Attorney Client Privilege/ Alton Logan Ethical Dilemma

[amethyst221]

To be filed under the heading of "you never know for sure what might happen": Once Wilson died and his 2 lawyers allegedly were free to speak, the affidavit came out, was shown to a judge, and hearings were held. Miller, the long ago attorney for Hope who also signed, was ordered by the judge to testify, over the objections of Hope's current lawyer and the current SA. Hope is still fighting on against his own convictions. He would not testify and instead said he would invoke his right not to incriminate himself.

 

[Concerned Papa]

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.

I appreciate your taking the time to give me your response and opinions in this matter.

If each of us are honest with ourselves, matters such as this are rendered a verdict within the court of our minds. It's called our opinion. When I mentally found these attorneys guilty, I did not believe there was any give in my judgement. Now, due to the response and opinions of learned scholars of the law such as yourself, this matter is on appeal in my mind. To help me render my own mental verdict on this appeal, I need to ask you one final question after I have qualified my reason for asking.

I posed the following hypothetical question to you, after which you gave me your much appreciated candid response:

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

I am not a scholar of the law. I am, however, a business owner who has gambled, both in business and gaming situations, involving sometime large sums of money. While I may not completely understand the law, I do understand numbers. Oftentimes an informed decision, for me, boils down to numbers based on a percentage or an expected statistical outcome.

I have been in enough legal situations to realize an attorney is typically reluctant to offer their opinion of likely outcome. However, in this hypothetical discussion I am hopeful that you will.

Based on a scale of 1-10 or whatever numerical expression you want, where would you rate the chance of success for the release of Alton Logan based on the hypothetical question I previously asked?

 

[faefrost]

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.

To paraphrase the late great Paul Newman...

"We've already determined what you are, all we are doing now is negotiating the price".

That's what really really bothers me about this. The lawyers had decided that what they were witnessing was wrong, and action could be taken. But they set a threshold, a "price" that had to be reached before they would take that action. That just reaks of bad ethics. That the tripwire threshold just happened to involve the personal interests and long time crusade of at least one of the lawyers involved makes it infinately worse. It leaves open the suspicion that these lawyers would willingly choose to martyr themselves in order to fight the injustice of the DP, but to keep an innocent man out of life in incarceration would not sufficiently martyr anyone to support their pet cause.

Did any of these lawyers turn to their bar association seeking guidance in this matter? Did they recieve a firm "no you cannot act" from some source of legal review and oversite?

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

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.

Wilson did not waive his privilege. His lawyers would have to violate it, which sets their knowledge up as inadmissable evidence. The judge would know that.

Any "process" (none exist), including any sympathy-based judicial "process", that went beyond the judge would soon include the D.A.'s office. The D.A.'s office would almost assuredly do what the judge should have done, which is refer all involved (the lawyers and now the judge) to the state bar. Speaking practically to any such "process", it would be but a matter of time before the ethics committee, state bar or state Supreme Court was informed.

(Getaway comment. Smart lawyers would not hope to win Logan's freedom via judicial-based sympathy. Smart lawyers know that if their client were tell anyone else, they've waived their privilege. In this case, their client is in prison. ..... Think and play it from there.)

 

[Verité]

To paraphrase the late great Paul Newman...

"We've already determined what you are, all we are doing now is negotiating the price".

That's what really really bothers me about this. The lawyers had decided that what they were witnessing was wrong, and action could be taken. But they set a threshold, a "price" that had to be reached before they would take that action. That just reaks of bad ethics. That the tripwire threshold just happened to involve the personal interests and long time crusade of at least one of the lawyers involved makes it infinately worse. It leaves open the suspicion that these lawyers would willingly choose to martyr themselves in order to fight the injustice of the DP, but to keep an innocent man out of life in incarceration would not sufficiently martyr anyone to support their pet cause.

Did any of these lawyers turn to their bar association seeking guidance in this matter? Did they recieve a firm "no you cannot act" from some source of legal review and oversite?

I agree wholeheartedly with your "suspicion" about the DP implications, since the lawyers clearly admit that's when they would have broken ranks with their profession and outed Wilson to save Logan from the DP. Their ultimate decision fails to rise to the level of one which would entitle them to be known as "heroes."

Now, let me say a word about the position that no "smart attorney" would have acted otherwise. I simply won't buy that there are no "heroes" in the entire legal profession. If the second in command of the FBI can pose as "deep throat" in order to right perceived wrongs of a Nixon white house--an FBI administrator who had as much or more to lose as the lawyers in the Wilson case--don't expect me to believe that the entire legal profession is without it's own heroes who could have found a creative solution versus assume a
follow the herd mentality.

 

[Chezhire]

Wilson did not waive his privilege. His lawyers would have to violate it, which sets their knowledge up as inadmissable evidence. The judge would know that.

Any "process" (none exist), including any sympathy-based judicial "process", that went beyond the judge would soon include the D.A.'s office. The D.A.'s office would almost assuredly do what the judge should have done, which is refer all involved (the lawyers and now the judge) to the state bar. Speaking practically to any such "process", it would be but a matter of time before the ethics committee, state bar or state Supreme Court was informed.

(Getaway comment. Smart lawyers would not hope to win Logan's freedom via judicial-based sympathy. Smart lawyers know that if their client were tell anyone else, they've waived their privilege. In this case, their client is in prison. ..... Think and play it from there.)

The above post either misread/misunderstood either the initial question Concerned Papa asked of me, which was:

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?

(bolded by me, Chezhire,) or misread/misunderstood my initial response to Concerned Papa, which was:

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.

The foregoing clearly illustrates the two possible outcomes re: the scenario presented to me by Concerned Papa.

Any attorney who's "smart" (if that's the yardstick by which one measures...) wouldn't have asked the questions of Wilson in the first place, as they were irrelevant to their defense of him in the later, unrelated shootings. :saythat:

 

[Chezhire]

SNIPPED: "... Did any of these lawyers turn to their bar association seeking guidance in this matter? Did they recieve a firm "no you cannot act" from some source of legal review and oversite?"

I have not heard or read anything to indicate the answer to your question. I am also unfamiliar with their licensing states' procedures for obtaining such an advance ethics opinion.

I can say with authority that in LA, one may submit requests for ethics opinions, but they must be based upon prospective facts/hypotheticals, not things that have already happened/taken place, and the advisory service clearly delineates that said opinions are not in any way, shape or form binding upon the LA Supreme Court or the Louisiana State Bar Association's Disciplinary Committee.
See here for more info: http://www.lsba.org/2007MemberServices/ethicsadvisoryservice.asp

 

[Chezhire]

SNIPPED: "... I posed the following hypothetical question to you, after which you gave me your much appreciated candid response:

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

...

Based on a scale of 1-10 or whatever numerical expression you want, where would you rate the chance of success for the release of Alton Logan based on the hypothetical question I previously asked?"

I've enjoyed the discourse with you, Concerned Papa, and I've appreciated the thoughtful questions you are posing for the rest of us here at WS to chew on/wrestle with.

Re: assigning a rating to the possibility of a release for Alton Logan had Wilson's attorneys violated the attorney-client privilege and informed the court of Logan's innocence...whether/how/when it could happen hinges on so many variables: the judges, the attorneys, Wilson himself and his response to the violation of the privilege that was only his to waive, etc., etc., etc.

It would truly be a wild card ride.

The ultimate outcome though? That I'm certain enough of to assign a rating: 10. As evidenced by the many WS posters on this thread alone voicing their discontent at the fact that these attorneys knew Logan was innocent these past 26 years and finally, after the death of Wilson, stepped forward to put the wheels of justice in motion for Logan, there would be a great many folks clammoring for Logan's release, so I'd imagine that if the legal system itself could not find a way to make it work for Logan's release (which, even though there is no precedent for this fact scenario, would be a real shame,) some policitian or governor or president would make sure it happened. That I'm 100% certain of.

 

[Concerned Papa]

I've enjoyed the discourse with you, Concerned Papa, and I've appreciated the thoughtful questions you are posing for the rest of us here at WS to chew on/wrestle with.

Re: assigning a rating to the possibility of a release for Alton Logan had Wilson's attorneys violated the attorney-client privilege and informed the court of Logan's innocence...whether/how/when it could happen hinges on so many variables: the judges, the attorneys, Wilson himself and his response to the violation of the privilege that was only his to waive, etc., etc., etc.

It would truly be a wild card ride.

The ultimate outcome though? That I'm certain enough of to assign a rating: 10. As evidenced by the many WS posters on this thread alone voicing their discontent at the fact that these attorneys knew Logan was innocent these past 26 years and finally, after the death of Wilson, stepped forward to put the wheels of justice in motion for Logan, there would be a great many folks clammoring for Logan's release, so I'd imagine that if the legal system itself could not find a way to make it work for Logan's release (which, even though there is no precedent for this fact scenario, would be a real shame,) some policitian or governor or president would make sure it happened. That I'm 100% certain of.

Thank you for your honest and candid responses to my concerns. This response validates my initial beliefs.

This discussion has not really been about an abstract hypothetical situation. It has been about a very real innocent human being who was allowed to be caged like an animal for 26 long real years.

It has been about the very real absence of action by people who were in full knowledge of his innocence. Had the attorneys not, in fact, valued their own interests more than the 26 year wrongful incarceration of an innocent man, the horrible wrong could have been made right.

This lack of action on Alton Logan's behalf outrages me. In what may be viewed by some as unjust, I hold Andrea Lyon even more culpable than the two primary attorneys. By all accounts she has a brilliant legal mind as a professor at DePaul University as well as being a noted attorney. Her well publicized statement of “You see something wrong, you do something about it” now rings hollow as a ploy to enhance her image with an absence of moral conviction. This very intelligent, highly educated, legal scholar did, in fact, see something very wrong but contrary to her published statements, did nothing about it.

She has shown a thought process of creativity in crafting her reputation by being prepared to cry, get angry, or bully in front of a jury. Andrea Lyon has shown a propensity of thinking "outside of the box". I do not believe that someone who could envision the tactic of locking herself to the witness stand during her closing arguments, could not envision an effective path of movement to remedy what to all of us is a grave miscarriage of justice, resulting in an innocent man wasting a significant portion of his only life in prison.

In an earlier post, I shared some personal information from many years in my past. What I did not share in that post is the fact that I could have avoided every minute of my incarceration by doing something I viewed as dishonorable. I speak with a deep conviction when I remind you, once again, of the wisdom from The Holy Bible, I Peter 3:14 "But even if you should suffer for doing what is right, you are blessed"

My life has truly been blessed.

 

[jandkmom]

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 maybe more innocent people sitting in jail because they won't tell the truth until their client dies.

 

[elementary]

I agree wholeheartedly with your "suspicion" about the DP implications, since the lawyers clearly admit that's when they would have broken ranks with their profession and outed Wilson to save Logan from the DP. Their ultimate decision fails to rise to the level of one which would entitle them to be known as "heroes."

Now, let me say a word about the position that no "smart attorney" would have acted otherwise. I simply won't buy that there are no "heroes" in the entire legal profession. If the second in command of the FBI can pose as "deep throat" in order to right perceived wrongs of a Nixon white house--an FBI administrator who had as much or more to lose as the lawyers in the Wilson case--don't expect me to believe that the entire legal profession is without it's own heroes who could have found a creative solution versus assume a
follow the herd mentality.

I love your post! Whistleblowers don't get no respect. Take a look at the guy who tried desperately to get someone to notice Madoff's scurrilous house of cards. A lot of whistleblowers lead difficult lives afterwards as well. Not much to "feel good" about, IMO. They are true heroes, indeed.

Perhaps the Logan case could have spurred on these lawyers, especially someone as high profile as Andrea Lyon to lobby for change to some of the rules regarding attorney-client privilege/professional ethics. She had 26 years to give it a shot.

 

[Devon]

There have been many, many grave miscarriages of justice over time, in which innocent people have been imprisoned, and in some cases executed, for crimes they did not commit. People have been found guilty on the basis of false witness testimony, inaccurate, false or misleading expert testimony and/or erroneous or misleading forensic evidence.

There have been incidents of forced confessions, bribed or pressured witnesses, withheld evidence, planted evidence. I'm not just talking about the US here - corruption exists in all legal systems - but in respect of your own, do those of you who believe that these attorneys had a moral obligation to do 'the right thing' also hold prosecutors and LE to the same standards? Do you, or would you, have the same feelings of outrage and disgust about fellow citizens who have been charged and found guilty on flawed, flimsy, concocted or otherwise dubious evidence? Would you similarly expect a LE officer or a DA to sacrifice his/her career and livelihood in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice?

 

[Concerned Papa]

There have been many, many grave miscarriages of justice over time, in which innocent people have been imprisoned, and in some cases executed, for crimes they did not commit. People have been found guilty on the basis of false witness testimony, inaccurate, false or misleading expert testimony and/or erroneous or misleading forensic evidence.

There have been incidents of forced confessions, bribed or pressured witnesses, withheld evidence, planted evidence. I'm not just talking about the US here - corruption exists in all legal systems - but in respect of your own, do those of you who believe that these attorneys had a moral obligation to do 'the right thing' also hold prosecutors and LE to the same standards? Do you, or would you, have the same feelings of outrage and disgust about fellow citizens who have been charged and found guilty on flawed, flimsy, concocted or otherwise dubious evidence?

To answer your question, absolutely I would hold prosecutors and LE to the same standards if they knew someone was innocent. Particularly if they had crafted a career with well publicized statements such as Andrea Lyon's “You see something wrong, you do something about it”.

This discussion has not been about "flawed, flimsy, or concocted evidence". It is about 3 officers of the court who knew, not suspected, that an innocent man was in prison, where they allowed him to remain for 26 very real, non hypothetical, years.

 

[Searchfortruth]

There have been many, many grave miscarriages of justice over time, in which innocent people have been imprisoned, and in some cases executed, for crimes they did not commit. People have been found guilty on the basis of false witness testimony, inaccurate, false or misleading expert testimony and/or erroneous or misleading forensic evidence.

There have been incidents of forced confessions, bribed or pressured witnesses, withheld evidence, planted evidence. I'm not just talking about the US here - corruption exists in all legal systems - but in respect of your own, do those of you who believe that these attorneys had a moral obligation to do 'the right thing' also hold prosecutors and LE to the same standards? Do you, or would you, have the same feelings of outrage and disgust about fellow citizens who have been charged and found guilty on flawed, flimsy, concocted or otherwise dubious evidence? Would you similarly expect a LE officer or a DA to sacrifice his/her career and livelihood in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice?

Bolded by me and in response to that question...

YES, YES AND YES !

 

[Devon]

I do not profess to know what the answer is in a situation such as this where, in order to diligently perform his duty to his own client, and comply with his ethical and professional responsibilities, an attorney may be placed in a situation where he must keep quiet concerning an injustice to another.

What IS of great concern to me however is the fact that a totally innocent man can be convicted of a crime and sentenced to life imprisonment in the first place. Something clearly went wrong long before these attorneys ever had knowledge of the fact, and if Wilson had never made an admission to anyone, Logan would still be locked up today and likely would have died in prison, still protesting his innocence. IMO that is where the true injustice lies and although our personal moral codes may make us question the decisions these attorneys made, the 'wrong' that they are deemed to have had a responsibility to put right was not of their making.

As members of civilised societies, I think we all have a moral duty and a vested interest in working towards change so that there are no more 'Logans'. An impossible task, most probably, but since it's quite possible that this could happen to any one of us if we ever happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, it's really frightening to think that our freedom and even our lives may be dependant upon chance happenings after the fact and the moral dilemmas faced by persons totally unconnected with us.

 

[Wudge]

The above post either misread/misunderstood either the initial question Concerned Papa asked of me, which was:

(bolded by me, Chezhire,) or misread/misunderstood my initial response to Concerned Papa, which was:

The foregoing clearly illustrates the two possible outcomes re: the scenario presented to me by Concerned Papa.

Any attorney who's "smart" (if that's the yardstick by which one measures...) wouldn't have asked the questions of Wilson in the first place, as they were irrelevant to their defense of him in the later, unrelated shootings. :saythat:

For smart lawyers, (re: wise, astute, clever et al), the starting point would be the prison (not the presiding judge). For example, PI lets prison guards know what they're after. That being, information that Wilson told another inmate he was the true murderer (privilege evaporates).

 

[elementary]

I do not profess to know what the answer is in a situation such as this where, in order to diligently perform his duty to his own client, and comply with his ethical and professional responsibilities, an attorney may be placed in a situation where he must keep quiet concerning an injustice to another.

What IS of great concern to me however is the fact that a totally innocent man can be convicted of a crime and sentenced to life imprisonment in the first place. Something clearly went wrong long before these attorneys ever had knowledge of the fact, and if Wilson had never made an admission to anyone, Logan would still be locked up today and likely would have died in prison, still protesting his innocence. IMO that is where the true injustice lies and although our personal moral codes may make us question the decisions these attorneys made, the 'wrong' that they are deemed to have had a responsibility to put right was not of their making.

As members of civilised societies, I think we all have a moral duty and a vested interest in working towards change so that there are no more 'Logans'. An impossible task, most probably, but since it's quite possible that this could happen to any one of us if we ever happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, it's really frightening to think that our freedom and even our lives may be dependant upon chance happenings after the fact and the moral dilemmas faced by persons totally unconnected with us.

I disagree. They had a choice. They were not caught in some legal trap. A trap presumes they had no choice. They weren't victims of the system. The only victim is Logan. The point is that they had the chance to make it right. What happened before does not mitigate the fact that they chose to let an innocent man take the rap for a murderer and sentenced him to a living death. The responsibility lies at their feet.

 

[countzero]

For smart lawyers, (re: wise, astute, clever et al), the starting point would be the prison (not the presiding judge). For example, PI lets prison guards know what they're after. That being, information that Wilson told another inmate he was the true murderer (privilege evaporates).

If you are not teaching, then you should be I have learned so much from you and each of our attorney posters and thank you for taking time from your personal lives to be involved here. Much appreciated. :clap::clap::clap:

 

[Devon]

I disagree. They had a choice. They were not caught in some legal trap. A trap presumes they had no choice. They weren't victims of the system. The only victim is Logan. The point is that they had the chance to make it right. What happened before does not mitigate the fact that they chose to let an innocent man take the rap for a murderer and sentenced him to a living death. The responsibility lies at their feet.

'In 1982, now 54 year-old Alton Logan was arrested for the murder of a security guard at a McDonald's in a robbery gone wrong. Witnesses identified Logan along with Edgar Hope as the two perpetrators of the crime. A few days later, however, while police were hunting down brothers Andrew and Jackie Wilson for an unrelated murder of two officers, a raid on Andrew's suspected hiding place unearthed a shotgun that tested positive as the gun used in the McDonald's shooting. However, because there were allegedly only two perpetrators in the McDonald's robbery/shooting, and because the police already had two suspects in custody, charges were never filed against Andrew Wilson in that case.'

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidenceprof/2008/01/in-1982-now-54.html

It seems the prosecutors also had a choice. They apparently had evidence that someone else was most likely involved, but did nothing! Where a man's freedom and possibly his life is at stake, was there not a moral obligation on the prosecution/investigating officers to seek out the truth, rather than make a case that appears to be based primarily on witness ID (notoriously unreliable at the best of times) and even though several members of Logan's family apparently testified as to his whereabouts at the relevant time? Did they get complacent or just consider it 'job done' when they'd managed to line up two suspects? Who knows, but Wilson's attorneys did not bring the charges that led to do the conviction - the failures/omissions/choices of others are responsible for that.

 

[Concerned Papa]

'In 1982, now 54 year-old Alton Logan was arrested for the murder of a security guard at a McDonald's in a robbery gone wrong. Witnesses identified Logan along with Edgar Hope as the two perpetrators of the crime. A few days later, however, while police were hunting down brothers Andrew and Jackie Wilson for an unrelated murder of two officers, a raid on Andrew's suspected hiding place unearthed a shotgun that tested positive as the gun used in the McDonald's shooting. However, because there were allegedly only two perpetrators in the McDonald's robbery/shooting, and because the police already had two suspects in custody, charges were never filed against Andrew Wilson in that case.'

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidenceprof/2008/01/in-1982-now-54.html

It seems the prosecutors also had a choice. They apparently had evidence that someone else was most likely involved, but did nothing! Where a man's freedom and possibly his life is at stake, was there not a moral obligation on the prosecution/investigating officers to seek out the truth, rather than make a case that appears to be based primarily on witness ID (notoriously unreliable at the best of times) and even though several members of Logan's family apparently testified as to his whereabouts at the relevant time? Did they get complacent or just consider it 'job done' when they'd managed to line up two suspects? Who knows, but Wilson's attorneys did not bring the charges that led to do the conviction - the failures/omissions/choices of others are responsible for that.

I don't disagree with the point of your post. Any way you analyze the situation the prosecutors and L.E. achieved the conviction of an innocent man.

However, I also agree completely with the last part of your referenced quote: "What happened before does not mitigate the fact that they chose to let an innocent man take the rap for a murderer and sentenced him to a living death. The responsibility lies at their feet."

Right or wrong on my part, I hold a higher standard of responsibility for the attorneys because they KNEW Logan was innocent. The prosecutors and L.E. apparently BELIEVED Logan was guilty, unless there are nefarious motives on their part of which I am not aware.