Attorney Client Privilege/ Alton Logan Ethical Dilemma

[Chezhire]

You're right, of course, Wudge. But if that jury learns that Lyons knowingly and admittedly let an innocent man rot in jail for 26 years because she was "ethically bound" not to reveal her guilty, (already-imprisioned-for-life) client's written confession, that jury will thoroughly despise and mistrust Lyons.

I am as certain of that as I am of my own name, because I feel that way about her now and I fully understand all the legal justifications and personal motivations that caused her to keep quiet. A less aware, less intellectually-inclined juror than I will simply regard her as heartless and evil and they will be happy to thwart her efforts to get KC off. And if AL resorts to shedding so much as a tear for KC, those jurrors will recoil because she isn't crying over a man she knows is totally innocent and who has spent 26 years weeping in a cell.

In view of this, I think the Defense's choice of AL may actually benefit the cause of Justice For Caylee. At least I hope so.

I was pleased to see the defense choice for the reasons you state above. I think you're right re: it creating a force for Caylee. I also believe that JBaez + the rest of the defense team are so blinded by certain things that they haven't even thought about this potential effect...

 

[ecs5298]

I have the greatest admiration and respect for both of you, Wudge and Chez, but in good conscience, I have to say this:

When a portion of "The Law" sanctions and encourages Punishing the Innocent, that portion of The Law needs to be changed.

And who better to figure out how best to change it than the very people who understand it, i.e, practicing attorneys and attorney-politicians.

I have thoroughly enjoyed the debate contained in this thread and I was about to post my own thoughts on it but I see that Friday has beaten me to it.

I just want to know when defending a client went from being about making sure that a person got a fair trial to being about winning at all costs. When did a vigorous defense turn into a ridiculous defense (ie KC, OJ, etc). When did the justice system stop being about truth and justice and start becoming about smoke and mirrors and press coverage.

While I can see that an innocent man serving 26 years is indeed a tragedy and a travesty of justice, in my personal opinion, a bigger travesty is working to let a stone cold killer go free by throwing enough chit at the wall and hope some of it sticks.

But then again, as OJ recently found out, karma is indeed a b*tch.

 

[ecs5298]

I was pleased to see the defense choice for the reasons you state above. I think you're right re: it creating a force for Caylee. I also believe that JBaez + the rest of the defense team are so blinded by certain things that they haven't even thought about this potential effect...

I don't think there was that much thought put into choosing her. I think she was the only one to say "yes".

 

[faefrost]

Yes, another strange twist to how the dilemma developed. If you can believe the reporting and interviews, the actual accomplice Hope quite adamantly and clearly directed his own lawyer (Miller, I think, one of the signers of the affidavit) to tell Alton Logan's lawyer that he was representing an innocent man. He said to go check with his street buddies to confirm that he always used Wilson as his accomplice or triggerman. Logan was a stranger to him. Instead, Miller apparently went first to his colleagues who represented Wilson and told them. I'm not sure why or if he should have done this, based on his client's directive. Or whether they should have all become entwined in this. Supposedly, they collectively did not trust Logan's private attorney, who was not one of them, though eventually he was told something. Wilson's lawyers chose also to ask Wilson if this information was true, and he said yes. And there they were.

Since the information exonerating the innocent man came from a third party, who clearly did intend its distribution, and not directly from their client (corroboration came from the client after they had the initial information from a confessed participant) how exactly was the information protected by attorney client privelege?

it looks suspiciously like they could have spoken up years ago, at the very least bringing up the statements from the accomplis's attorney without jeopardizing their privilege.

 

[Friday]

The American legal system is founded upon basic precepts, one of which is the attorney-client privilege.

Snipped by me.

Yes, of course, but I thought at the heart of our criminal justice system, there was this overriding priviso: It is worse to punish an innocent person for a crime he didn't commit than it is to let a guilty person go free.

Isn't that one of the reasons why, in a trial, the prosecution is held to stricter standards of proof/behavior than the defense?

Apologies for not wording that better. I'm in a huge rush. :blowkiss:

 

[Verité]

No, they could not have been.

FYI, there's a debate about this in the literature.

 

[Chezhire]

Snipped by me.

Yes, of course, but I thought at the heart of our criminal justice system, there was this overriding priviso: It is worse to punish an innocent person for a crime he didn't commit than it is to let a guilty person go free.

Isn't that one of the reasons why, in a trial, the prosecution is held to stricter standards of proof/behavior than the defense?

Apologies for not wording that better. I'm in a huge rush. :blowkiss:

No apologies necessary. I get what you're saying. The snipped portion of my post above was concerning my ethical, legal, moral obligations to my client, and I said that I strongly disagreed with any proposition that Wilson's attorneys owed some legal, moral or ethical "duty" to Logan, who was not their client, that would have required them to violate their duties to Wilson.

To answer/respond to the post above, I still stand by what I said: I would not violate my duties and/or obligations to my client to protect a third party, no matter how innocent I believed said third party to be. Please understand that if my client ever allowed me to reveal what he'd told me, then there'd be no "violation" on my part.

You ask if it's worse to punish an innocent person than to let a guilty person go free. I really can't answer that.

There are a lot of threads here at WS that reflect a great deal of dissatisfaction regarding so many criminals getting off scott free, or with such light sentences, etc. Try explaining what the above post suggests to the parent(s) of a molested and murdered child who found out that the accused had done it before but couldn't be convicted and incarcerated for life b/c of someone else's screwup. It's a tough debate: winning and losing points on either side.

 

[Chezhire]

FYI, there's a debate about this in the literature.

TY - I'm aware.

ETA: Without an actual decision by a court of law, any fact scenario allows room for debate. Debates are fun, too! (LOL) I just have no doubts that such a wrongful death lawsuit would not be viable. There must first be a duty to the deceased, and K&C owed Logan absolutely no duty.

 

[Chezhire]

I don't think there was that much thought put into choosing her. I think she was the only one to say "yes".

LOL - you could be right.

 

[Verité]

Nope, Kunz and Coventry went to Wilson and asked him.

"...Coventry and Kunz, both then assistant Cook County public defenders, wereassigned to be Andrew Wilson’s lawyers.

In March, just a few weeks later, MarcMiller, then the attorney defending Edgar Hope, came to Kunz and Coventry to
say that his client was contending that Logan was innocent.

“Hope said that [Logan] had nothing to do with the McDonald’s case, andthat it was Andrew Wilson who was with him and Andrew Wilson who shotgunnedthe security guard,” Kunz said.

Coventry and Kunz said they confronted Wilson with Hope’s claim.
“He kind of chuckled over the fact that someone else was charged withsomething he did,” Coventry, 64, recalled.
Kunz said, “Wilson said, ‘Yeah’ or ‘Uh-huh,’ nodded, grinned, and said,’That was me.’” ..."Bolded by me, Chezhire.

See here: http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/jan/19/news/chi-secretjan19

The debate in the literature also involves whether or not this was an authentic "confession" described in your last paragraph above, i.e. the chuckling,
whether or not there was actually informed consent, and that the affidavit appeared "sloppily written," each point debatable as to whether or not it was actually binding.

 

[Verité]

Snipped by me.

Yes, of course, but I thought at the heart of our criminal justice system, there was this overriding priviso: It is worse to punish an innocent person for a crime he didn't commit than it is to let a guilty person go free.

Isn't that one of the reasons why, in a trial, the prosecution is held to stricter standards of proof/behavior than the defense?

Apologies for not wording that better. I'm in a huge rush. :blowkiss:

Bolded mine

. . . .than it is to let ten guilty men go free. Why 10? I do not know.

 

[Chezhire]

The debate in the literature also involves whether or not this was an authentic "confession" described in your last paragraph above, i.e. the chuckling,
whether or not there was actually informed consent, and that the affidavit appeared "sloppily written," each point debatable as to whether or not it was actually binding.

Not surprising. It's a debate because not enough details are published. Similar to how we here at WS were not privy to many details re: Casey's videotaped reaction to Caylee's remains being found on Suburban Drive back in December, which prompted a lot of debate on the threads...now that we've today been able to read the deposition of Dep. Richardson, for one, it's pretty clear what the outcome of any debate over that videotape will be

 

[Verité]

No, they could not have been.

Re your response above to the question of whether or not the attorneys could have been held liable in a wrongful death suit if Logan had died in prison,
the debate in the literature isn't so unequivocal as your response implies. There is even the question of whether or not the lawyers should have been held liable
for personal injuries which Logan may have sustained during his 26 years incarcerated since prison is known to be an often violent and hazardous environment.
(I believe he did suffer some type of injuries, but I'm not sure.)

No law suits were filed on behalf of Wilson against the lawyers involved. What I find most poignant is that when he was first released from custody,
his family and friends had to take up a collection in the courthouse lobby to pay the $1,000. bail. I wondered why the culprit-lawyers would not have
gladly paid that as a minimum form of restitution.

 

[lisalei321]

This thread makes my head hurt, now I know for a fact why I didn't go to law school.

Thanks everybody for the discussion.

I to believe that Justice for Caylee will prevail because of what happened in the past.

 

[Verité]

Not surprising. It's a debate because not enough details are published. Similar to how we here at WS were not privy to many details re: Casey's videotaped reaction to Caylee's remains being found on Suburban Drive back in December, which prompted a lot of debate on the threads...now that we've today been able to read the deposition of Dep. Richardson, for one, it's pretty clear what the outcome of any debate over that videotape will be

I'm blank on this one. What will the outcome be? TIA

 

[Chezhire]

Since the information exonerating the innocent man came from a third party, who clearly did intend its distribution, and not directly from their client (corroboration came from the client after they had the initial information from a confessed participant) how exactly was the information protected by attorney client privelege?

it looks suspiciously like they could have spoken up years ago, at the very least bringing up the statements from the accomplis's attorney without jeopardizing their privilege.

The information that led to the exoneration of the innocent man, Logan, was not Miller's affying to what his client Hope had told him about Wilson, but Wilson's attorneys' affying to Wilson's ADMISSION to them that he was the one who committed the McDonald's shootings. Therefore, the information exonerating the innocent man resulted not from a third party, but from the client's words to his attorneys, which are protected by the attorney-client privilege.

 

[Chezhire]

Re your response above to the question of whether or not the attorneys could have been held liable in a wrongful death suit if Logan had died in prison,
the debate in the literature isn't so unequivocal as your response implies. There is even the question of whether or not the lawyers should have been held liable
for personal injuries which Logan may have sustained during his 26 years incarcerated since prison is known to be an often violent and hazardous environment.
(I believe he did suffer some type of injuries, but I'm not sure.)

No law suits were filed on behalf of Wilson against the lawyers involved. What I find most poignant is that when he was first released from custody,
his family and friends had to take up a collection in the courthouse lobby to pay the $1,000. bail. I wondered why the culprit-lawyers would not have
gladly paid that as a minimum form of restitution.

Bolded by me, Chezhire.

Of course it's not so unequivocal if it were, it wouldn't be a debate.

In order to prevail on a tort suit, one must be able to first prove that one belongs to a class of people to whom the defendant owed some duty. Like I've already posted, Wilson's attorneys owed no duty to Logan, ergo the inquiry ends there.

As far as the bolded portion goes, Wilson's attorneys are not culprit-lawyers, and certainly don't owe Logan "restitution."

 

[Friday]

With respect, Friday, I've not said that I always agree with that which I'm charged to abide by/uphold, as I'm only one of many billions of citizens privileged enough to live in the US. As an attorney and as a citizen, I've lobbied for various changes in various areas of the law, but until such time, I am bound to abide by and uphold that which I'm given to work with. It's not that the law "sanctions and encourages punishing the innocent," it's that the law dictates that other individuals' rights, such as those charged with committing crimes, also be protected, and it's this action that then causes innocents to sometimes suffer.

The biggest challenge is finding a way to protect innocents and still provide proper defense to those who are, er, maybe not so innocent...

Bolded by me:
Thanks Chez, I do understand. And now, I want to tell you how happy I am about the words I bolded above, because there's something I've been dying to ask you and Wudge and our other attorneys here to consider:

Forensic information is incredibly difficult to understand on its own, but it is much so when it is being dispensed by expert witnesses for either side who want to slant it in their favor, which is easier to accomplish when the facts are virtually incomprehensible to baffled, all-but-comatose jurrors.

I learned that for a fact here at WS, while pouring over FBI lab reports myself, then reading analysis and opinions here about what the d@mned reports really said! There were many times I was shocked, and I'm not referring only to the raw data but especially also to the summaries which contained some extremely subtle info that was closer to "mumbo jumbo and vague innuendo" than clear statement of fact or conclusion.

However, there's no doubt that forensic evidence and testimony by forensic experts will have mounting importance in criminal trials. And there's no doubt that juries are going to be taxed beyond their capabilities to understand and to try to separate important findings from meaningless minutia. (Particularly when the complicated scientific information is being dispensed by experts whose English is frequently impossible to completely understand, including Henry Lee!! There needs to be printed text on screens above their heads when they testify or else interpreters! Okay, okay, I'll save this rant for another time. LOL)

Anyway, what I wanted to suggest is that lawyers for both sides agree on some standarized wording, definitions, and explanations for interpreting forensic findings for the sake of the jury (wherever possible.) An instance that comes to mind is a man who was convicted after the forensics expert testified that there was a one in 10 billion chance of someone else having the accused's same DNA. Several jurrors couldn't equate that to the population of our planet which is only 7 billion.

Agreeing on some standardized language/examples to clarify forensics findings would benefit both the prosecution and the defense, since it would cut down on the amount of "spin" the other side could put on the information.

 

[Chezhire]

SNIPPED: " ... Anyway, what I wanted to suggest is that lawyers for both sides agree on some standarized wording, definitions, and explanations for interpreting forensic findings for the sake of the jury (wherever possible.) An instance that comes to mind is a man who was convicted after the forensics expert testified that there was a one in 10 billion chance of someone else having the accused's same DNA. Several jurrors couldn't equate that to the population of our planet which is only 7 billion.

Agreeing on some standardized language/examples to clarify forensics findings would benefit both the prosecution and the defense, since it would cut down on the amount of "spin" the other side could put on the information.

Standardized/streamlined jury instructions would help a lot with this, both in terms of jurors' understanding of the facts presented and in terms of money, as it would take a lot less time.

 

[Friday]

Bolded mine

. . . .than it is to let ten guilty men go free. Why 10? I do not know.

Ten!! That's right. I knew I was off there somewhere. :blowkiss:

ETA: BTW, I knew it was "man/men" not "person," but the feminist in me mandated a re-write. LOL