Attorney Client Privilege/ Alton Logan Ethical Dilemma

[songline]

Thank you for sharing your beautifully told story. I agree with you 100%.

My son spent a few days in jail (he was arrested for DUI in FL while sitting in a car with the engine running to have the AC on while waiting for his designated driver. It took me a while to get thru' the red tape to get him bailed out from NY)
He was deeply affected by the experience - not in a good way.

Unfortunately, there are many people who put their careers and finances ahead of truth and human injustice, and rationalize it in many ways. It is my opinion that way of thinking has cost mankind dearly.

Fortunately, there are also many people who believe that just because something is legal, or a rule, doesn't mean it's right.

It's because of people who took a stand against the "rules" that we have many of the freedoms we enjoy. We need more people to stand up for what is right in order to progress as a nation and as individuals.

JMHO as an old hippie trying not to become any more cynical.

Welcome, Concerned Papa - I look foward to reading your future posts here.

.

:clap::clap::clap::clap: KEEP ON SPEAKING :clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[songline]

Wudge, I have been a member here at WS only a short period of time, but it is obvious to me that you enjoy a good debate and typically I do as well. Normally my opinion on a subject could be swayed by sound opposing logic. However in this particular discussion, I have no give as to my beliefs.

You see, my friend, unlike most of you and possibly all of you, I was confined as a young man in a maximum security prison for a crime I was, in fact, guilty of. I spent 11 months, 2 weeks, 6 days, and 22 hours locked away. It was only the love of my family that allowed me to endure and get out with a determination to build a life that was meaningful. I cannot imagine the horror of being incarcerated for 26 years for a crime of which I was innocent.

There are no words, no matter how soundly based in the correctness of law, which allows me to consider their lack of action as anything less than reprehensible. This lack of action by the attorneys involved, including Andrea Lyon, constitutes a self serving callousness which is equalled only by their pretentious claim of willingness to take action if he received a death sentence. I submit to you the opinion that the robbing of an innocent man's soul and essence of inner being for 26 years is in many ways worse than a death sentence.

In a respectful direct answer to your question, it is my opinion that the prevention of one month, one year, three years, or certainly 26 years of wrongful incarceration justifies the sacrifice of any career.

As to whether or not God "grades on a curve", I frankly do not know. I can, however, offer the words from The Holy Bible of I Peter 3:14: "But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed."

:clap::clap::clap::clap:YOU TOUCHED MY HEART:clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[Friday]

http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/hottype/080131/

The Greater of Two Evils
When is it OK to let an innocent man rot in jail?
By Michael Miner
January 31, 2008 (quotes from article)

John Conroy (on WBEZ) and Maurice Possley (in the Tribune) recently reported on two lawyers, Dale Coventry and Jamie Kunz, who have known since 1982 that an innocent man was behind bars for a murder their own client committed. The reporters explained the legal reason for this travesty: the absolutism of the client-attorney privilege, which guarantees that anything a client tells his lawyers will be kept in confidence forever.


http://depaullaw.typepad.com/library/2008/03/60-minutes-segm.html
(quotes from article)
March 11, 2008
"60 Minutes" Segment on the Local Case of Alton LoganThis past Sunday, the television news program, "60 Minutes", featured a story about a Chicago resident , Alton Logan, who has been in jail for 26 years for a killing, that lawyers, Dale Coventry and Jamie Kunz, have known he did not commit. One of the clients of the two attorneys, was Andrew Wilson, who confessed to them that he was the one who had killed the person that Logan had been convicted of murdering.



JMO which is more important - making sure an innocent man doesn't spend 26 years in prison or a license to practice law?

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

My thoughts exactly. What those two lawyers did (and are allowed to do) made a vicious mockery of the word Justice. Defense lawyers are always reminding us that our legal system is supposed to be more concerned with protecting the innocent from wrongful prosecution than prosecuting the guilty. How did that work out for innocent Mr. Logan?

One more thing--If lawyers are allowed to report a client's intention to commit a serious crime, then wouldn't Wilson's intention to make Logan continue to stay in jail in the future, year after year, qualify for that exemption. And if Attorney Andrea knew about this, she's no angel of anything!

Personally, I think Mr. Logan should file a massive civil suit for punitive damages against Coventry and Kuntz. To protect their own careers and income they knowingly cost him his life for 26 long years.

 

[Concerned Papa]

We are all different. We all assess situations with a different set of principles and values, and our values will have different calibrations and limits.

Regarding Andrea, she had neither path nor process to effect the reversal of Alton Logan's conviction. You will not find a legal scholar who says otherwise. If you decide to sacrifice your career, achieving the goal should, at the very least, be highly or somewhat probable.

It is my belief that the two public defenders who signed this affidavit clearly both, in fact, did have a path and process that would have effected the reversal of Alton Logan's conviction had either been willing to potentially sacrifice their career. This was born out when 5 months after the death of their client, having disclosed the secret they shared for 26 years, Alton Logan became a free man in 2008.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-warden/charges-dropped-against-a_b_124055.html

I believe Andrea Lyon also had a path that had a favorable probability of effecting his release as well, had she chosen to take it. She had the path of awareness of the injustice, and who could correct it. As a noted attorney and Professor at DePaul University, she undoubtedly had the knowledge that during the 26 years of Alton Logan's incarceration, United States Presidents pardoned or commuted the sentences of 1,140 people by Presidential decree. I feel that it is at least possible and more likely probable that any of the 4 Presidents during this quarter of a century would have recognized the political expediency of correcting an injustice as profound as this. Once again, however, concern for her career blocked this path.

While I understand and agree with your statement of different people having different principles and values, my principles would not have allowed me to not attempt anything in my power to correct this injustice.

 

[NocturnalLady]

It's good that you were not wrongfully convicted.

Principles are great. All people should reflect on theirs. In doing so, people often realize that the whole world is a compromise. While you might be willing to sacrifice your legal career to prevent a person from being wrongfully incarcerated for any period of time, would you sacrifice your life? Or the life of one of your children? Hopefully, you have a limit, a compromise.

We are all different. We all assess situations with a different set of principles and values, and our values will have different calibrations and limits.

Regarding Andrea, she had neither path nor process to effect the reversal of Alton Logan's conviction. You will not find a legal scholar who says otherwise. If you decide to sacrifice your career, achieving the goal should, at the very least, be highly or somewhat probable.

Sorry but I completely disagree with both of those statements. I'm not a legal scholar so I can't prove my opinion to you but I know I have read about other similar cases involving ethical choices just like the Logan case where the lawyer chose to do the right thing and found a way to do it that was legal and did not mean the end of their career.

 

[NocturnalLady]

There was a time in some parts of the USA where some people were prohibited from sitting in certain seats because of the color of their skin. If these people sat there and the police were called, the police would remind them of the law and tell them to move. If they did not they would be arrested, and judges and juries would enforce the law by punishing the transgressors with prison time and fines.

Those were the rules. They were on the books, and people could point to them and say that's the law. Didn't make it right. Some brave people took stands against those rules, broke them, and suffered for it. Didn't make them wrong.

And I dare say these folks who stood up for what's right didn't weigh the consequences against any damage to their own careers, but rather their sense of right and wrong, and the effect on the world of failing to do what they felt they could to remedy an injustice they felt unconscionable. Some of them died for their principles, which did have a devastating effect on their careers, I will admit. But I dare say their effect on future generations was more profound than the ones who were only concerned with their own fortunes.

:clap::clap::clap:

 

[Wudge]

It is my belief that the two public defenders who signed this affidavit clearly both, in fact, did have a path and process that would have effected the reversal of Alton Logan's conviction had either been willing to potentially sacrifice their career. This was born out when 5 months after the death of their client, having disclosed the secret they shared for 26 years, Alton Logan became a free man in 2008.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-warden/charges-dropped-against-a_b_124055.html

I believe Andrea Lyon also had a path that had a favorable probability of effecting his release as well, had she chosen to take it. She had the path of awareness of the injustice, and who could correct it. As a noted attorney and Professor at DePaul University, she undoubtedly had the knowledge that during the 26 years of Alton Logan's incarceration, United States Presidents pardoned or commuted the sentences of 1,140 people by Presidential decree. I feel that it is at least possible and more likely probable that any of the 4 Presidents during this quarter of a century would have recognized the political expediency of correcting an injustice as profound as this. Once again, however, concern for her career blocked this path.

While I understand and agree with your statement of different people having different principles and values, my principles would not have allowed me to not attempt anything in my power to correct this injustice.

After Wilson died, his attorneys had a path, because Wilson (their client) had agreed to it; i.e., a post-death revelation. However, without his agreement, they had no path other than to violate the attorney-client privilege that covered Wilson's disclosure.

The reason that legal scholars have not written about the path you believe was available to Wilson's lawyers is because they, too, know not of it.

 

[Searchfortruth]

It is my belief that the two public defenders who signed this affidavit clearly both, in fact, did have a path and process that would have effected the reversal of Alton Logan's conviction had either been willing to potentially sacrifice their career. This was born out when 5 months after the death of their client, having disclosed the secret they shared for 26 years, Alton Logan became a free man in 2008.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-warden/charges-dropped-against-a_b_124055.html

I believe Andrea Lyon also had a path that had a favorable probability of effecting his release as well, had she chosen to take it. She had the path of awareness of the injustice, and who could correct it. As a noted attorney and Professor at DePaul University, she undoubtedly had the knowledge that during the 26 years of Alton Logan's incarceration, United States Presidents pardoned or commuted the sentences of 1,140 people by Presidential decree. I feel that it is at least possible and more likely probable that any of the 4 Presidents during this quarter of a century would have recognized the political expediency of correcting an injustice as profound as this. Once again, however, concern for her career blocked this path.

While I understand and agree with your statement of different people having different principles and values, my principles would not have allowed me to not attempt anything in my power to correct this injustice.

Thank you for your wonderful posts. I agree that Andrea had paths she could have taken, as well as the other lawyer's involved. Had it been Andrea in Mr. Logan's place, I am sure she would have a slightly differant viewpoint regarding "attorney-client priviledge".

 

[Concerned Papa]

After Wilson died, his attorneys had a path, because Wilson (their client) had agreed to it; i.e., a post-death revelation. However, without his agreement, they had no path other than to violate the attorney-client privilege that covered Wilson's disclosure.

The reason that legal scholars have not written about the path you believe was available to Wilson's lawyers is because they, too, know not of it.

I would respectfully point out that their client's death was not the reason for Alton Logan's release. He was released because the court was finally made aware that he was innocent. The death of Andrew Wilson only cleared the path that was always available for his two public defenders to tell the truth of their knowledge of Alton Logan's innocence with no fear of their careers being affected. They could have chosen to reveal their knowledge at anytime during the 26 years of his incarceration had they not been more concerned for their careers than the injustice to Alton Logan.

A legal scholar may not have accepted this option, but a moral scholar would demand it.

 

[Marina2]

The man that was Wilson's accomplice in this murder apparently tried to clear Logan of the crime that he was charged with. He told his attorney, Miller, that it wasn't Logan but Wilson that shot the security guard. In telling his lawyer that Logan was not the shooter and urging him to contact Logan's lawyers, it seems that Hope waived his attorney/client privilege. What privilege was Hope's lawyer bound by and what, if anything, did he do to correct this injustice besides informing Wilson's lawyers what Hope had told him? Is there anything that Miller could have done that Wilson's lawyers could not? It appears that Hope wanted this information made public a long time ago. Were Hope's statements brought up at Logan's trial but fell on deaf ears? I don't understand why it was a secret for 26 years when others had information who weren't bound by privilege.

From msnbc news:

"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."

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

 

[amethyst221]

Is there a written document that shows the client gave them permission to reveal his confidences after his death, or is this just the representation of the lawyers?

 

[Tiki]

If you decide to sacrifice your career, achieving the goal should, at the very least, be highly or somewhat probable.

I find this to be a very discouraging statement.

Thankfully, many people throught history have not believed that sacrifice should not be made unless the outcome is assured. A few come to mind readily:

George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
Abraham Lincoln
Harriet Tubman
Rosa Parks
Susan B. Anthony
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
John F. Kennedy
Robert Kennedy
John McCain
Barack Obama
Albert Einstein
Jesus Christ
Mahatma Gandhi

.

 

[Theonly1]

I have an idea:

What if information was slipped to someone high in office who was able to pardon Logan?

What about a pardon by the Governor? This would "end run" around trying to get the Affidavit admitted, ruining people's careers, etc.

Surely some Governors could hear issues with these kind of ethical dilemmas and be able to understand and to "pardon" the accused. While this would not be an exoneration it is better than spending one's life in prison.

Failing that one could go for a Presidential pardon.

If this was my personal ethical dilemma I'd have a hard time sleeping until I had run it fully up the flagpole.

 

[Wudge]

I would respectfully point out that their client's death was not the reason for Alton Logan's release. He was released because the court was finally made aware that he was innocent. The death of Andrew Wilson only cleared the path that was always available for his two public defenders to tell the truth of their knowledge of Alton Logan's innocence with no fear of their careers being affected. They could have chosen to reveal their knowledge at anytime during the 26 years of his incarceration had they not been more concerned for their careers than the injustice to Alton Logan.

A legal scholar may not have accepted this option, but a moral scholar would demand it.

After his death, the evidence was only deemed admissable (actionable), because Wilson agreed to its release (decades ago) only after his death. The privilege belongs to the client, not the lawyers.

Legal scholars do not recognize the option of attorneys violating the privilege for the benefit of others unless the conditions meet statute standards, which they did not in Logan's case.

I take no issue with your moral scholar statement, but it was not morals (major culture) that constrained the attorneys, it was legal ethics (minor culture). Unlike rule of law, our system of jurisprudence makes no claim to rule by morals.

 

[Wudge]

I have an idea:

What if information was slipped to someone high in office who was able to pardon Logan?

What about a pardon by the Governor? This would "end run" around trying to get the Affidavit admitted, ruining people's careers, etc.

Surely some Governors could hear issues with these kind of ethical dilemmas and be able to understand and to "pardon" the accused. While this would not be an exoneration it is better than spending one's life in prison.

Failing that one could go for a Presidential pardon.

If this was my personal ethical dilemma I'd have a hard time with it until I had run it fully up the flagpole.

Given the facts of the case, there is no way the Governor would have pardoned Logan without disclosing why -- self-serving protection, toss the attorneys to the wolves. If there is one thing I have learned after fifty years of assessing evidence and cases, it's that the public has even less regard for politicians than it does for trial attorneys.

 

[amethyst221]

Is there any evidence that the client agreed years ago that his confidential information could be revealed after his death, or was this just the decision of the lawyers that the time had finally come to put aside the A/C privilege?

 

[Theonly1]

Given the facts of the case, there is no way the Governor would have pardoned Logan without disclosing why (self-serving protection, toss the attorneys to the wolves). If there is one thing I have learned after fifty years of assessing evidence and cases, it's that the public has even less regard for politicians than it does for trial attorneys.

I know, I'm grasping at straws.

50 years! You're showing your age, mon ami!

 

[Wudge]

Is there any evidence that the client agreed years ago that his confidential information could be revealed after his death, or was this just the decision of the lawyers that the time had finally come to put aside the A/C privilege?

The affidavit that addressed this point was prepared decades ago. I don't believe anyone would think the attorneys were lying in wait in the hopes that a falsely averred to affidavit might someday prove useful in freeing Alton Logan.

 

[Wudge]

I know, I'm grasping at straws.

50 years! You're showing your age, mon ami!

Aye. I'm a legitimate old curmudgeon, and I have a birthday in the near future. But you never complain about living long, it's a privilege denied to many.

 

[Concerned Papa]

After his death, the evidence was only deemed admissable (actionable), because Wilson agreed to its release (decades ago) only after his death. The privilege belongs to the client, not the lawyers.

Legal scholars do not recognize the option of attorneys violating the privilege for the benefit of others unless the conditions meet statute standards, which they did not in Logan's case.

I take no issue with your moral scholar statement, but it was not morals (major culture) that constrained the attorneys, it was legal ethics (minor culture). Unlike rule of law, our system of jurisprudence makes no claim to rule by morals.

I am not a legal scholar, nor do I pretend to be, so in that regard I would like to ask you two questions. If I understand your above referenced post correctly, you are saying that the evidence, which in this situation would be the attorney's testimony and the affidavit, would only be admissible or actionable after the death of Wilson due to the attorney/client privilege.

Are you saying this a rule of law requiring a court to rule this evidence inadmissible if presented prior to Wilson's death?

As a non scholar, I find it incredible that there is a rule of law not allowing testimony from officers of the court as to a man's innocence, particularly in a case with this much injustice.

If in fact this is an absolute rule of law, what was the reason for all of your points and counterpoints in other posts about principles and their variance among different people as to possible career ending choices in this matter?