Attorney Client Privilege/ Alton Logan Ethical Dilemma

[Verité]

. . . . I don't believe she or the others DID it to him, the law enforcement did. They knew what they were doing and are the ones responsible ultimately.

At the risk of intruding into a statement which you'd addressed to White Angora, may I question why LE is held ultimately accountable when three lawyers
received a confession which was sealed away in a metal box for 26 years?

 

[ZubenElSchemali]

At the risk of intruding into a statement which you'd addressed to White Angora, may I question why LE is held ultimately accountable when three lawyers
received a confession which was sealed away in a metal box for 26 years?

You would have to read the whole story about this case to see what I am getting at. They had the real evidence for who was responsible but didn't want to rock the boat on the case as it stood. Law enforcement withheld evidence that would have cleared him. That's where the problem began. Yes, the attorneys did keep their code of confidentiality and Andrea Lyons acted as the notary, therefore an accomplice. But Law enforcement bears the original guilt. That is the real demon she is fighting by giving her life to fighting the death penalty and defending the accused in general, or now teaching others how to do it.

 

[Theonly1]

You would have to read the whole story about this case to see what I am getting at. They had the real evidence for who was responsible but didn't want to rock the boat on the case as it stood. Law enforcement withheld evidence that would have cleared him. That's where the problem began. Yes, the attorneys did keep their code of confidentiality and Andrea Lyons acted as the notary, therefore an accomplice. But Law enforcement bears the original guilt. That is the real demon she is fighting by giving her life to fighting the death penalty and defending the accused in general, or now teaching others how to do it.

Please don't slam me because I'm coming at this part of the thread backwards and I have no clue what you're talking about specifically, but as a Notary myself if someone called me an "accomplice" to a situation just because I notarized a document (confirmed that the person for example swearing to things in an Affidavit is said person) I would be angry. Now, sometimes attorneys act also as Notaries and typed up the document in question so in that case, I would fully agree with you. However, if someone came up to me, asked if I was a Notary and able to notarize a document (an Affidavit, for instance) and if the document was one I could notarize and the said person's driver's license and documents were in order I would not consider myself an "accomplice" to the stuff to which they swore. How am I to know if they are lying their asses off?

 

[whiteangora]

Sorry JBean. I only copied a small part of the article. But I replaced what you left with what was important to my point, so it at least applied to what I was saying.

Whiteangora, I don't believe she or the others DID it to him, the law enforcement did. They knew what they were doing and are the ones responsible ultimately. But I see your point. I have had a very dear loved one in jail for something he didn't do, marked for life, but I still cannot condemn her decision. I personally know of a few others sitting there right now that shouldn't be. My heart aches knowing there are so many judged wrongly. It is the system, the need for victory that fuels injustice. If it were me in their place I would probably give up my right to practice law if I could find no other way, but if she had done that how many more would sit in prison waiting for death. Sure, she could be a legal assistant of investigator. But if her greatest gift is questioning the witnesses she'd never be allowed to do that. So, I just know know if I would advise her to tell. I might bend the rules in some way to bust the *advertiser censored** of the dirty cops or anyone else that withheld the real evidence or find some other way to get him cleared without breaking the code of ethics. It is law enforcement that is the real guilty ones here, not the attorneys following the oath they took.

I've thought a lot about these types of things. I pulled my kids out of public school 20 years ago because they were taking it upon themselves to teach situation ethics, putting themselves in the place of judge and jury making decisions of hypothetical life and death with 3rd graders. I hope I am never faced with a decision like that.

Verite, you are right, what goes around, comes around. I see no problem if she does earn an income on this but wouldn't be surprised if she is doing it pro bono as she has in the past. If she doesn't get her return in money she will through other kinds of blessings, just as I do with my work. I spend at least 10% of my "work" time pro bono so I don't find it strange at all to think that is a possibility.

Thank you for your reply and your thoughts on this situation.
I have been reading about Alton Logan's shafting most of the day.
The way I am seeing it is: It had little to do with any oaths the attorneys took, and everything to do with Politics and ladder climbing. And, to top it all off, this took place in one of the most
corrupt cities in our nation. I really don't care if she's working pro bono or not, don't care if she sells a million books. What I do care about is right and wrong. I have no respect for the woman.

 

[whiteangora]

Please don't slam me because I'm coming at this part of the thread backwards and I have no clue what you're talking about specifically, but as a Notary myself if someone called me an "accomplice" to a situation just because I notarized a document (confirmed that the person for example swearing to things in an Affidavit is said person) I would be angry. Now, sometimes attorneys act also as Notaries and typed up the document in question so in that case, I would fully agree with you. However, if someone came up to me, asked if I was a Notary and able to notarize a document (an Affidavit, for instance) and if the document was one I could notarize and the said person's driver's license and documents were in order I would not consider myself an "accomplice" to the stuff to which they swore. How am I to know if they are lying their asses off?

According to this article, she not only notarized it, she Wrote IT!

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

"Andrea Lyon, today the director of the DePaul Center for Justice in Capital Cases and in 1982 a member of the public defender’s homicide task force, notarized the affidavit. A notary doesn’t have to read the document she’s notarizing, but Lyon not only read and understood the affidavit, to the best of her recollection she wrote it. She says she’d written motions for Coventry and Kunz on Wilson’s behalf and considered him to be, as a practical matter, her client too. She felt just as bound to silence as her colleagues."

 

[NocturnalLady]

From the article you referenced: "She says she once cross-examined a police officer so ferociously that he came off the witness stand and tried to choke her.

"That," she says, "was a good moment."

Another was when she delivered her closing argument handcuffed to the witness box so jurors would appreciate the conditions under which her client made his confession."

.
.
.

Amongst other things, great trial attorneys are highly skilled in the art of cross-examination and highly persuasive in their arguments.

This case offers a national platform. It's provides a major opportunity for trial attorneys to showcase their skill set (or the lack thereof). Moreover, by my measure, the evidence support necessary to support premeditation is lacking. Like a moth to a flame, most any skilled DP attorney would be drawn to this case.

Bold mine.

Oh please. Just what we need in this case. Another showboating narcissist. But I guess the old saying about birds of a feather is true.

I wanted to suspend judgement on AL but after all I have read about her I have no doubt about her integrity and why she joined this case. There is nothing that can justify what she did to that innocent man. If I hear one word out of her mouth about Casey's innocence I will lose my mind. :furious: And if she squeezes out one tear over poor Casey Anthony I will remind myself that she was only to happy to let an innocent man rot in jail. She has absolutely no credibility in my opinion.

Sorry to be harsh but I can't stomach what AL has done to Logan. There is nothing that can excuse that.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

Please don't slam me because I'm coming at this part of the thread backwards and I have no clue what you're talking about specifically, but as a Notary myself if someone called me an "accomplice" to a situation just because I notarized a document (confirmed that the person for example swearing to things in an Affidavit is said person) I would be angry. Now, sometimes attorneys act also as Notaries and typed up the document in question so in that case, I would fully agree with you. However, if someone came up to me, asked if I was a Notary and able to notarize a document (an Affidavit, for instance) and if the document was one I could notarize and the said person's driver's license and documents were in order I would not consider myself an "accomplice" to the stuff to which they swore. How am I to know if they are lying their asses off?

According to this article, she not only notarized it, she Wrote IT!

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

"Andrea Lyon, today the director of the DePaul Center for Justice in Capital Cases and in 1982 a member of the public defender’s homicide task force, notarized the affidavit. A notary doesn’t have to read the document she’s notarizing, but Lyon not only read and understood the affidavit, to the best of her recollection she wrote it. She says she’d written motions for Coventry and Kunz on Wilson’s behalf and considered him to be, as a practical matter, her client too. She felt just as bound to silence as her colleagues."

This has been bothering me for the last two days. I have been considering becoming a notary, and have been reading up on requirements and rules and if I recall correctly, a notary is not allowed to notarize any document that they are a party to or can gain something from.

Now, if I understand her logic correctly (please let me know if I am wrong), she had typed up some motions for this man, but was not his attorney. But because she had typed up these motions she considered him her client as well and so she had to keep her mouth shut. So then she types up this paper that it would seem by her logic and her silence she is a party to and then notarized it herself.

Are the rules for notaries different everywhere? Why does everyone involved with the A's seem to think they are bound by different rules? Wouldn't she be a party to this paper, considering the fact that she typed it and the contents therein once she remained silent as well? And if the A/C privilege didn't extend to her, she is guilty of a crime as well in keeping the secret. I don't know. I just really don't like this woman at all. More than I dislike JB. I think even in a different way.

 

[Wudge]

Thank you for your reply and your thoughts on this situation.
I have been reading about Alton Logan's shafting most of the day.
The way I am seeing it is: It had little to do with any oaths the attorneys took, and everything to do with Politics and ladder climbing. And, to top it all off, this took place in one of the most
corrupt cities in our nation. I really don't care if she's working pro bono or not, don't care if she sells a million books. What I do care about is right and wrong. I have no respect for the woman.

You replied to my post on ethics versus morality versus principles, and the nature of your reply caused me to think you had broken the code. It seems I was wrong.

Exactly, what should Andrea have done that would have freed Alton Logan?

(All are free to play this game. It's called, "how to mindlessly nuke your career".)

 

[Wudge]

Bold mine.

Oh please. Just what we need in this case. Another showboating narcissist. But I guess the old saying about birds of a feather is true.

I wanted to suspend judgement on AL but after all I have read about her I have no doubt about her integrity and why she joined this case. There is nothing that can justify what she did to that innocent man. If I hear one word out of her mouth about Casey's innocence I will lose my mind. :furious: And if she squeezes out one tear over poor Casey Anthony I will remind myself that she was only to happy to let an innocent man rot in jail. She has absolutely no credibility in my opinion.

Sorry to be harsh but I can't stomach what AL has done to Logan. There is nothing that can excuse that.

What should she have done? Please be precise.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

What should she have done? Please be precise.

I don't see how she could live with such a secret, and the law is a game of words. Sometimes evidence gets thrown out because of problems with warrants and such and LE then has to find another way. Assuming that I could live with the secret, which I am 100% positive I couldn't, at the very least I would try to raise funds for the mans future defense, help to find him a pro bono attorney that is worth something and help pay a private investigator...until I found a way. It is possible to do these things at the very least without giving up information that you have learned already. I would have found a way.

 

[RR0004]

At the risk of intruding into a statement which you'd addressed to White Angora, may I question why LE is held ultimately accountable when three lawyers
received a confession which was sealed away in a metal box for 26 years?

I also thought there were eyewitnesses who initially "fingered" him. I mean, based on what LE was told, what were they supposed to do? This was tragic from the getgo.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

I also thought there were eyewitnesses who initially "fingered" him. I mean, based on what LE was told, what were they supposed to do? This was tragic from the getgo.

Everyone in LE knows that eye witness testimony is the least reliable and that they shouldn't proceed unless they really have the goods. Not placing blame in any particular direction solely, just agreeing that it was a tragedy right from the start. These cases are the reason it is so important to allow as many appeals as are needed and not chop apart the proceedings no matter how long they take or how much money is spent. One innocent behind bars is too many and it happens far more frequently than most people would imagine.

 

[whiteangora]

You replied to my post on ethics versus morality versus principles, and the nature of your reply caused me to think you had broken the code. It seems I was wrong.

Exactly, what should Andrea have done that would have freed Alton Logan?

(All are free to play this game. It's called, "how to mindlessly nuke your career".)

She claims she 'felt' he was her client, but in actuality he was not her client. With that being the case, she should have come forward with the truth and taken her chances with any repercussions that she may have encountered.
I got the code with the values, morals, ethics, principles

 

[amethyst221]

It seems, from her own description of events, that AL was not acting merely as a notary, but as a lawyer involved with the case. She must have been involved in the discussion of how to handle the situation, because she drafted the affidavit and was also a signatory.

One thing that strikes me about this story: for all the self-righteous talk about the inviolability of the privilege, all the people they've saved in later years of their continuing careers, etc., is that the lawyers actually did not hold the privilege inviolable. They cryptically (?) discussed matters over the years enough to create a sort of myth about the affidavit in the legal community -- to what end? They wrote the affidavit- to CYA? And they say they would have acted differently if a more severe and final penalty had been imposed on the innocent person. So, the highest calling and duty stuff just doesn't sit right with me in this situation. They seem to be trying to have it all ways. I admit that I haven't been put to such a test, and that I'm a little surprised at my own reaction. I can see that non-lawyers are not all going to sit back in awe and admiration of what a highly principled, courageous lot lawyers are.

 

[NocturnalLady]

What should she have done? Please be precise.

How about refusing to be a party to any action at all in the case? She didn't need to get involved. Then she wouldn't have been in a position to choose her career over a man's life. Simple as that.

I'm also of the belief that she could have found some way of helping to free Logan - even if she didn't reveal that she knew someone else had done the crime. If the case was so badly handled by the police and evidence was withheld that would have cleared him why didn't she hire a PI to go get that evidence? Couldn't she have given her time pro bono to work on an appeal for Logan? I'm not a lawyer and I don't know all the in and outs but one thing I do know is that lawyers specialize in finding loopholes to get their clients off. Are you telling me that a lawyer who is as good as AL supposedly is couldn't find any other way of dealing with this situation?

And if it really came down to it then she should have given up her license, freed Logan and then spent the rest of her life using her formidable skills campaigning to change a legal system that forces lawyers to choose to do the wrong thing.

Some people have also said that AL essentially did what she did for the greater good - sacrificing one innocent man to "save" 19 others. Need I point out that these 19 others are convicted of probably pretty horrific crimes in order to get the DP in the first place? What right could there possibly be in sacrificing an innocent man to save any guilty ones?

I just feel like the addition of AL has taken this case to new heights of "wrongness". JB and his lack of ability and clumsy attempts at being clever and out foxing the mean old prosecution is one thing. It's irritating and annoying but AL's history with the Logan case is a whole other thing altogether. It's sickening.

 

[RR0004]

It seems, from her own description of events, that AL was not acting merely as a notary, but as a lawyer involved with the case. She must have been involved in the discussion of how to handle the situation, because she drafted the affidavit and was also a signatory.

One thing that strikes me about this story: for all the self-righteous talk about the inviolability of the privilege, all the people they've saved in later years of their continuing careers, etc., is that the lawyers actually did not hold the privilege inviolable. They cryptically (?) discussed matters over the years enough to create a sort of myth about the affidavit in the legal community -- to what end? They wrote the affidavit- to CYA? And they say they would have acted differently if a more severe and final penalty had been imposed on the innocent person. So, the highest calling and duty stuff just doesn't sit right with me in this situation. They seem to be trying to have it all ways. I admit that I haven't been put to such a test, and that I'm a little surprised at my own reaction. I can see that non-lawyers are not all going to sit back in awe and admiration of what a highly principled, courageous lot lawyers are.

Acted differently? Now, that part irks me. One day is too many if the man was innocent.

 

[Wudge]

I don't see how she could live with such a secret, and the law is a game of words. Sometimes evidence gets thrown out because of problems with warrants and such and LE then has to find another way. Assuming that I could live with the secret, which I am 100% positive I couldn't, at the very least I would try to raise funds for the mans future defense, help to find him a pro bono attorney that is worth something and help pay a private investigator...until I found a way. It is possible to do these things at the very least without giving up information that you have learned already. I would have found a way.

Did Andrea control the affidavit?

 

[NocturnalLady]

It seems, from her own description of events, that AL was not acting merely as a notary, but as a lawyer involved with the case. She must have been involved in the discussion of how to handle the situation, because she drafted the affidavit and was also a signatory.

One thing that strikes me about this story: for all the self-righteous talk about the inviolability of the privilege, all the people they've saved in later years of their continuing careers, etc., is that the lawyers actually did not hold the privilege inviolable. They cryptically (?) discussed matters over the years enough to create a sort of myth about the affidavit in the legal community -- to what end? They wrote the affidavit- to CYA? And they say they would have acted differently if a more severe and final penalty had been imposed on the innocent person. So, the highest calling and duty stuff just doesn't sit right with me in this situation. They seem to be trying to have it all ways. I admit that I haven't been put to such a test, and that I'm a little surprised at my own reaction. I can see that non-lawyers are not all going to sit back in awe and admiration of what a highly principled, courageous lot lawyers are.

:clap::clap::clap: I totally agree. Thanks for stating it in a way that I couldn't.

 

[NocturnalLady]

I don't see how she could live with such a secret, and the law is a game of words. Sometimes evidence gets thrown out because of problems with warrants and such and LE then has to find another way. Assuming that I could live with the secret, which I am 100% positive I couldn't, at the very least I would try to raise funds for the mans future defense, help to find him a pro bono attorney that is worth something and help pay a private investigator...until I found a way. It is possible to do these things at the very least without giving up information that you have learned already. I would have found a way.[/QUOTE]

Bold mine.

Exactly. :blowkiss:

 

[RR0004]

Surely this very clever woman could have found a way.