Man Jailed for 26 Years While Lawyers Knew He Was Innocent

[Keevan_Colton]

oh and if you haven't seen the photos, the innocent man convicted of the murder, was in fact black. yup, score on for rounding up the usual suspects.

Did you read the fucking article? A witness who testified in the case even said that the two men looked similar. Meaning that the real killer was black as well.

That's not unusual in wrongful conviction cases, since all black people look alike to a typical racist.

I wonder why none of these asshole witnesses have never been sued for monster money by the men they helped wrongfully convict. Or maybe I just didn't hear about it.

Probably because they cant. Much in the same way the lawyers and judge and every other asshole involved gets away with it...hell, if you're wrongfully convicted of something and it eventually comes to light, you'll be excpected to be grateful that they ever get around to sorting it out.

[Ryan Thunder]

The lawyers were defense attorneys for the actual murderer so they would be betraying their ethical obligation to their client if they told about it. Even if they did, the evidence would not be allowed into the innocent man's trial since it would've been obtained by the violation of the attorney client privilege, so the innocent man would've still be convicted and sent to prison.

Could somebody please kindly explain to me how this makes sense?

Because it just sounds like a long stream of convoluted, ineffective, purposeless bullshit to me...

[Terralthra]

oh and if you haven't seen the photos, the innocent man convicted of the murder, was in fact black. yup, score on for rounding up the usual suspects.

Did you read the fucking article? A witness who testified in the case even said that the two men looked similar. Meaning that the real killer was black as well.

That's not unusual in wrongful conviction cases, since all black people look alike to a typical racist.

Or they could actually look alike. We have no information either way: they could look similar or the witness could be racist, and even that's a false dichotomy.

[Superboy]

Could somebody please kindly explain to me how this makes sense?

Because it just sounds like a long stream of convoluted, ineffective, purposeless bullshit to me...

What doesn't make sense? The attorney-client privilege is important to a working judicial system. Clients have to be able to trust that what they tell their attorneys will remain confidential.

In order to ensure this, rules have been put in place that guarantee that a client can talk to his attorney without fear of repercussions. This includes rules that prevent any information obtained in violation of that confidence from been admissible in court.

[Darth Wong]

Did you read the fucking article? A witness who testified in the case even said that the two men looked similar. Meaning that the real killer was black as well.

That's not unusual in wrongful conviction cases, since all black people look alike to a typical racist.

Or they could actually look alike. We have no information either way: they could look similar or the witness could be racist, and even that's a false dichotomy.

If you're not absolutely sure that this is the guy you saw, then you have an ethical obligation not to stand up in court and declare that it's the same guy.

[Darth Wong]

Could somebody please kindly explain to me how this makes sense?

Because it just sounds like a long stream of convoluted, ineffective, purposeless bullshit to me...

What doesn't make sense? The attorney-client privilege is important to a working judicial system. Clients have to be able to trust that what they tell their attorneys will remain confidential.

Why? Are you saying it would be impossible to operate a criminal justice system without this rule in place?

[Superboy]

Nope, I'm just saying that the rule prevents more harm than it causes.

The judicial system is based on the concept of a defense attorney that will fight for his client. It's been decided that all people deserve an attorney that will defend them. If an attorney reveals information that causes harm to his client, he is denying that client his right to an attorney that will defend him.

[Graeme Dice]

Nope, I'm just saying that the rule prevents more harm than it causes.

Except in certain cases, such as this one, where all the attorneys involved are such scumbags that they couldn't even be bothered to do anything about it. Of course, if the prosecutor was made aware of this information at any point, then he is the truly evil person, since he knowingly convicted an innocent man when he has the power to just drop the charges completely.

If an attorney reveals information that causes harm to his client, he is denying that client his right to an attorney that will defend him.

As has already been pointed out, that would make the evidence inadmissible in a prosecution against the person who confessed, not against the person exonerated by said evidence. (At least in an ideal system.)

[Superboy]

As has already been pointed out, that would make the evidence inadmissible in a prosecution against the person who confessed, not against the person exonerated by said evidence. (At least in an ideal system.)

As horrible as it sounds, an innocent man being convicted of the crime would guarantee that his client would not be convicted. Since an attorney's obligation is supposed to be to his client above all else, he would be neglecting that obligation by releasing the information.

[Vohu Manah]

As upset as I can be about a man serving a life sentence for a crime he didn't commit, I can't decide if I should be more upset at the police officers and the prosecutor for the apparently piss-poor job they did in nabbing the real killer or the jury that convicted the innocent man. I don't fault these lawyers as they seemed to do everything reasonable to help without violating their oaths to the real killer (their client who was never charged with this crime before he died).

The most ethical solution would have been to assassinate the real killer so they could release the documents

The lawyers in question did get permission from their client to release the affidavit regarding Alton Logan's innocence but I'm sure that hastening the death of their own client would be yet another ethics violation. It'd probably be nice if that had happened though.

[Darth Smiley]

Lawyer-client privilege is not complete; most states allow attorneys to reveal confidences to prevent a death, serious bodily harm or criminal fraud. But this case didn't offer that kind of exception.

If there are exceptions for cases to prevent a death, and the innocent man would get the death penalty, wouldn't that qualify as such as exception? And if there are such exceptions, than why would having an exception for cases such as this be so bad?

[Darth Wong]

As has already been pointed out, that would make the evidence inadmissible in a prosecution against the person who confessed, not against the person exonerated by said evidence. (At least in an ideal system.)

As horrible as it sounds, an innocent man being convicted of the crime would guarantee that his client would not be convicted. Since an attorney's obligation is supposed to be to his client above all else, he would be neglecting that obligation by releasing the information.

You don't appear to see what is wrong with an ethics system that values the attorney-client relationship above all of human society.

[Darth Ruinus]

I tried to sleep off the anger that I got yesterday from reading this but nope, it didnt help at all.

This innocent guy has been in jail my entire life and then some.

That attorney-client privilage is there for a reaon I know, but it just gets me that there can't be exceptions, especially in this case.

[The Yosemite Bear]

actually I get particularly annoyed about that legal clause, as a union represenitive. I've competantly represented clients I knew who were guilty, and gotten them off. I warned them to fly true in the future because I couldn't always count on me being lucky, or evidence not being sufficiant.

currently the guy who I got off last week for unexcused absences because he had written down the times of his hours, and never used the computer, just got caught doing that two days in a row. I can't help him now.

[Wicked Pilot]

I for one have no problem breaking the rules if you've got a good reason to do so and you are willing to stand tall after the fact, explain yourself, and take whatever comes down.

I don't want to underplay the act of possibly throwing away one's career, the thing they worked years to achieve, the source of food and housing for them and their family, but we're talking about someone's life here in the balance. Fucking grow a pair and do what you know you need to do.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I am going to say first that is is a fucking travesty. However, at this point I dont think the remaining murderer has standing to challenge the document. As it is, HIS priviledge is not being violated, as the confession was obtained from his now-dead accomplice.

That having been said, a society exists upon its laws. If the law is not followed they are not worth the paper they are printed on, and the larger spillover effects of a policy change, like getting rid of the attourney-client privilege have to be looked at. Imagine a day when a prosecutor could compel a defense attorney to turn over transcripts of their conversations with clients. Imagine a day when the defense could be called to testify for the prosecution. Is that a legal system you want to live in? Is that a legal system that can be called anything but rigged?

[Durandal]

Unless I'm mistaken, the evidence would have been ruled inadmissible insofar as it could be used against the guilty party. Why couldn't the innocent man's lawyer file a motion to separate the two cases? The guilty man's confession wouldn't be admissible in the case against him, but it doesn't even seem like they needed it to convict him. But it would have been admissible in the case against the innocent man.

Way to take a big shit on lawyer's bullshit.

Oh, and by the way, couldn't the argument be made that, if the client confessed to his attorney, his attorney was a willful accomplice to covering up the crime if he presented a defense that didn't involve his client committing the murder? In that case, privilege would not attach.

[eyl]

As has already been pointed out, that would make the evidence inadmissible in a prosecution against the person who confessed, not against the person exonerated by said evidence. (At least in an ideal system.)

As I understand the article, Wilson wasn't a suspect in the murders for which Logan was convicted (despite the forensic evidence). So if his lawyers had come forward, even though his confession could not be used against him in court, it would make him a suspect in the murder and lead to his possible conviction for the crime. I don't see, however, why Miller didn't come forward with the details of Hope's confession - he had no ethical obligation to Wilson that I can see.

On the other hand, while attorney-client privelige is important, there's certainly a place to limiting it somewhat. I don't see why a justice system has to be based on the principle of "you shall get away with it if your lawyer is sharp enough". If someone tells his lawyer he committed the crime he's accused of, for instance, then the lawyer's only possible recourse (leaving aside justification or insanity defenses) is to argue a line of defense he knows is false - and I can't see why someone has a right to that.

[Lord MJ]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/ ... ME_4028780

Looks like he was recently released on Bond, and is awaiting a retrial.