Attorney Client Privilege/ Alton Logan Ethical Dilemma

[okiedokietoo]

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

Good post, although I don't think that it's as deep as you suggest. I think that it boiled down to attorney/client privilege, as they said, and the possible end result of losing a license to practice law.

 

[cecybeans]

Good post, although I don't think that it's as deep as you suggest. I think that it boiled down to attorney/client privilege, as they said, and the possible end result of losing a license to practice law.

You're right, it may have at that. But all of the articles I've read indicate that they spent a lot of time looking for alternate solutions and it haunted them all. The fact that violating confidentiality of their client would not make the information admissible in court must have been discouraging, as was all of the advice they sought from many attorneys, judges and legal professionals that said it might have little or no effect. Even after their client died and they were allowed to release the information, it took almost a year before the legal system in IL decided to exonerate him instead of simply having another trial. The state has also done absolutely nothing for him as far as restitution goes. The culpability net in this one is wide.

I'm just glad I'm not a criminal attorney. If I were a defense lawyer, I'd worry I was getting a criminal released, if a prosecutor, I'd wonder if I'd helped convict an innocent person.

 

[robotdog]

makes you wonder what the people would have done if they were in a similiar situation but it was their own son or daughter that was in prison

think they would have spilled the beans and perhaps lost a career ??


uhhhhhhhhh... YEP i think they would have

which means IF they would have then that means they should have spilled the beans

 

[cecybeans]

You're probably right, I know I would have. And been doubly disappointed when spilling the beans did absolutely nothing to exonerate my child because it was completely inadmissible in court. I would have a clear conscience and no career, but my child would still be in jail. What a pyrrhic victory that would be!

 

[Thinaire]

any person that lets another person sit in jail when they know they are innocent and they do nothing about it... is evil

so what ? you lose your job here is a newsflash GO GET ANOTHER JOB geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh


people that knew and did nothing are rotten evil

its just my opinion, but holy cow

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

 

[robotdog]

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

thanks for the nice cheer

if i was a lawyer, and i had to decide

OPTION A - help get the innocent man out of prison and it would cost me my law career


or


OPTION B - keep my fat trap closed and go about my business as the man and his entire family slowly sink deeper and deeper into one of the nastiest things that could happen to someone


i guess i would be selling oranges on the street corner and i would sleep every night like a baby knowing i did the right thing

one of the simpler decisions in life geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh

 

[robotdog]

You're probably right, I know I would have. And been doubly disappointed when spilling the beans did absolutely nothing to exonerate my child because it was completely inadmissible in court. I would have a clear conscience and no career, but my child would still be in jail. What a pyrrhic victory that would be!

ahhhhhhhhhh but the public outcry would be so LOUD something would have to be done if the news was plastered over every TV station and Newspapers

so, you see in the end your child would be exonerated and let free

 

[MAMABEAR]

Wished I could mind my own business---cuz now I am very confused. I do not like what AL has done in the past. It is over and to me she did wrong. If she has filed the papers to jump in the middle of this mess---then she is in. If she is in there isn't anythang we can do about what she did---I don't see any good we will get out of arguing whether she did wrong or right. Poot---It's over. She is in.

I have to say I like her better n JB and hope she can keep all these peeps in their rightful places til this trial is over, and I wish her luck with the A's. I also hope she can hold herself in a non-clown persona. I am sick to death of the circus.

I don't know what is coming next and I am scared. If KC walks---then a protester will take care of her. If a protester doesn't take care of KC then KC will off CA/GA---then she will end up in jail again.

AL will get hers on Judgment day just as each and everyone of us will. I have to feel that what she did to the man in jail is between her and God. I don't think it has anythang to do with this trial. At least I hope not.

 

[AZRiverRat]

"Give 'Em Enough Rope!"

 

[Wudge]

snip

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

titcr

 

[whiteangora]

Wished I could mind my own business---cuz now I am very confused. I do not like what AL has done in the past. It is over and to me she did wrong. If she has filed the papers to jump in the middle of this mess---then she is in. If she is in there isn't anythang we can do about what she did---I don't see any good we will get out of arguing whether she did wrong or right. Poot---It's over. She is in.

I have to say I like her better n JB and hope she can keep all these peeps in their rightful places til this trial is over, and I wish her luck with the A's. I also hope she can hold herself in a non-clown persona. I am sick to death of the circus.

I don't know what is coming next and I am scared. If KC walks---then a protester will take care of her. If a protester doesn't take care of KC then KC will off CA/GA---then she will end up in jail again.

AL will get hers on Judgment day just as each and everyone of us will. I have to feel that what she did to the man in jail is between her and God. I don't think it has anythang to do with this trial. At least I hope not.

MAMA, Let's hope she is able to open every closet door she sees in the Anthony house of horrors, who knows, maybe they will all end up facing charges.

ahhhhhhhhhh but the public outcry would be so LOUD something would have to be done if the news was plastered over every TV station and Newspapers

so, you see in the end your child would be exonerated and let free

Where there's a will, there's a way. I've had my say on AL, time to move on.

 

[SoSueMe]

I'm not really talking about some legal process or filing of motions to get something done, and I would fully expect that the affidavit would not be admissible, especially since without doubt the guilty man's attorney's are covered by privilege. I think I am talking more of a covert operation, so to speak. One that without violating the information the client has given up also gets this man some form of relief in the form of people who will investigate this seriously and hopefully they will find where they need to go.

There was a movie about a similiar situation years ago. I believe Harrison Ford may have played the part of the lawyer. He did find a way (legally) and now I forget the name of the movie. Does anyone recall it?

 

[SoSueMe]

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.

You cannot, for instance, notarize a will leaving everything to you and notarize your husband's signature. Likewise with other family members or anyone else where you stand to financially gain from a document.

A notary is simply verifying that signatures are true and correct and verifying if the person signing the document are doing so for the purposes expressed within that document.

If you want to become a notary, you just have to make sure you have proof that the person signing the document is who they say they claim to be. In Texas, it is a FELONY to illegally notarize a document.

For instance, we had a probate case some time back where a young woman worked for a car dealership. I'm sure her boss was constantly asking her to notarize titles and without thinking, she notarized anything that was put in front of her. The only problem was that she notarized a dead man's signature. We did get their attention with that one. We later settled the case, so the young lady breathed a sigh of relief, but I'll bet you she learned her lesson.

If ALy was working with (not necessarily for) the attorneys who signed the affidavit, then I would think that she would be bound by their attorney/client privilege also. Even most secretaries are asked to sign confidentially agreements when going to work for a law firm.

Is it morally right what ALy and the other lawyers did? I'd have to say no. How did this affidavit come to light anyway?

 

[SoSueMe]

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.

A signatory as an affiant? She can't notarize her own signature. Now I'm confused. Or do you mean a signatory as the notary?

 

[NSS]

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".)

I hope this is only a hypothetical game, since I do not personally know Ms Lyon.

Had she contacted the innocence project, they would probably have handled it better than my following suggestion.

Ms Lyon could have called me and shared her secret. I'd have gladly "stolen" said document and handed it off to LE. This may not have worked since it appears that the process was tainted by corrupt politicians and LE.

In her shoes I probably wouldn't have step in to bat for one of those politicians though.


Good job I'm not a lawyer huh?

My stumbling block in all of this is the reason behind her not telling, citing attorney client privelage. I question whether it exists in this case. I feel it is being used as a cop out.

Nuking her career isn't necessarily the case here, even with a/c privelage, she could have begun her own 'project' defending/fighting for/writing books about the innocent who are jailed.
She can still ride a white horse, and call herself the Innocence Angel.

 

[SoSueMe]

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.

Most likely, if it had been released in a timely manner, their client might have been investigated, accused and convicted of the crime. Therein lies the Catch-22 for the attorneys involved.

 

[NSS]

Did Andrea control the affidavit?

She drafted it, so I guess some level of input or control would be needed.

However, Andrea says that had the penalty been more severe she'd have acted differently.

This means that she had considered how she would prevent the injustice of death for Logan (because he was innocent or because SHE is anti DP?), but failed to prevent the injustice of 26 years in jail.

She was prepared to violate privilege (her words, I don't believe it exists) to serve her cause (anti DP), but not to serve the cause of an innocent man.

Save the guilty but eff the innocent - a tragic reflection on our system and those who apply it.

 

[static]

I watched her videos on her website - She seems a little odd to me - she'll fit right in with this case.
Who calls themself an "Angel of Death Row"?
Whatever - I want KC to have good representation so no cause for appeal.
I don't really care if she gets the DP - I think that's easier than LWOP.

Seems like the focus is "hasn't lost a case"... Is this just a challenge for another ego driven narcissist? If so, then yes, this Lyon lady has picked a good challenge for herself.

 

[cecybeans]

Below are links to two articles which explain the case in more detail, how the two attorneys representing the actual killer (who was facing the death penalty for killing two cops), how they found out about it from the attorney of the co-defendant in the case, and what they did. They asked Wilson, the real killer, to confess and prepared a five-line affidavit indicating they knew of his innocence. The real killer eventually did not get the death penalty, most likely because his original confession was tortured out of him by police, perhaps Lyon represented him in the penalty phase, I don't know. Otherwise her involvement seems limited to notarizing the five-line admission of the attorneys.

Three eyewitnesses identified Logan as the man who did it in his own trial, and ten out of the 12 jurors voted for the DP based on their testimony.

I live in the area and was appalled at how this case indicated serious flaws in the legal system here as well as flaws in the DP process, as I've heard from attorney friends this is not entirely uncommon. I don't like it that Lyons, along with at least 3 other attorneys, kept quiet about what they knew until they could legally open up. I wish they had chosen otherwise, even though it might not have exonerated the innocent and would have most likely sentenced their client to death. And I, like many others, hope this will begin to change some of the restrictions attorneys have in regards to privilege and admissibility of evidence. The recent changes in hearsay rules have already made it easier to prosecute Drew Peterson.

But I don't want to take this out of context either and vilify someone when I don't know particulars on the other players. I'm sure our prosecutors in FL have had to face some moral dilemmas in order to get a conviction; the system itself is ripe with dichotomies. LBK and HL have recently been associated with suspicion of evidence tampering and worse in the Phil Spector trial. We now know that nobody on the defense team is an angel. I don't doubt the prosecution has its moments either. Ultimately, all I care about is that this girl gets a decent trial with qualified counsel so that the state of FL doesn't have to pay for it twice.



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/06/60minutes/main3914719.shtml

http://www.blackvoices.com/newsarticle/_a/alton-logan-case/20080413095509990001

 

[amethyst221]

A signatory as an affiant? She can't notarize her own signature. Now I'm confused. Or do you mean a signatory as the notary?

I'm just going by what I've read the AL said, so, yes, she seems to have drafted the affidavit and notarized it. But she also says she considered herself one of the client's lawyers in the case, and my impression from something I read led me to believe that she also was one of the affiants, that multiple people signed it. Now that you ask me directly, I have to be honest and say I'm not sure. I'd have to go back and look at the media reports to se what made me come to that conclusion. If she was one of the affiants, I guess that is sort of a small thing in the sea of strangeness surrounding this, even if it isn't appropriate.