Attorney Client Privilege/ Alton Logan Ethical Dilemma

[jandkmom]

I don't have a problem with AL being passionate about the death penalty. I waiver on this from time to time myself. I just keep wondering how KC gets all of these well-known lawyers. Is this woman coming on the case to help see that justice gets done? It appears since she knew about the innocent man serving 26 years for a crime he did not commit that her "rights" does not include all rights, just ones on the side that she is on. If her morals are so strong that she doesn't believe in the death penalty at any cost, then why don't her morals include the incarceration of an innocent man. If she is here to get KC off by blaming someone that is innocent or letting the killer go free, then she is not passionate about the death penalty due to her morals, that is just her publicity cause.

 

[Tiki]

Or, perhaps free a guilty one! The case cited by okiedokietoo blows my mind to the extent that I've formed immediate dislike of any AL theory, regardless how flawlessly stated.
When folks begin to play God vis a vis esoteric legal theory (a la Lyons, Dershowitz, et al), I'm overcome by profound distrust and disdain. 'nuff said. I'm jaded for the duration
of the Casey Anthony trial.

ITA
I'm jaded for the duration of my life.

.

 

[marla]

http://depaullaw.typepad.com/library/2008/03/60-minutes-segm.html

<snip>

The case raises the question whether the attorneys were upholding the integrity of the legal system by safeguarding client-lawyer confidentiality or whether they chose priorities that could have cost an innocent person a life sentence in prison. The attorneys stated that it was a tough decision for them but that they would have to stand by it, unless Mr. Logan had been threatened with execution.

Professor Andrea Lyon, the director of the DePaul Center for Justice in Capital Cases, worked with the two attorneys in defending Mr. Wilson, their client. As a practical matter she considered Mr. Wilson to be her client as well. So she also was among the attorneys who decided not disclose the confession.


:tsktsk: Unreal ..

 

[Tiki]

http://depaullaw.typepad.com/library/2008/03/60-minutes-segm.html

<snip>

The case raises the question whether the attorneys were upholding the integrity of the legal system by safeguarding client-lawyer confidentiality or whether they chose priorities that could have cost an innocent person a life sentence in prison. The attorneys stated that it was a tough decision for them but that they would have to stand by it, unless Mr. Logan had been threatened with execution.

Professor Andrea Lyon, the director of the DePaul Center for Justice in Capital Cases, worked with the two attorneys in defending Mr. Wilson, their client. As a practical matter she considered Mr. Wilson to be her client as well. So she also was among the attorneys who decided not disclose the confession.


:tsktsk: Unreal ..

from
http://truthinjustice.org/alton-logan.htm

"Asked what they would say to him if they were able to visit Logan in his cell, one of the attorneys said, "There's nothing you can say. Well, it’s been difficult for us. But there’s no comparison what so ever to what it’s been for this poor guy." ."

People have choices. These lawyers chose too let an innocent man and his family suffer so that they could prosper in their careers.
I don't buy any of their excuses.

There is always a way to do what is right.

How 'bout take yourselves off the case and report what you know to LE.

They took an innocent man's life to save the life of a guilty man - and themselves.
AL is no better - she knew the truth as well - and now she refers to herself as an "angel".

I'd love to hear her explain her actions to the public before her book is released.

.

 

[countzero]

from
http://truthinjustice.org/alton-logan.htm

"Asked what they would say to him if they were able to visit Logan in his cell, one of the attorneys said, "There's nothing you can say. Well, it’s been difficult for us. But there’s no comparison what so ever to what it’s been for this poor guy."

"How has it been difficult for them?" Logan inquired.

"Alton, whether or not you can understand it, we’ve been hurting for you for 26 years," Kunz said. "How often did I think about it? Probably 250 times a year. I mean I thought about it regularly."

"Everything that was dear to me is gone," Logan, who missed his mother's funeral, told Simon.

His brothers Eugene and Tony told 60 Minutes they've shared Alton's pain, and they always knew that he was no killer. "My brother ain’t got the nature to do nothin' like that in his soul. He ain’t gonna take nobody else's life. We weren't raised like that," Tony said.

Tony said he knew right away his brother couldn't be the killer. "He was with me. I knew it wasn’t my brother. I always knew it wasn't my brother," he said."

People have choices. These lawyers chose too let an innocent man and his family suffer so that they could prosper in their careers.
I don't buy any of their excuses.

There is always a way to do what is right.

How 'bout take yourselves off the case and report what you know to LE.

They took an innocent man's life to save the life of a guilty man - and themselves.
AL is no better - she knew the truth as well - and now she refers to herself as an "angel".

I'd love to hear her explain her actions to the public before her book is released.

.

bold by me: we won't hear or read any explanation. JB's ego is overshadowed only by hers. After reading about her, I have changed my opinion about her 180 degrees and not for the good either. I can see now why it took JB so long to find and secure a DP qualified attorney. No attorney worthy of defending a DP case wants their reputation mingled with this case. Sorry, not meant to offend any WS attorneys here. Just a tax paying citizens observation of the defense team for KC only.

As with CA, we don't need to figure out what Andrea L is about either. Two peas in a pod, with different methods of delivery.

 

[whiteangora]

I don't have a problem with AL being passionate about the death penalty. I waiver on this from time to time myself. I just keep wondering how KC gets all of these well-known lawyers. Is this woman coming on the case to help see that justice gets done? It appears since she knew about the innocent man serving 26 years for a crime he did not commit that her "rights" does not include all rights, just ones on the side that she is on. If her morals are so strong that she doesn't believe in the death penalty at any cost, then why don't her morals include the incarceration of an innocent man. If she is here to get KC off by blaming someone that is innocent or letting the killer go free, then she is not passionate about the death penalty due to her morals, that is just her publicity cause.

As far as I'm concerned she has no morals. What she and those other attorneys did is unforgivable, reprehensible, stealing a man's life so her career could prosper. I believe the only reason she is in Orlando is because of her thirst for fame and fortune due to the worldwide interest in this case and how it will help her book sales skyrocket.

 

[Mystic]

http://depaullaw.typepad.com/library/2008/03/60-minutes-segm.html

<snip>

The case raises the question whether the attorneys were upholding the integrity of the legal system by safeguarding client-lawyer confidentiality or whether they chose priorities that could have cost an innocent person a life sentence in prison. The attorneys stated that it was a tough decision for them but that they would have to stand by it, unless Mr. Logan had been threatened with execution.

Professor Andrea Lyon, the director of the DePaul Center for Justice in Capital Cases, worked with the two attorneys in defending Mr. Wilson, their client. As a practical matter she considered Mr. Wilson to be her client as well. So she also was among the attorneys who decided not disclose the confession.


:tsktsk: Unreal ..

'26 years' of them having choices, career, freedom and family. The Justice System is ultimately a platform created for the good of all imo and where it fails the innocent is the point they were called to rise to the occasion. Jesus, the 4 of them didn't appear to even take the time to find one single way to free this man? when there's a will there is a way... and if they found none.. well do the right thing & go find a new career. wth

I know as I go thru my day this story will weigh heavily in my thoughts, the life this innocent man didn't get to live due to 4 selfish people choosing to blame a system that failed his rights.

 

[Wudge]

That story made me sick.
Don't lawyers swear to uphold the law or something?
How can letting an innocent person suffer in prison b/c you think you should be loyal to your guilty client?!? I might be able to understand if her client was acquitted and no innocent person was convicted.

Is she proud of what she did?
Is this "justice" in America?

If this is her mode of operation, I'm worried about JG.

I just can't get my mind around it.

Lawyers, please, please explain this if you can.

.

Attorneys are sworn to uphold the law and the tenets of our legal system. Moreover, in a criminal trial, our jurisprudence system is verdict based, not truth based or justice based. It knowingly accepts a high percentage of wrongful convictions.

Further, lawyers are taught and sworn to uphold legal ethics, not morality. "Logan" demonstates the difference between ethics (minor culture) and morality (major culture).

 

[marla]

from
http://truthinjustice.org/alton-logan.htm

"Asked what they would say to him if they were able to visit Logan in his cell, one of the attorneys said, "There's nothing you can say. Well, it’s been difficult for us. But there’s no comparison what so ever to what it’s been for this poor guy." ."

People have choices. These lawyers chose too let an innocent man and his family suffer so that they could prosper in their careers.
I don't buy any of their excuses.

There is always a way to do what is right.

How 'bout take yourselves off the case and report what you know to LE.

They took an innocent man's life to save the life of a guilty man - and themselves.
AL is no better - she knew the truth as well - and now she refers to herself as an "angel".

I'd love to hear her explain her actions to the public before her book is released.

.

My bold ..

It'll never happen ..

 

[Tiki]

My bold ..

It'll never happen ..

I know . . . they're all righteous about their "legal ethics", which, I guess, are different than normal ethics.

from
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethical



Synonyms:
2. moral, upright, honest, righteous, virtuous, honorable.

Antonyms:
2. immoral.


Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.


.

 

[Spookydancer]

Unbelievable case....

I really think some type an of exception needs to be made regarding confidentiality laws. The defense team and their clients should not have the right to manipulate the justice system. It is ridiculous that justice gets obstructed because of the selfishness of such defense attorneys. If it were me and it come down to my job or a man's life that I knew was innocent...I would choose the man's life. How can live with them selves?

 

[countzero]

Unbelievable case....

I really think some type an of exception needs to be made regarding confidentiality laws. The defense team and their clients should not have the right to manipulate the justice system. It is ridiculous that justice gets obstructed because of the selfishness of such defense attorneys. If it were me and it come down to my job or a man's life that I knew was innocent...I would choose the man's life. How can live with them selves?

bold by me: Obviously selling books for notoriety and monetary gain can ease their conscious.

 

[Wudge]

I know . . . they're all righteous about their "legal ethics", which, I guess, are different than normal ethics.

from
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethical




.

Ethics are largely oriented to individuals in a sub-culture; e.g., attorneys, doctors, police et al. Morality is related to societal values of right or wrong. Ethics and morals change with time, because they are value based. Values are like leaves on a tree that move as the winds blow. They shift. They change with time, which means ethics and morality change with time, too.

Ethics and morality are defined under the umbrella of principles. At both an individual and societal level, principles are our unshakable anchors, our immovable roots. They should never change. Unfortunately, at a societal level, they do; e.g., Roe versus Wade.

When we let go of our principles (or live without any), it's just a matter of time before a strong wind comes along and blows us away, and it's likely we will never understand why.

HTH

 

[Gaia713]

Ethics are largely oriented to individuals in a sub-culture; e.g., attorneys, doctors, police et al. Morality is related to societal values of right or wrong. Ethics and morals change with time, because they are value based. Values are like leaves on a tree that move as the winds blow. They shift. They change with time, which means ethics and morality change with time, too.

Ethics and morality are defined under the umbrella of principles. At both an individual and societal level, principles are our unshakable anchors, our immovable roots. They should never change. Unfortunately, at a societal level, they do; e.g., Roe versus Wade.

When we let go of our principles (or live without any), it's just a matter of time before a strong wind comes along and blows us away, and it's likely we will never understand why.

HTH

I fail to see what Roe v. Wade has to do with the death penalty and/or Andrea Lyon which is the topic of this thread.

 

[whiteangora]

Ethics are largely oriented to individuals in a sub-culture; e.g., attorneys, doctors, police et al. Morality is related to societal values of right or wrong. Ethics and morals change with time, because they are value based. Values are like leaves on a tree that move as the winds blow. They shift. They change with time, which means ethics and morality change with time, too.

Ethics and morality are defined under the umbrella of principles. At both an individual and societal level, principles are our unshakable anchors, our immovable roots. They should never change. Unfortunately, at a societal level, they do; e.g., Roe versus Wade.

When we let go of our principles (or live without any), it's just a matter of time before a strong wind comes along and blows us away, and it's likely we will never understand why.

HTH

bold,me
Thanks for the reality check........ sad as it is.
I hope those strong winds are swirling around A.L.'s feet and will soon thrust her into a new dimension.

 

[Wudge]

I fail to see what Roe v. Wade has to do with the death penalty and/or Andrea Lyon which is the topic of this thread.

From its birth, Amercans held "life" to be a sacred principle. Roe versus Wade blew away that principle.

Ask yourself, what firm principles does America now live by? Cite but a single unwavering principle.

For example, is the "rule of law" a principle (a principle never changes) or a value (change with time)? Moreover, against my mention of the "rule of law", consider this question: did the attorneys in "Logan" adhere to the "rule of law".

[If we stand for anything, we stand for nothing.]

 

[Verité]

As far as I'm concerned she has no morals. What she and those other attorneys did is unforgivable, reprehensible, stealing a man's life so her career could prosper. I believe the only reason she is in Orlando is because of her thirst for fame and fortune due to the worldwide interest in this case and how it will help her book sales skyrocket.

With her sister already in the video/documentary business, I'll bet they're going for this >>>>:gold_crown: by way of a movie deal. Let's see, what's a likely title,
oh, I don't know, something like . . ."Hope Spring(s) Eternal and The Angel of Death Row."

 

[panthera]

As far as I'm concerned she has no morals. What she and those other attorneys did is unforgivable, reprehensible, stealing a man's life so her career could prosper. I believe the only reason she is in Orlando is because of her thirst for fame and fortune due to the worldwide interest in this case and how it will help her book sales skyrocket.

Good afternoon all! After reading about Logan, I also find it horrendous that she allowed him to sit in prison for 26 long years while she knew he was innocent. It doesn't surprise me though that JB wasn't able to find someone with some sense of morals ~ after all Mr. Lenamon stepped out of the picture probably because he was too honest. I definitely agree about the book sales but she'll be lucky if she's able to keep Casey off DR. MOO

 

[Verité]

I've read page after page about her and have read nothing but good about her. I wouldn't presume to judge her until I had been faced with a similar decision. I've also never read about an attorney violating attorney client privilege, just as I assume a priest or pastor wouldn't violate confession. . . .

The Alton Logan case may fill only one page about this lady who does so much good, and her role in keeping Logan sealed away for 26 years may fill only one paragraph,
but we're not held to a presumption of innocence in forming a judgment here. She's not a defendant and we're not a jury.

. . .I don't think we can say that she is in this for the money.

We can't??? All right, we shall just wait and see; or, time will tell; or, all good things come to those who wait...[insert your favorite platitude here].

 

[ZubenElSchemali]

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.