What is the right decision?

mad1 · March 11th, 2008, 02:00 PM

A man was imprisoned for 26 years for a crime he did not commit. Another man admitted to his lawyer that he killed the person. If you are the lawyer do you use attorney/client privledge and remain quiet or expose the information to keep a innocent man out of jail?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/8...ogan11.article

Theophylact · March 11th, 2008, 02:16 PM

This was a particularly difficult case. As a lawyer, legal ethics demands that you be bound by the interests of your client, and you definitely would (and should) lose your license for betraying them. On the other hand, common decency demands that you not let an innocent man be convicted through your silence.

I suspect that if the death penalty had been invoked, the lawyer would have spilled the beans and sacrificed his own career. From an earlier story:

Quote:

At the time, the lawyers were bound by attorney ethics not to disclose Wilson's statement, but he said they could reveal it after his death. Under attorney-client privilege, conversations between a client and his lawyer are almost always confidential, unless the client agrees to disclose them. The principle has proven unassailable in court, even as prosecutors and others have sought to force lawyers to break it.

On March 17, 1982, Coventry and Kunz drew up an affidavit:

"I have obtained information through privileged sources that a man named Alton Logan who was charged with the fatal shooting of Lloyd Wickliffe at on or about 11 Jan. 82 is in fact not responsible for that shooting that in fact another person was responsible."

Each lawyer signed it, as did a witness and a notary public. Then they sealed it in a metal box.

"We were freaked out because it was really volatile and because the state was seeking the death penalty against Logan," said Coventry, who has kept the box ever since.

Kunz added that they prepared the document "so that if we were ever able to speak up, no one could say we were just making this up now."

Assistant Cook County public defender Harold Winston, who is currently representing Logan in a motion for a new trial, said that he had heard rumors for years that Kunz and Coventry had information about Wilson's involvement in the McDonald's case. After Wilson died, he reached out to Kunz.

Kunz contacted Coventry, who found the metal box and unsealed the envelope. Both were summoned to court Jan. 11, where Criminal Court Judge James Schreier ruled that they could reveal the conversation with Wilson and the contents of the affidavit. After hearing their testimony, the judge asked for legal briefs on the admissibility of Wilson's statement that he -- not Logan -- killed the McDonald's guard.

Incidentally, these guys were public defenders, doing a thankless and ill-paid job.

mad1 · March 11th, 2008, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theophylact

This was a particularly difficult case. As a lawyer, legal ethics demands that you be bound by the interests of your client, and you definitely would (and should) lose your license for betraying them. On the other hand, common decency demands that you not let an innocent man be convicted through your silence.

I suspect that if the death penalty had been invoked, the lawyer would have spilled the beans and sacrificed his own career. From an earlier story:Incidentally, these guys were public defenders, doing a thankless and ill-paid job.

There needs to be something in place where a innocent man is not sent to jail and a lawyer not reprimanded for keeping a innocent man out of jail. I suspect the decision would have been different if it were a family member or friend of theirs.

Gomer · March 11th, 2008, 02:46 PM

Another good reason to not support capital punishment.

Theophylact · March 11th, 2008, 02:52 PM

Their job, distasteful as it may have been, was to defend the client they had been assigned, even though they knew he was guilty. Failing to do that would have been a grave breach of professional conduct. These guys weren't Johnny Cochrane, who could accept or turn down a job on the basis of how much the client could pay or how much publicity he could get out of the trial; they were public employees doing a difficult job.

This is not an easy call, and I don't see how you could pass a law that wouldn't create more problems than it would solve. Would you trust a lawyer who could rat you out without consequences to himself? Do you think the guilty aren't entitled to competent legal defense?

mad1 · March 11th, 2008, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theophylact

Their job, distasteful as it may have been, was to defend the client they had been assigned, even though they knew he was guilty. Failing to do that would have been a grave breach of professional conduct. These guys weren't Johnny Cochrane, who could accept or turn down a job on the basis of how much the client could pay or how much publicity he could get out of the trial; they were public employees doing a difficult job.

This is not an easy call, and I don't see how you could pass a law that wouldn't create more problems than it would solve. Would you trust a lawyer who could rat you out without consequences to himself? Do you think the guilty aren't entitled to competent legal defense?

The issue is do you let a innocent man go to jail or breach the lawyer/client ethics code? What would you want if you were the person wrongly convicted of a crime for which you are facing 25 years in jail?

Pexster · March 11th, 2008, 04:24 PM

Let's say one or both of the attorneys disclosed the confession. Then what? It certainly wouldn't have been admissable against the guilty man. Would it have been useful in any way to exonerate the innocent man? I don't know, but I'm guessing the judge would not have allowed its use in any way, leaving the only difference being two attorneys out of a job.

CERuppel · March 11th, 2008, 04:39 PM

This can and does get even worse.

Suppose the lawyer does breach confidence. Anything he brings forward can not be used in court. It can not even be used as basis for an investigation. But the lawyer would lose their license, and probably be sued by the client he ratted out.

Now suppose the lawyer keeps his mouth shut. But the truth somehow comes out years later. As a member of the legal process the lawyer can be held on charges (uncertain of title) for failure to disclose the info that was in his possession.

Note: I am not a lawyer nor am I totally 100% on this, but it is how I recall one of the legal paradoxes. It is the basis of the disclaimer statement "If you are guilty of anything do not admit to me directly" (or words to that effect).

OuTpaTienT · March 11th, 2008, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theophylact

Their job, distasteful as it may have been, was to defend the client they had been assigned, even though they knew he was guilty. Failing to do that would have been a grave breach of professional conduct.

Let's see... I'm sitting in jail, 100% innocent, do I really give a fuck about someone's "professional conduct"? WTF!!!!!? This is one area of our legal system that is FUBAR. Needs to be done away with. The fact an innocent person is jailed and an attorney in the case with knowledge of this innocence is required to keep silent is just so very wrong. Wrong on every possible level.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theophylact

This is not an easy call, and I don't see how you could pass a law that wouldn't create more problems than it would solve. Would you trust a lawyer who could rat you out without consequences to himself?

donde · March 11th, 2008, 08:58 PM

it seems to me our legal system should be able to adapt to special circumstances.
our laws evolved to what they are now, and seem stuck in the mud.
each lawyer or judge deals with what is, not with what could be.
isn't there any creativity out there?
and by creativity, i mean common sense?