ends up in hurting more humans though.

THAT would be the only justification, not protecting "the system".
I entirely disagree that it would have ended up hurting more humans if the lawyers had done the right thing here.

THAT would be the only justification, not protecting "the system".
I entirely disagree that it would have ended up hurting more humans if the lawyers had done the right thing here.

...since it would have weakened the system, and not have been admissable anyways, leading them to lose their jobs while he would still be in jail for all that time - and they wouldn't have gotten the evidence they did that could now set him free?

"The right thing" is to sleep better at night while letting the consequence be that others suffer more?

...since it would have weakened the system, and not have been admissable anyways
You are assuming that the prosecutors would DELIBERATELY have prosecuted a man they knew to be innocent. Even if it were true that the prosecutors in this case were that evil, the public exposure would ruin them.

You are assuming that the prosecutors would DELIBERATELY have prosecuted a man they knew to be innocent. Even if it were true that the prosecutors in this case were that evil, the public exposure would ruin them.

ya know, as i think about this case i have changed my mind. youre right.

all they had to do was to go to the judge and prosecutor and tell them that they have a client who confessed to the crime. THAT guy wouldnt have been prosecuted but he wasnt prosecuted anyway. the innocent guy gets a second look and they have to drop the case because they realize that they are idiots.

ya know, as i think about this case i have changed my mind. youre right.

all they had to do was to go to the judge and prosecutor and tell them that they have a client who confessed to the crime. THAT guy wouldnt have been prosecuted but he wasnt prosecuted anyway. the innocent guy gets a second look and they have to drop the case because they realize that they are idiots.

and that ifnromation would have never been admissible. Once someone gets convicted and sentenced you can't just pull a "oops, our bad" there's a procedure that needs to be followed. Once you're convincted, very little, short of proof of your innocence, will set you free.

At best, at absolute best, there could have been a new trial and that evidence could be introduced. But guess what, because the evidence was obtained due to breach in attorney confidentiality, it would never get introduced.

and that ifnromation would have never been admissible. Once someone gets convicted and sentenced you can't just pull a "oops, our bad" there's a procedure that needs to be followed. Once you're convincted, very little, short of proof of your innocence, will set you free.

At best, at absolute best, there could have been a new trial and that evidence could be introduced. But guess what, because the evidence was obtained due to breach in attorney confidentiality, it would never get introduced.

What is wrong with the earlier proposed idea of a special "confessorial judge" that can set free but not convict ?

and that ifnromation would have never been admissible. Once someone gets convicted and sentenced you can't just pull a "oops, our bad" there's a procedure that needs to be followed. Once you're convincted, very little, short of proof of your innocence, will set you free.

At best, at absolute best, there could have been a new trial and that evidence could be introduced. But guess what, because the evidence was obtained due to breach in attorney confidentiality, it would never get introduced.

youre supposing that the DA would continue to prosecute a man he knew was innocent.

not that it hasnt happened plenty of times but its a rather cynical assumption.

System that is imperfect requires change.

No system should be protected at the cost of people - Let alone a system primarily designed to protect people.

System that is imperfect requires change.

No system should be protected at the cost of people - Let alone a system primarily designed to protect people.

How are you going to improve it?
It's easy enough to say that the system needs to be fixed.
Also you are never going to have a perfect system.

You are assuming that the prosecutors would DELIBERATELY have prosecuted a man they knew to be innocent. Even if it were true that the prosecutors in this case were that evil, the public exposure would ruin them.
No, not at all. I am, however, assuming that they wouldn't have stopped the case because some lawyers approached them and said that "we know he's innocent".

If I had been the prosecutor I would not have been convinced and abandoned, say, the eye witness who said (and still says) otherwise.

What is wrong with the earlier proposed idea of a special "confessorial judge" that can set free but not convict ?
It would be a problem with regards to the openness that is demanded from trials.

For example, how would you feel if someone who had hurt you in some way was convicted for the crime, but then released without any explanation?

I am, however, assuming that they wouldn't have stopped the case because some lawyers approached them and said that "we know he's innocent".
AND "we know who actually did it"?
If I had been the prosecutor I would not have been convinced
I hope to God you never get elected DA anywhere, is all I can say.
how would you feel if someone who had hurt you in some way was convicted for the crime, but then released without any explanation?
This wasn't someone who "hurt you in any way", this was the person who DIDN'T hurt you. The victims' families should be told that.
How would you feel if you knew that you had destroyed another man's life, without cause, piling on more pain on top of the pain that already was?

AND "we know who actually did it"?Yup.

"We know he's innocent and our client did it. We have no proof except hearsay from a convicted criminal, so disregard your eyewitnesses and stop the case."

I hope to God you never get elected DA anywhere, is all I can say.
Don't worry - I'll never get elected... ;)

Though I find it kinda amusing that you seem to think that defence lawyers should be in the business of trying to get their own clients convicted.

This wasn't someone who "hurt you in any way", this was the person who DIDN'T hurt you. The victims' families should be told that.
But the idea would entail that a judge say "sorry, wrong person" after a jury of his peers found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And they would only know "wrong guy", without any further explanation.

Would they see justice be done? I don't think so. Such a lack of transparency would be unthinkable in a western legal system.


How would you feel if you knew that you had destroyed another man's life, without cause, piling on more pain on top of the pain that already was?
Not good, but I fail to see how that's relevant here.

Yup.

"We know he's innocent and our client did it. We have no proof except hearsay from a convicted criminal, so disregard your eyewitnesses and stop the case."
A DA who doesn't know that witnesses often confuse one person for another should be gotten out of that job, pronto. A DA who cannot see when another lawyer is speaking to him honestly, with nothing possible to gain out of what he is saying, ditto.
A confession, by the way, is the exact opposite of "hearsay".

Though I find it kinda amusing that you seem to think that defence lawyers should be in the business of trying to get their own clients convicted.
No, the lawyers should not have disclosed the identity of their client. But all officers of the court ought to be seeking justice, above the interest of their client.

But the idea would entail that a judge say "sorry, wrong person" after a jury of his peers found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The lawyers should have acted BEFORE the trial.
And they would only know "wrong guy", without any further explanation.
??? If they know it is the "wrong guy" (without knowing who the "right guy" is, the same as in any case where a wrongly-arrested person demonstrates his innocence), shouldn't that be enough for them not to want an innocent person put away for the rest of his life?
Not good, but I fail to see how that's relevant here.
I fail to see what it is that you fail to see.

youre supposing that the DA would continue to prosecute a man he knew was innocent.

That he knew was innocent? No, he probably wouldn't. However "I know a guy, but I can't tell you who, who says he committed the crime, but I can't tell you how" doesn't exactly demonstrate that he had the wrong man.

A DA who doesn't know that witnesses often confuse one person for another should be gotten out of that job, pronto. A DA who cannot see when another lawyer is speaking to him honestly, with nothing possible to gain out of what he is saying, ditto.

Are you truly and honestly stating that a DA should stop a prosecution of someone who the evidence indicates is guilty, an eyewitness has indicated him as the criminal, and who he believes to be guilty, because someone comes up to him and says "someone else did it, but I can't tell you who"? Is that really your contention?

A confession, by the way, is the exact opposite of "hearsay".

I suggest you learn the definitions of words before trying to argue whether or not something fits. A confession, submitted as a truthful statement, is, the exact definition of hearsay.

A DA who doesn't know that witnesses often confuse one person for another should be gotten out of that job, pronto.
Especially the guard who got shot, and still maintains his claim that Logan shot him?

A DA who cannot see when another lawyer is speaking to him honestly, with nothing possible to gain out of what he is saying, ditto.
Um... You've never met many defence lawyers, have you...

And you seem way too trusting.

A confession, by the way, is the exact opposite of "hearsay".
To bad he never confessed officially, isn't it?

All they had was a piece of paper saying "I have obtained information through privileged sources that a man named Alton Logan ... who was charged with the fatal shooting of Lloyd Wickliffe ... is in fact not responsible for that shooting." And then they could say that it was their client.

Not a confesssion.

No, the lawyers should not have disclosed the identity of their client. But all officers of the court ought to be seeking justice, above the interest of their client.
So now you're going back on your original "Sometimes you have to forget your ethics and do what's right" statement then? Since it wouldn't do much unless they named their client?

The lawyers should have acted BEFORE the trial.
Irrelevant in connection to the question The Alma Mater asked, and my comment was in reference to.


??? If they know it is the "wrong guy" (without knowing who the "right guy" is, the same as in any case where a wrongly-arrested person demonstrates his innocence), shouldn't that be enough for them not to want an innocent person put away for the rest of his life?
It's the "without further explanation I have an issue with.

I agree with the statement "Justice must not only be done; It must also be seen to be done."

Again, I would not like a secret court with no transparancy like that.

I fail to see what it is that you fail to see.
I'm not surprised.

Are you truly and honestly stating that a DA should stop a prosecution of someone who the evidence indicates is guilty, an eyewitness has indicated him as the criminal, and who he believes to be guilty, because someone comes up to him and says "someone else did it, but I can't tell you who"? Is that really your contention?

Well, it would make it easier for defence lawyers everywhere if it was that simple :)

It would be a problem with regards to the openness that is demanded from trials.

For example, how would you feel if someone who had hurt you in some way was convicted for the crime, but then released without any explanation?

"Somebody else confessed to the crime" would make me feel angry about the fact that that person still walks free - but that an innocent would not be suffering in jail would not make me feel bad.

I am not arguing it would be perfect - just wondering if it would be slightly better.

I am not arguing it would be perfect - just wondering if it would be slightly better.

To make sure I understand your premise right, this would allow and obligate an attorney to reveal that someonehas confessed to a crime that someone else is being tried/punished for, however it would be done in such a way as to ensure confidence, and could not be used in such a way as to lead to the punishment/trial of the confessor.

OK, great. "hey, my wife just got charged with theft, but you know what? I did it. And I planted all the evidence on her. I wanted to get back at her for a fight, but now I really regret it." I can now spread reasonable doubt in any trial, but without having to sully my reputation or risk it backfiring on me.

What a screwed up situation.

If blame is to be placed here, I think it sits squarely on the shoulders of the person who cowardly admitted to the crime when those he told could do nothing about it while knowing that another man was in jail for something he didn't do.

I can't blame the lawyers because they were in a truly screwed up situation with no clear answer. If they had chosen to throw their licenses to the wind and do their damnedest to get the guy out of jail, I wouldn't blame them for that either.

I think I"ll add this to the long list of reasons I could never be a trial lawyer.

Are you truly and honestly stating that a DA should stop a prosecution of someone who the evidence indicates is guilty, an eyewitness has indicated him as the criminal, and who he believes to be guilty, because someone comes up to him and says "someone else did it, but I can't tell you who"? Is that really your contention?
Certainly I can't say the DA should be required to stop the prosecution, if he has no more. I would hope that, considering that the lawyers have no interest in sending him this information unless it is true, that it would make him take a hard second look at the case. That assumes the prosecutor actually cares whether he is prosecuting the right person or not. But whatever the prosecutor ended up doing, at least the lawyers would not have been guilty of deliberately imprisoning the innocent, as they were in this case.

Of course I do know that there are prosecutors who are only interested in convicting as many people as they can, guilty or innocent. That is a very personal issue with me: a friend of mine died in prison on a false accusation, when the prosecutor and judge knew perfectly well who was really guilty: this was a child abuse case, and the children's protective services knew also, and the then state attorney general, now serving out her second term as governor; I am reasonably certain the boy is dead, also, although no-one would ever confirm that.
I suggest you learn the definitions of words before trying to argue whether or not something fits. A confession, submitted as a truthful statement, is, the exact definition of hearsay.
??? I am surprised at you, usually you seem to know what you are talking about on legal subjects.
A statement made by the person who has direct personal knowledge is the exact opposite of hearsay: this is why I objected to Gravlen's strange "a confession is the definition of hearsay". And, even when this statement is relayed indirectly (the "hearsay" element: obviously in this case the DA would not be allowed to talk to the confessing criminal himself), a "statement against self-interest" is considered an exception, and not treated as "hearsay".

"Somebody else confessed to the crime" would make me feel angry about the fact that that person still walks free - but that an innocent would not be suffering in jail would not make me feel bad.

I am not arguing it would be perfect - just wondering if it would be slightly better.

So to use the situation in this case:

Someone tries to kill you by shooting you. (A shotgun blast to the torso, I think it was). You see him. When the trial happens, you point him out in court and say "that's the guy who killed my friend and tried to kill me." The jury finds him guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, and he's sentenced to life in prison.

But shortly after, a judge orders him to be released. You hear that someone else apparently has told him that they know that the guy whom you saw try to kill you was innocent. It can't be contested, because, well, it's all happening in secret.

So you're left seeing the one who, in your mind, tried to kill you being let go. No other person is charged in his place.

Does that seem satisfactory?

??? I am surprised at you, usually you seem to know what you are talking about on legal subjects.
A statement made by the person who has direct personal knowledge is the exact opposite of hearsay: this is why I objected to Gravlen's strange "a confession is the definition of hearsay".
Entirely incorrect. The federal rules of evidence, rule 801(c) defines hearsay as "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted".

"he told me he did it" is hearsay. It is absolutly hearsay. It was a statement that was not made by the declarant while that declarant was testifying at a trial or hearing. Unless the comment was made in court that comment is hearsay.

And, even when this statement is relayed indirectly (the "hearsay" element: obviously in this case the DA would not be allowed to talk to the confessing criminal himself), a "statement against self-interest" is considered an exception, and not treated as "hearsay".

And this is where your'e going wrong. Rule 802 of the Federal Rules of Evidence state that hearsay is inadmissible, this is the "Hearsay Rule".

However there are exceptions to the hearsay rule, one of which is 804(b)(3), which states that statements made against interest are exceptions to the hearsay rule. The hearsay rule is, again, a rule that states hearsay is inadmissible. Exceptions to the hearsay rule are types of hearsay that are admissible. A confession is hearsay. It might be admissible hearsay as statements against interest are hearsay statements that are exceptions to the hearsay rule, but they're still hearsay.

So to use the situation in this case:

Someone tries to kill you by shooting you. (A shotgun blast to the torso, I think it was). You see him. When the trial happens, you point him out in court and say "that's the guy who killed my friend and tried to kill me." The jury finds him guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, and he's sentenced to life in prison.

But shortly after, a judge orders him to be released. You hear that someone else apparently has told him that they know that the guy whom you saw try to kill you was innocent. It can't be contested, because, well, it's all happening in secret.

So you're left seeing the one who, in your mind, tried to kill you being let go. No other person is charged in his place.

Does that seem satisfactory?

Depends. Am I the type of person who is rational enough to know that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable and that the stress of the situation would have made my own judgment and memory less clear?

Ok, seriously though. I know this wasn't directed at me, but I will answer it. Hopefully, I'd be rational enough to question myself on it, but there's a good chance that I'd argue until my deathbed that a guilty man had been set free even if it wasn't true.

I do agree with you though that we can't have that kind of secret process. Too much of what happens in the law is secret as it is. And I don't think I would ever be satisfied with, "OK, this guy wasn't guilty, so we set him free, but we're not even going to go after the actual guilty party because we can't."

So to use the situation in this case:

Someone tries to kill you by shooting you. (A shotgun blast to the torso, I think it was). You see him. When the trial happens, you point him out in court and say "that's the guy who killed my friend and tried to kill me." The jury finds him guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, and he's sentenced to life in prison.

But shortly after, a judge orders him to be released. You hear that someone else apparently has told him that they know that the guy whom you saw try to kill you was innocent. It can't be contested, because, well, it's all happening in secret.

So you're left seeing the one who, in your mind, tried to kill you being let go. No other person is charged in his place.

Does that seem satisfactory?

Depends how much faith I would have in the legal system.

However, after a nights sleep, a much bigger objection came up. If a lawyer can secretly tell a court that he knows the convicted person is innocent because someone else did it, what happens to the case ?

The police would not have access to the information given to the judge, but does know that the former primary suspect was innocent. Will they reopen the case and this time get the right culprit ? In that case the lawyer has in fact hurt his client.

If the police would not be allowed to reopen the case at all, that creates an unwanted system of legal immunity which could be abused.

It might be admissible hearsay as statements against interest are hearsay statements that are exceptions to the hearsay rule, but they're still hearsay.
Ah yes, quite correct; my bad.
To sum up and clarify for the legalese-impaired: the "confession" itself, I DID IT!, is a statement from direct personal knowledge, the opposite of hearsay; but testifying *about* a confession, I HEARD him SAY that he did it!, is "admissible hearsay"; or it might be "inadmissible" for other reasons, such as "police misconduct" (failure to give Miranda warnings, electric shocks to the testicles, etc.) or "breach of privilege" (attorney-client privilege in the case discussed here), but testimony about a confession is not barred by the general rule against hearsay (it is an exception to the hearsay rule) or else no confessions could ever come in-- except a direct statement by the defendant personally, in court, I DID IT! (otherwise known as a "guilty plea").

You are assuming that the prosecutors would DELIBERATELY have prosecuted a man they knew to be innocent. Even if it were true that the prosecutors in this case were that evil, the public exposure would ruin them.

Obviously you have not watched enough A&E where the prosecution flat-out refuses to look at other suspects after they think they've got their guy.

How are you going to improve it?

Depends on the system. In USA, for starters, I'd ditch the common law system and replace it with the much more rational civil law system.

Also you are never going to have a perfect system.
Which is why the system should be in constant evolution to a better one.

The problem with case law is that old cases tend to set the standards and the judges are more keen on comparing a new case to an old one in order to get an uncontested verdict rather than looking at the case itself to find the right verdict in accordance with the existing laws and principles behind the laws.

Law does not exist to serve law, law exists to serve people.

edit:
Another thing I find quite dislikable are jury trials: Law should not be a popularity contest either.

Ah yes, quite correct; my bad.
To sum up and clarify for the legalese-impaired: the "confession" itself, I DID IT!, is a statement from direct personal knowledge, the opposite of hearsay; but testifying *about* a confession, I HEARD him SAY that he did it!, is "admissible hearsay"; or it might be "inadmissible" for other reasons, such as "police misconduct" (failure to give Miranda warnings, electric shocks to the testicles, etc.) or "breach of privilege" (attorney-client privilege in the case discussed here), but testimony about a confession is not barred by the general rule against hearsay (it is an exception to the hearsay rule) or else no confessions could ever come in-- except a direct statement by the defendant personally, in court, I DID IT! (otherwise known as a "guilty plea").

Quite right, that was my point. Getting up on the stands under oath and saying "I did it" is not hearsay. "he told me he did it" is hearsay. In fact "I told him I did it" is also hearsay.

They may be admissible hearsay, but hearsay it is. It's the old legal joke. Hearsay is inadmissible, except for the exempt circumstances, which are more numerous than non exempt circumstances.

Depends. Am I the type of person who is rational enough to know that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable and that the stress of the situation would have made my own judgment and memory less clear?
I dunno, are you? ;)

Ok, seriously though. I know this wasn't directed at me, but I will answer it.
And you know that you're welcome to jump in!

Hopefully, I'd be rational enough to question myself on it, but there's a good chance that I'd argue until my deathbed that a guilty man had been set free even if it wasn't true.
And if that happens all the time, it undermines the system. The justice system cannot work without the public trust.

I do agree with you though that we can't have that kind of secret process. Too much of what happens in the law is secret as it is. And I don't think I would ever be satisfied with, "OK, this guy wasn't guilty, so we set him free, but we're not even going to go after the actual guilty party because we can't."
And that is an extremely important point.

Depends how much faith I would have in the legal system.
How much do you have?

However, after a nights sleep, a much bigger objection came up. If a lawyer can secretly tell a court that he knows the convicted person is innocent because someone else did it, what happens to the case ?

The police would not have access to the information given to the judge, but does know that the former primary suspect was innocent. Will they reopen the case and this time get the right culprit ? In that case the lawyer has in fact hurt his client.

If the police would not be allowed to reopen the case at all, that creates an unwanted system of legal immunity which could be abused.
I can't see that the police would want to spend the resources either, seeing as how they managed to get a conviction during the last case and now - for some unknown reason - would have to start over without a single hint as to why their prime suspect was released.

The justice system cannot work without the public trust.


And that is an extremely important point.


How much do you have?
Pretty near zero.