Attorney Client Privilege/ Alton Logan Ethical Dilemma

[amethyst221]

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.

I can answer based on what I've read so far, but I'm also going back to look again for more of what Hope said to his lawyer and (for curiosity's sake) what fate befell Hope. Hope was charged with the so-called McDonald's crime. According to the reports/interviews, Hope was quite disturbed that ALogan was charged with being his accomplice. He directed his lawyer to give certain info to Logan's lawyer, and suggested ways to confirm it, but I don't think he gave blanket license to Miller to tell people he admitted to the crime, or said he would testify and thus confess. I have no way to predict what would have evolved or how things would have worked out had only this occurred. Was this a waiver other than a limited one of Hope's privilege? Miller was bound by the privilege as to his own client, and if things had rested there only he would have faced these issues.

Once Hope's lawyer told (should he have?) C and K, the lawyers for the real accomplice Wilson (who they were representing on other murder charges) they chose to ask Wilson and he admitted it was true. That was privileged information.

I'm trying to explain, and I could have some of the facts wrong, but that is my best understanding.

 

[Friday]

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.

Okay, perfect! :clap: Now, how do "we" make that happen? LOL

 

[Verité]

The information that lead 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.[/QUOTE]

But were the client's words in this context protected by privilege--or was this a failure of lawyers to disclose to the Court (as they should have done) their client's fraudulent act, contrary to rules of Illinois State Bar (see my post 259)? What the involved lawyers presumed over the course of those 26 years and what other legal scholars now debate show some disparity.

 

[Chezhire]

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.

I feel the need to respond to something stated in the above post: it was not their own careers that Wilson's lawyers were protecting. They were protecting the information that their client, Wilson, gave them, which they have legal, ethical and moral obligations to protect.

More importantly, and on a larger scale, please bear in mind that if these defense attorneys lose their licenses after breaching the attorney-client privilege, it will affect a great many people than just themselves: there are a great many potential accused persons, some of whom are likely innocent as well, who stand to lose the opportunity to have defense attorneys with the years of experience that Wilson's attorneys have/had defending them.

 

[Chezhire]

But were the client's words in this context protected by privilege--or was this a failure of lawyers to disclose to the Court (as they should have done) their client's fraudulent act, contrary to rules of Illinois State Bar (see my post 259)? What the involved lawyers presumed over the course of those 26 years and what other legal scholars now debate show some disparity.

Wilson did not commit any fraudulent act - and he can invoke the 5th Amendment right to not incriminate himself.

I reread post # 259, quoting some writers in a blog, Morley Moore and Ingrid Ingram, whoever these people are..., for Traton News. (News reporters???) Anyway, in terms of the argument that the court was somehow "deceived", Wilson did not participate nor serve as a witness in the criminal proceedings against Logan and the other defendant in the McDonald's shootings, ergo he did not "deceive" anyone. As an attorney, I find those writers', Morley Moore's and Ingrid Ingram's, arguments laughable.

 

[Verité]

I feel the need to respond to something stated in the above post: it was not their own careers that Wilson's lawyers were protecting. They were protecting the information that their client, Wilson, gave them, which they have legal, ethical and moral obligations to protect.

More importantly, and on a larger scale, please bear in mind that if these defense attorneys lose their licenses after breaching the attorney-client privilege, it will affect a great many people than just themselves: there are a great many potential accused persons, some of whom are likely innocent as well, who stand to lose the opportunity to have defense attorneys with the years of experience that Wilson's attorneys have/had defending them.

That's all too scary for me to assimilate! I can comprehend the plight of an innocent person being locked away for 26 years. Maybe I have a limitation in abstract reasoning ability and can ascertain only the concrete.

Thanks for all your strongly held opinions today.

 

[NocturnalLady]

They said that they were holding their breaths at sentencing, that if it had been a Death Penalty case, they would have disclosed. That's part of the
controversy raised in some of the readings I've reviewed--how they could assume such omniscience as to make that distinction.

I agree that this is a big part of the problem I have with this incident. It shows a conciousness on their part that there was something that could be done. And also shows that they had decided what level of punishment was okay with them. Why did they think that was up to them to determine?

 

[Friday]

They said that they were holding their breaths at sentencing, that if it had been a Death Penalty case, they would have disclosed. That's part of the controversy raised in some of the readings I've reviewed--how they could assume such omniscience as to make that distinction.

Bolded by me.

So, if he'd been sentenced to death, he would have gotten off, but because he was spared the death penalty, he had to spend 26 years in prison. Talk about a guy with really, really bad luck!

 

[Friday]

I have around 30 years within the group of people whose rules of conduct are at issue, and I have totally conflicting reactions to this case. It is horrific to me that Mr. Logan spent 26 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit. I don't think everyone who isn't a member of the bar needs to be counseled out of their disagreement or disdain, or that the lawyers involved should be either condemned or canonized for some sort of heroic service. We are a group that makes rules for its own members. We could change or tweek them. We make exceptions to the attorney client privilege for occasions when the clients won't pay us. This isn't all holy gospel.

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

 

[Chezhire]

I agree that this is a big part of the problem I have with this incident. It shows a conciousness on their part that there was something that could be done. And also shows that they had decided what level of punishment was okay with them. Why did they think that was up to them to determine?

Bolded by me, Chezhire.

The consciousness on their part was what they were willing to breach (attorney-client privilege) and/or risk/lose (their licenses and a lawsuit by Wilson for the breach of the said attorney-client privilege and the ability to represent other defendants, some of whom are likely innocent, as well, and deserving of defense lawyers with the kind of experience Wilson's lawyers have), in exchange for Logan's life. The point is that they decided that they valued Logan's life above all of the foregoing, but not his freedom. According to the rules re: attorney-client privilege, as they stand now, that was Wilson's attorneys decision/determination to make.

 

[Chezhire]

That's all too scary for me to assimilate! I can comprehend the plight of an innocent person being locked away for 26 years. Maybe I have a limitation in abstract reasoning ability and can ascertain only the concrete.

Thanks for all your strongly held opinions today.

It's like throwing a stone into a pond - the ripples are really endless.

 

[NocturnalLady]

I well understand where you've been coming from. Many other posters have had a gut reaction similar to yours.

At a moral level, such reactions are easy to appreciate, for it's crystal clear that something is wrong. However, the problem lies not with the trapped attorneys. I assure you that none of them wanted to be in that position. Still, consider the fact that Wilson's attorneys asked him if he committed the murder. They wanted to know even though they assuredly understood what the possible outcomes were.

Experience has well taught me that many attorneys would not have asked Wilson that question. For unless Wilson decided to confess of his own volition, an affirmative answer was going to place those attorneys between the anvil of legal ethics and the sledge hammer of easily understood morality. Yet, they still asked the question. In doing so, they acquired knowledge that Logan was not the murderer. Wilson was the murderer.

I could easily (and I believe successfully) argue that if Wilson did not trust that his attorneys would uphold their oath and not violate Wilson's attorney-client privilege, then Wilson would never have truthfully answered their question. And if he had not truthfully answered their question, Logan would still be in prison.

There are a lot of huge problems within our system of jurisprudence. We have crooked judges. We have judges who are horribly biased in favor of LE and prosecutors (so much for a fair trial). We have prosecutors who are just plain evil or, at the very least, claim to have absurd ideas of what constitutes exculpatory and/or exonerating evidence and/or if they need to disclose such to the defense. We have police who religiously uphold the blue wall of silence, which means they refuse to police their own but they're fine with policing others. And then we have cases with circumstances similar to those in "Logan".

Though "Logan" certainly represents a problem within our legal system, such cases are very rare. More importantly, they do not arise because the attorneys caught in the trap are inherently fiendish individuals.

I know of no path that would have likely freed Logan. All of the attorneys involved checked for such a path with the State bar, legal scholars, judges et al. No one, anywhere, professed to know of such a path. Moreover, if in a similar case in the future, an attorney were to violate the client's privilege and a landmark case was handed down -- whereby some poor wrongfully convicted soul did gain early freedom -- I would argue that future Wilsons would not confess if they were asked "did you do it" by their attorneys. No trust, no truth.

FWIW

I agree with the statement I have bolded.

Unfortunately, many times good people do horrible things because they choose to go along with a bad system. (Think Nazi Germany.) I think that there is a serious argument to be made that these lawyers were ultimately more interested in self-preservation than in doing what was right. That type of capitulation to expediency and self-interest is exactly why situations like Nazi Germany can happen. If enough good people do not stand up to oppose a serious wrong then you get a domino effect and suddenly everything is wrong. It's a slippery slope.

So - although I agree there is nothing inherently fiendish about these people, it is the choices they made which lead people to negative conclusions about their character as human beings. Of course it is hard to do the right thing sometimes but that doesn't excuse anyone for choosing the easy way out.

Also - you say no trust, no truth. But I ask - what good is that truth if it doesn't bring justice? What good is a truth that is hidden?

 

[travelgal]

I saw cecybeans post as "in general"---------but if the shoe fits---then---just sayin.

When I was in the 4th grade with dyslexia---my daddy called me 'RETARDED" and slapped me outta the chair. Daddy was a school teacher in the 20s. Back in the olden days, dyslexia was looked upon as retarded because they didn't know what it was. I am here to tell you that I am not retarded. What my daddy did to me did not affect me bad. I didn't think I was retarded.

I may be a big b!tch but I ain't a retarded b!tch.:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

Mamabear, I just knew there was something extraordinary about you! Thankfully, you had the strength to not let your daddy break your spirit. You have proven him totally wrong in my opinion! You are a great poster here at WS and it is such a pleasure to share the posts & threads with you!
PS - you are definitely not a biothch!! God Bless you! :blowkiss:

 

[Chezhire]

SNIPPED: "... Unfortunately, many times good people do horrible things because they choose to go along with a bad system. (Think Nazi Germany.) I think that there is a serious argument to be made that these lawyers were ultimately more interested in self-preservation than in doing what was right. That type of capitulation to expediency and self-interest is exactly why situations like Nazi Germany can happen. If enough good people do not stand up to oppose a serious wrong then you get a domino effect and suddenly everything is wrong. It's a slippery slope.

So - although I agree there is nothing inherently fiendish about these people, it is the choices they made which lead people to negative conclusions about their character as human beings. Of course it is hard to do the right thing sometimes but that doesn't excuse anyone for choosing the easy way out.

Also - you say no trust, no truth. But I ask - what good is that truth if it doesn't bring justice? What good is a truth that is hidden?"

I respond to this post by offering my earlier post, here: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3824835#post3824835"]Attorney Client Privilege/ Alton Logan Ethical Dilemma - Page 13 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
For attorneys, there is always a lot more at stake than oneself, especially when representing people accused of capital crimes.

 

[Concerned Papa]

I feel the need to respond to something stated in the above post: it was not their own careers that Wilson's lawyers were protecting. They were protecting the information that their client, Wilson, gave them, which they have legal, ethical and moral obligations to protect.

More importantly, and on a larger scale, please bear in mind that if these defense attorneys lose their licenses after breaching the attorney-client privilege, it will affect a great many people than just themselves: there are a great many potential accused persons, some of whom are likely innocent as well, who stand to lose the opportunity to have defense attorneys with the years of experience that Wilson's attorneys have/had defending them.

I have read each post and response to what is described as an ethical dilemma for these attorneys. I have voiced my own non scholar outrage at this situation. Just as my position is clear to you in regards to Alton Logan's incarceration, yours is clear to me as to an attorney's view of the sanctity of the attorney client privilege.

I get it. I understand what you are saying. It's really not that complex to understand even for a non legal scholar such as myself.

I have had several hypothetical situations posed in response to my posts ranging from "Would you sacrifice your life or your child's life to free Alton Logan" to "What if Alton Logan was a rapist, would you feel the same way".

I would like to now ask you a hypothetical question to help me fully understand the lack of action by these attorneys. Suppose these two attorneys had gotten together 6 months after their becoming aware of Alton Logan's innocence and said "Gee, I can't sleep at night because there is an innocent man in prison". These two officers of the court then proceed to go to a judge and lay the whole story out to him/her, making the court fully aware of Alton Logan's innocence.

-Forget the consequences to their license to practice law.

-Forget about potential future innocent clients.

-Forget about the possibility of Wilson suing them.

What do you, as an attorney, believe would have happened to Alton Logan's incarceration once the court was made aware of his innocence?

 

[elementary]

I feel the need to respond to something stated in the above post: it was not their own careers that Wilson's lawyers were protecting. They were protecting the information that their client, Wilson, gave them, which they have legal, ethical and moral obligations to protect.

More importantly, and on a larger scale, please bear in mind that if these defense attorneys lose their licenses after breaching the attorney-client privilege, it will affect a great many people than just themselves: there are a great many potential accused persons, some of whom are likely innocent as well, who stand to lose the opportunity to have defense attorneys with the years of experience that Wilson's attorneys have/had defending them.

And I would argue that they have obligations beyond protecting information. And they were willing to give it up if Logan got the DP.

As for my bold, you're basically saying it's okay that one innocent person's life is destroyed for the sake of future innocents? And he had no say in it? And his family and good name were destroyed and who knows what else down the road?

When a person's loss of freedom and life becomes objectified into an expendable convenience- it makes me stop and wonder about the morality of the law and those who uphold it. To me it stops being moral and becomes utilitarian, each soul a commodity. There's a Jewish saying that when you save one person you save an entire world; if you murder one person you murder an entire world. When the law is worshipped at the expense of an innocent human life who is an entire world, well then it makes me wonder a whole lot whether the law is, indeed, an *advertiser censored*.

On another note, others would have taken the place of the lawyers who had done the right thing. There's always someone else to fill the void. I can't imagine that they were that special. But again, they were willing to give up the information if Logan got the DP, so it stands to reason that all those future innocents would have suffered the loss of their services.

 

[Chezhire]

And I would argue that they have obligations beyond protecting information. And they were willing to give it up if Logan got the DP.

As for my bold, you're basically saying it's okay that one innocent person's life is destroyed for the sake of future innocents? And he had no say in it? And his family and good name were destroyed and who knows what else down the road?

When a person's loss of freedom and life becomes objectified into an expendable convenience- it makes me stop and wonder about the morality of the law and those who uphold it. To me it stops being moral and becomes utilitarian, each soul a commodity. There's a Jewish saying that when you save one person you save an entire world; if you murder one person you murder an entire world. When the law is worshipped at the expense of an innocent human life who is an entire world, well then it makes me wonder a whole lot whether the law is, indeed, an *advertiser censored*.

On another note, others would have taken the place of the lawyers who had done the right thing. There's always someone else to fill the void. I can't imagine that they were that special. But again, they were willing to give up the information if Logan got the DP, so it stands to reason that all those future innocents would have suffered the loss of their services.

All I have done is point out counter arguments to that which the previous posts have argued.

My personal convictions are not what I am discussing on this thread (and I'm certainly not about to be lulled into a debate, LOL.) To the contrary, earlier in response to Friday, post #286, 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. The law is what it is, and I took an oath to uphold it, as do all other attorneys, part of which requires protecting the rights of the clients we represent, and it is that law that I have been dicussing.

The above argument would fail, for the obligations imposed by the US Constitution are the supreme laws of the United States, and said laws do not support the above argument, but they do require that the attorney client privilege be upheld and protected. There are dozens of cases about this topic for those who care to actually do the legal research on same. If one wants to change said laws, then one needs to get proactive about same. It's that simple, and it's not currently up for debate, as far as the US Supreme Court is concerned, outside of what one might like to see changed.

 

[Chezhire]

I have read each post and response to what is described as an ethical dilemma for these attorneys. I have voiced my own non scholar outrage at this situation. Just as my position is clear to you in regards to Alton Logan's incarceration, yours is clear to me as to an attorney's view of the sanctity of the attorney client privilege.

I get it. I understand what you are saying. It's really not that complex to understand even for a non legal scholar such as myself.

I have had several hypothetical situations posed in response to my posts ranging from "Would you sacrifice your life or your child's life to free Alton Logan" to "What if Alton Logan was a rapist, would you feel the same way".

I would like to now ask you a hypothetical question to help me fully understand the lack of action by these attorneys. Suppose these two attorneys had gotten together 6 months after their becoming aware of Alton Logan's innocence and said "Gee, I can't sleep at night because there is an innocent man in prison". These two officers of the court then proceed to go to a judge and lay the whole story out to him/her, making the court fully aware of Alton Logan's innocence.

-Forget the consequences to their license to practice law.

-Forget about potential future innocent clients.

-Forget about the possibility of Wilson suing them.

What do you, as an attorney, believe would have happened to Alton Logan's incarceration once the court was made aware of his innocence?

You're probably not going to like my answer, but it really depends upon the judge they go to and his/her personal convictions. An attorney making those choices could find that the judge to whom they turn is extremely sympathetic and decides to help the innocent party, despite the various rules said attorney has broken, and so said judge personally takes some action that furthers the innocent's being released, or said attorney could unfortunately find that the judge to whom they turn believes in upholding the letter of the law no matter what the consequences, and simply washes his/her hands of the ordeal after turning said attorney in to the particular state's bar association/supreme court/etc. Regardless of which path, I'd expect that eventually some politician or state official, perhaps even the state's governor, would get wind of the situation and the wheels would begin to turn to free the innocent party. At least that's what I hope would happen if the judge didn't take action on behalf of the innocent.

 

[Concerned Papa]

You're probably not going to like my answer, but it really depends upon the judge they go to and his/her personal convictions. An attorney making those choices could find that the judge to whom they turn is extremely sympathetic and decides to help the innocent party, despite the various rules said attorney has broken, and so said judge personally takes some action that furthers the innocent's being released, or said attorney could unfortunately find that the judge to whom they turn believes in upholding the letter of the law no matter what the consequences, and simply washes his/her hands of the ordeal after turning said attorney in to the particular state's bar association/supreme court/etc. Regardless of which path, I'd expect that eventually some politician or state official, perhaps even the state's governor, would get wind of the situation and the wheels would begin to turn to free the innocent party. At least that's what I hope would happen if the judge didn't take action on behalf of the innocent.

Believe me, it's not a matter of liking your answer or not. I appreciate your candid response. Although I'm certainly no attorney, I have been in enough legal situations over the years to appreciate the fact that different judges react differently. In the days of the old west, I believe there were some judges referred to as "Hanging Judges" (LOL) while others were not.

I'm sure you are aware for the reason for my question. I'm trying to come to terms with, forgetting the personal consequences to themselves and their legal careers, would they have been able to "right the wrong". Had they taken that approach, I would imagine that the attorneys are aware, to a certain degree, of the "leanings" of various judges and would have attempted to get the matter in front of a judge they believed likely to be sympathetic to their plea.

 

[Chezhire]

Believe me, it's not a matter of liking your answer or not. I appreciate your candid response. Although I'm certainly no attorney, I have been in enough legal situations over the years to appreciate the fact that different judges react differently. In the days of the old west, I believe there were some judges referred to as "Hanging Judges" (LOL) while others were not.

I'm sure you are aware for the reason for my question. I'm trying to come to terms with, forgetting the personal consequences to themselves and their legal careers, would they have been able to "right the wrong". Had they taken that approach, I would imagine that the attorneys are aware, to a certain degree, of the "leanings" of various judges and would have attempted to get the matter in front of a judge they believed likely to be sympathetic to their plea.

LOL - I know what you're referencing re: the hanging judges. Great analogy. It would make my professional life easier if these difficult choices were not so difficult. It is these tough moral and ethical issues that ultimately wear attorneys to the point of being too tired to continue practicing, which is a real shame, as it usually happens after a certain amount of skill and expertise is amassed, when one learns that sometimes, no matter how skilled one is at practicing the law, there are still these cases that eat into the core of everything that we strive to do.

Re: the judge, when I said "the judge to whom they turn," it would have been clearer had I said the judge who presided over the matter in which the accused was convicted and sentenced, if he/she still presides over the same section/court. Typically, that's where one would begin the process.