Attorney Client Privilege/ Alton Logan Ethical Dilemma

[HRCODEPINK]

You are suggesting that these attorneys should have assisted others in the prejudicing of their client.

Neither the ABA nor State bars take kindly to attorneys who do in their own client, either directly or in assist mode.

Well...like I said, I would have lost my license. :crazy: I would do what I could to keep the info given to me a secret but it is also a crime to have knowledge of a felony and not alert the proper authorities. In addition there is some question as to the extent of privilege this woman was bound under. Was she his attorney? Or was she the transcriptionist and notary? And back to my earlier question, if she was a party to the notarized paper, how could she legally notarize it, and if she was able to legally notarize it, then how much of a party to it could she have been, and as such, was she covered by privilege at all?

I also can't see it being viewed well politically if she were to have lost her license for doing the right thing. And it's all politics. About the time it hits the news that this man spent all these years in prison, and if she hadn't told anyone the things she wasn't supposed to, just merely said that someone should take another look at this case for the sake of this innocent man in prison and because she saved him she lost her license she might just end up in elected office before it was over.

Maybe I'd tell the bar that I hoped that they would find the evidence did not match the man behind bars but not figure out that it was my client. If I had wanted my client caught I would have gone the whole nine and told someone that my client was the murderer, but I didn't. I simply wanted this innocent man to go free. I can honestly say that I would have taken the chance and lost my license and then would have probably moved to a different state and tried again. I know that if she had done that she would have a lot more respect than she has now...at least around here.

 

[Theonly1]

Well...like I said, I would have lost my license. :crazy: I would do what I could to keep the info given to me a secret but it is also a crime to have knowledge of a felony and not alert the proper authorities.

It's not a crime to have knowledge of a felony after the fact.

 

[Wudge]

In Florida, she could have called the The Florida Bar's Ethics Hotline (and remained anonymous) and dropped all the facts in their laps to give her their best legal advice as to how to handle the situation. I don't know if they have an ethics hotline in her state or whether she opted to call it.

As best they could, Dale Coventry and Jamie Kunz did explore their options with Judges, the State bar and other attorneys. However, a wrongful incarceration exception to attorney-client confidentiality does not exist.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

It's not a crime to have knowledge of a felony after the fact.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/4.html

"Misprision of felony" is still an offense under United States federal law after being codified in 1909 under 18 U.S.C. § 4:

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This offense, however, requires active concealment of a known felony rather than merely failing to report it.

 

[okiedokietoo]

What law do "authorities" use to force attorneys to violate their attorney-client privilege?

AL and the other 3 attorneys said that they would have done something if he had been sentenced to Death. So sounds like there was a way to handle it....

 

[Wudge]

Yes, there are stories of attorneys who have been disbarred for letting police agencies know where victims of their clients are located (against the wishes of their client).

It many times boils down to sacrificing your career (and your sworn loyalty to your client) for what may be in public's best interest.

Check out this case:
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/predators/robert_garrow/11.html

A quality post.

I should note that without corroborating evidence, the affidavit alone would not have freed Alton Logan. Moreover, if it was turned over in violation of the attorney-client privilege you could not reasonably expect it to be ruled as admissable evidence.

 

[Theonly1]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/4.html

"Misprision of felony" is still an offense under United States federal law after being codified in 1909 under 18 U.S.C. § 4:

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This offense, however, requires active concealment of a known felony rather than merely failing to report it.

Of course, but I thought the facts in this instance were that the person with the confidence was the attorney. I don't think an attorney's knowledge of their client's prior actions would be considered "active concealment" UNLESS, for example, the client's victim was still alive in a hole in the ground, with oxygen running out, and able to be saved.

 

[amethyst221]

It surprises me a little that one of them didn't reveal the truth over the years, just as an individual matter of conscience, and regardless of what the others thought or the A/C privilege requires. Human nature being what it is.

Apart from telling, I wonder what they did do over the years to TRY to prevent an innocent person from going to and staying in prison. Have they said? They could have each given part of their incomes to make sure he had excellent representation, experts, investigators, etc. at all phases of trial, post-conviction, etc. They could have anonymously provided such assistance to his family, to see to it that all of this was done. I don't think I could spend 26 years in silence just doing nothing. And of course they weren't REQUIRED to help him in other ways. I'm just wondering if they did.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

Of course, but I thought the facts were that the person with the confidence was the attorney.

It is the attorney and most times also people working with/for the attorney. I would really like to know how much privilege she had here. Was it that she was considered part of the privileged, or that she felt she was included. The fact that it is worded that way and the articles don't just outright say that she was included under that blanket makes me seriously question her place in all of this. There is a big difference between the two and before that is cleared up, I don't know just how bad this really is, however, no matter how bad I wouldn't have been able to go along with it. And if she wasn't covered then it would seem that her "feeling" she was covered, she was deliberately inviting herself into the charade and in my opinion only, was deliberately concealing a crime.

 

[Wudge]

AL and the other 3 attorneys said that they would have done something if he had been sentenced to Death. So sounds like there was a way to handle it....

Correct. However, legal ethics does not provide a way for an attorney to "handle it". What they were really saying is at that point, their individual principles -- our society does not have a principle that values life above all else --would have caused them to sacrifice their careers in an attempt to prevent a wrongful execution.

 

[amethyst221]

I don't disagree that the affidavit might not have been admissible if revealed, and other arguments to that effect. But it's very difficult to know after the fact that revealing the information would have been no more than an exercise in futility. Who knows what ripple effect there would have been from the information going public? On LE, the prosecutors, etc.

 

[okiedokietoo]

Correct. However, legal ethics does not provide a way for an attorney to "handle it". What they were really saying is at that point, their individual principles -- our society does not have a principle that values life above all else --would have caused them to sacrifice their careers in an attempt to prevent a wrongful execution.

I agree with you. Although, I am not sure of the correct term, isn't there some sort of Ethics Rule?

 

[Theonly1]

We all have made mistakes in our past (some more serious and heinous than others). Perhaps she uses her part in the Logan case to advocate more vigorously for her clients now? Redemption, anyone?

[I do not mean to make light of an innocent man sitting years in a jail cell. I personally could not have sat on that affidavit as my conscience would have literally killed me.]

 

[HRCODEPINK]

We all have made mistakes in our past (some more serious and heinous than others). Perhaps she uses her part in the Logan case to advocate more vigorously for her clients now? Redemption, anyone?

We can only hope...however I would think the shame of living that way would make one a little more humble.

 

[Theonly1]

I agree with you. Although, I am not sure of the correct term, isn't there some sort of Ethics Rule?

Yes, the ethics rules essentially say you are an advocate for your client and that you are to keep your mouth shut and there are only a few exemptions where you can reveal limited information (like when your client sues YOU, when your client is planning to commit a crime, etc.).

I have a defense attorney friend who has a "don't ask, don't tell" rule with many of his clients.

 

[robotdog]

What law do "authorities" use to force attorneys to violate their attorney-client privilege?

yea, i know

there aint one on the books..


what gives a person the right to condemn someone to prison when they know they are innocent

this lady is just like CA.. willing to throw an innocent person away......:furious:

 

[robotdog]

it wont matter anyway... as far as KC is concerned i think she will go along with a life in prison if they take away the death penalty

MOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[countzero]

What should she have done? Please be precise.

Well, if I couldn't go to the judge, then I would invite another attorney, not connected with the case, to dinner and be ever so subtle leaving the affidavit on the table and let them have a peek of curiosity at it.

I know sometimes attorneys are between a rock and hard place when it comes to situations where they are compromised.

Seems that the ABA would come up with some method of checks and balances that would preclude events like this from happening.

 

[okiedokietoo]

We all have made mistakes in our past (some more serious and heinous than others). Perhaps she uses her part in the Logan case to advocate more vigorously for her clients now? Redemption, anyone?

[I do not mean to make light of an innocent man sitting years in a jail cell. I personally could not have sat on that affidavit as my conscience would have literally killed me.]

Respect your opinion, however I believe the life of one man is worth as much as, let's say, 19.

 

[cecybeans]

I'm really glad I'm not a priest, psychiatrist, doctor or lawyer and will probably not be in the type of situation where I have such a conflict of personal ethics versus sworn professional obligations. It may not look like a Sophie's Choice type dilemma to us, but we don't really know how deeply their decision affected those involved, and it may not be fair to reduce their motives to money, jobs or politics just because we cannot imagine ourselves deciding that way. It's up there to me with euthanasia and conscientious objectors; I just can't bring myself to pass judgement on people who make difficult moral decisions where each outcome is bad. It's too "there but for the grace of God..." for me. jmo