26-Year Secret Kept Innocent Man In Prison

[RamboLiberal]

Source: CBS News

Alton Logan doesn't understand why two lawyers with proof he didn't commit murder were legally prevented from helping him. They had their reasons: To save Logan, they would have had to break the cardinal rule of attorney-client privilege to reveal their own client had committed the crime. But Logan had 26 years in prison to try to understand why he was convicted for a crime he didn't commit.

Logan, still in jail, speaks to 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon in his first interview for a report that also includes the lawyers which will be broadcast this Sunday, March 9, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

"Yes. Sympathize with , yes. Understand it, no," Logan tells Simon. "If you know this is an innocent person, why would you allow this person to be prosecuted, convicted, sent to prison for all these years?" asks the 54-year-old inmate.

Lawyers Jamie Kunz and Dale Coventry were public defenders when their client, Andrew Wilson, admitted to them he had shot-gunned a security guard to death in a 1982 robbery. When a tip led to Logan's arrest and he went to trial for the crime, the two lawyers were in a bind. They wanted to help Logan but legally couldn't.


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

---

Wow, what an injustice! I'm no Solomon here, but there should be some way to remedy this kind of dilemna w/o betraying attorney client privalege.

[LisaM]

1. Yes. They could have fired their client.

I don't believe attorneys are legally bound to help a guilty person.

[TheWraith]

3. No, but they are still obligated to keep his secret.

Attorney client privlidge doesn't end when the relationship does.

However, to stop an innocent man from going to jail? One of these guys should have been willing to risk disbarment.

[Selatius]

7. Isn't the point of the legal system to also prevent the innocent from being punished?

And not just to punish the guilty? Would that have provided the loophole for the lawyer to speak up and not get disbarred?

[Festivito]

24. There are trade-offs with various justice systems.

In England one cannot admit wrongdoing to one's attorney, the attorney must then reveal it.

Here, the attorney can help when he knows the awful truth, as these two did.

We have a history of not trusting laws, noting that this has diminished over many decades. But, earlier, we'd allow attorneys more latitude.

Is it just?

Not in this man's case.

Is it just overall?

That's a hard question.

[TheWraith]

38. That's the intent, but a loophole it does not provide.

Either way, though, I think basic conscience would behoove the lawyer to speak up, and if it meant disbarment, well, that's what's written.

[LiberalFighter]

39. It would seem to be that an attorney has a duty to ensure their client gets a fair trial

But not necessary get them off.

[NashVegas]

41. Our Legal System Is Based on a Win / Lose Scenario

More than a truth / false scenario.

[anitar1]

53. No, it is not. The whole point is to convict any likely

schmuck that comes along so they can write off the crime as another "victory". There is no humane treatment in the justice system. It is just a system that went askew long ago. Don't forget that the District attorney usually has future plans for a higher political office and wants all "A's" on his record.

[crimsonblue]

36. Privilege ends with the admission of a crime in which another is wrongly convicted...

The lawyers can and should be disbarred for allowing an innocent man to go to jail. This is complete bullshit and there is no excuse. Even if their client sued and they were disbarred, it is the ethical responsibility of the lawyers to ensure that an innocent man is not convicted. "Kill all the lawyers, and kill 'em tonight."

[happyslug]

5. Yes, they could have, but it still forbidden for them to talk.

The problem is the courts want people to feel free to talk with their attorneys, and the only way that can happen if people know it will NEVER to released to anyone else. Thus the Lawyer's dilemma, they knew the guy was innocent, but could NOT tell anyone. A lawyer's duty is to his client within bounds of the law. That is what the lawyers did here, the only ethical concern is that the lawyers did talk about it after their client as dead. They may be disbarred over it.

But lets look at this another way, HOW DID THE PRISONER GET CONVICTED, when someone else did the crime? What about proof beyond a reasonable doubt? I am sorry, even without the testimony of the Lawyers, this case had reasonable doubts and the Jury did NOT find those reasonable doubt. This is a problem with juries, they want to convict, and if Jury members would do their job and question the prosecution you would NOT have had this problem.

[rpannier]

10. From the article

The lawyers did get permission from Wilson, to reveal upon his death his confession to the murder Logan was convicted for. Wilson died late last year and Coventry and Kunz came forward.

[yardwork]

13. I agree. It makes me wonder about the prosecution, too.

Why did the prosecutor think this man was guilty when, obviously, there was no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt?

Several death row inmates have been exonerated in North Carolina in recent years. They were framed. The prosecution and law enforcement hid exculpatory evidence and may even have manufactured evidence to convict them. Many others are in prison on the basis of very flimsy evidence.

[RamboLiberal]

18. He's a black man in North Carolina 26 years ago

And please I'm not just painting NC that way, it happens here in Northern states as well. Easy for prosecutors though and juries to see a black man on trial and just assume guilt IMHO.

[yardwork]

19. The article says that Logan was convicted in Illinois.

[brentspeak]

54. This occurred in Illinois, not North Carolina

[happyslug]

31. This is related to a series of Police brutality Cases from the same time period.

For more details see:
http://www.chicagoreader.com/torture/990625_3.html
http://chicagoist.com/2008/01/19/revealed_secret.php

[yardwork]

40. Thank you. I'm not surprised.

[happyslug]

29. Dupilcate

[islandmkl]

2. kafka would be proud...

it isn't a moral dilemma when no conscience is involved...

loopholes aren't for the innocent...

[WarholPop]

4. Thanks for posting this

An estimated six to ten percent of all incarcerated individuals are innocent of the crimes for which they have been convicted. The OP is the most recent injustice brought to light. There are many reasons why I am against capital punishment, and the fact that we often wrongly convict people is one of those reasons.

[IronLionZion]

8. do you have a source for that figure?

How could you know who is innocent?

[WarholPop]

11. Check Out Innocene Project

I don't have a source handy but I've read that figure a few times, and if you search the web you'll find it easily enough I'm sure. Anyhow, check out this great group -- the Innocence Project -- which time and time again has gotten innocent men off death row.

[WarholPop]

12. The Link

Here's the link to the Innocence Project: http://www.innocenceproject.org/

[yardwork]

14. In many cases, DNA evidence has proven innocence.

In one case in North Carolina, it turned out that the person sentenced to death had been in prison when the murder for which he was convicted occurred, and the prosecution knew it!

Law enforcement is not universally moral or ethical in this country. Sometimes people in power deliberately frame other people. Sometimes innocent people are executed.

[McCamy Taylor]

6. Attorney client privilege exists for a reason. You wanna be blackmailed by your lawyer?

[WarholPop]

9. Compensation

Sometimes the state legislature will pass a bill specific to the wrongfully incarcerated invidual to provide him or her with compensation. The poor guy won't get rich. Usually the amount of compensation authorized is a paltry $20,000 or $25,000 per year of wrongful incarceration.

[RedRocco]

57. SC

capped theirs at $15k/year with $50k max payout.

[Sam Ervin jret]

15. these lawyers may not have been obligated legally to help this man by telling on the other but

they were morally obligated to help defend him in any other way they could.

And if they did nothing but stayed quiet all these years, shame on them.

[LeftHander]

17. yes...they could of "leaked" the information....nt

[LeftHander]

16. Points out a character flaw

I would give up a law career to prevent an innocent person from going to jail.

[yardwork]

21. It's not that simple....they couldn't know for certain that their client was telling the truth.

People have been known to "confess" to crimes they haven't committed.

I'm more concerned about the prosecutor who convicted an innocent man. What's his excuse? What evidence did he claim to have?

[Der Blaue Engel]

20. Here's the part I really don't understand: "Logan, still in jail..."

:wtf:

Whatever happened to the right to a speedy trial? Now he's waiting on the whim of the system for a new trial after rotting away in prison for 26 years. Can't they just fucking get to the justice already?

And why couldn't they have come forward saying they had proof of his innocence, but couldn't reveal the details due to client confidentiality. Shouldn't our system allow for protection against wrongful prosecution while still honoring the confidentiality clause?

I bet this guy wishes he'd been born in Norway. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=YxLag-EXiZk)

ed for typo/sp

[yardwork]

22. The United States would do well to study Norway as an example. Yes, we would.

A lot of us would be better off if we had been born in Norway, or any of several other countries.

[Der Blaue Engel]

23. I fantasize about fleeing to Norway often n/t

[Diclotican]

28. Der Blaue Engel

Der Blaue Engel

You are welcome to come to Norway:). We need more people here. Even that you would find us wierd.... Just to be warned;)

Diclotican

Sorry my bad English, not my native language

[Diclotican]

26. yardwork

yardwork

Thank you;).. To put out Norway as a example.. I don't believe our Justice system are so perfect.. But we have not death penalty, and we can not legally sitt more than 21 year in prison and then just for the most terrible offenses. But we _can_ be sent to "protective prison" if the prisoner are a treath to them self, or the society as a large.. But thank you, if you point Norway as something US should look to.. Even that We have our share of wrongdoing...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad English, not my native language

[Diclotican]

27. Der Blaue Engel

Der Blaue Engel

Ah, Bastøy.. A prison with a LONG history.. Today it is usually used to keep prisoner who are on the last leg of their sentence.. In the old days, it was more like a place of hell.. Even my old Foster father once say to me, If you don't behave you could end at Bastøy.. And he was a generation who know bad places.. But our system are maybe "to soft" for an american view of things... But if it work... Then it work well. But many times it are not working as well at it should. And then we have a problem.... No I don't believe you should treat prisoner bad.. But some very few are maybe not able to be rehabilitate, and for their own sake, should be kept under protecting care.. In a institution who are able to do it.. Even if it means that the prisoner may never be free...

If this is right.. Then the system are corrupt to the core.. 25 in prison for a crime he never had doing?.. If I had been treated like that I would sue the famous ass of both the lawyer, the whole girth who was doing this, and even the federal Court for doing this... Head would roll before I was finished...

But here,over to something else http://youtube.com/watch?v=oJ1jIcJVu_4&feature=related A little glimse into Norway;)

Diclotican

Sorry my bad English, not my native language

[renate]

44. Beautiful!

I've always wanted to go to Norway, and that video is a great reminder of why!

[Diclotican]

56. renate

renate

And the nature are indeed better than this video... Believe me.. I am born her, grown up here... And I doubt I never will live other places in my life. Even that other places is more exotic then my own.. Visit other places yes. But I doubt I never will LIVE other places for the rest of my life.. My own little country is to "great" a place.. We have been lucy when it come to nature..

Diclotican

[RoseMead]

25. Cases like this illustrate why I am firmly against the death penalty n/t

[happyslug]

30. And the actual murderer WON a $1 million Dollar Police brutality suit.

He did Not get a dime, $900,000 went to his lawyers for the ten years in litigation, the Remaining $100,000 went to the family of an Officer he had Killed (That was tied in with the murder Logan was convicted of). This is a real mess, I previously blamed the Jurors, but it is looking more and more like the police just screwed up and did not care to correct the problem:\.

For more see :
http://www.chicagoreader.com/torture/990625_3.html
http://chicagoist.com/2008/01/19/revealed_secret.php

[Nutmegger]

32. May the souls of all those involved in convicting this man forever remain in anguish.

This is shameful. This man might have been the victim of prison rape. He might have been verbally abused, by the guards and other inmates. His cried of innocence were ignored ("Yeah, that's what they all say") .....

This is an innocent man.

And why the fuck is this man still in prison???

I'm disgusted, and angry.

This is a prime example why I'm against the death penalty, prison rape / abuse, and for the humane treatment of inmates.

[superconnected]

33. Where is their conscience?

Amazing.

[connecticut yankee]

34. And what if

he had been sentenced to death?

Would those lawyers still have remained silent?

[Sgent]

37. Nope

because the bar ethics rules specifically would allow them to break privilege.

[hyphenate]

35. There are quite a few things I can think of them

doing, and still not breaking client confidentiality.

They could have anonymously given the police a lead that would have gone away from Logan.

They could have written to Alan Dershowitz or Barry Scheck on the Project Innocence.

They could have hired an independent forensic pathologist to go over the evidence.

Ethically, they suck. Yeah, so what, they kept quiet, while an innocent man ended up in prison for too fucking long. They got their fee--their all important fee--and that's what counts, right?

The fuckers probably voted for GWB, anyway.

I hope Logan sues the estate of the real murderer, and just to see if it puts a dent in "client-lawyer privilege" in the face of "ethics," I hope he sues the lawyers and their estates as well. It would certainly send up a red flag to me to know that they've been sitting on the truth for 26 years.

Edited to correct Barry Scheck's last name. I was calling him Barry Levinson. There is a great difference between a lawyer and a film director. Or at last look there was a difference.

[NashVegas]

42. They Could Have Volunteered Their Services, Pro Bono

Without betraying Wilson's confidence, they could have challenged every piece of evidence the prosecution brought.

They should be held responsible. I hope they've been building a very nice trust fund for Logan over the years.

[happyslug]

47. Clear Conflict, they had a duty to protect Wilson over anyone else including Logan

Under the Rules of Ethics, in most if not all states, an attorney can NOT represent two people with diverse interests at the same time. An another rule says an attorney can NOT "switch sides" if the underlying dispute is the same issue (even if resolved and settled years before).

Here Wilson had a clear conflict with Logan, and as such Wilson's lawyer could NOT represent Logan in any matter, even if the matter is unrelated. This conflict continued as long as Logan and Wilson were subject to the same law (there is no statute of limitations on Murder). Thus under either rule the lawyers could NOT represent Logan once Wilson told them of the dispute.

Now, an exception exists if beth parties agree to the representation given the conflict. This comes up in my family practice more often then I want. I get both sides to sign off (Generally it is a parent agreeing me to leave to represent the other parent in a custody matter NOT involving the first parent, no direct conflict but a potential conflict). In the case of Wilson he never agreed to such a wavier of HIS rights, thus the lawyers could NOT tell ANYONE about what Wilson had told them nor could they help in Logan's case.

[happyslug]

45. And if it would have come out, they would have been disbarred AND

The evidence NOT permitted into the trial. Remember it is a privilege of the Client not the LAWYER, if the lawyer DOES tell someone (anyone) it is ground for disbarment even if true and even if it corrects an injustice.

In my opinion the only thing the lawyers could have done was talk to the Judge in the Case. if the Judge was willing to see them alone on this case, a case the lawyers in question were NOT involved in (Which I doubt the Judge would have permitted).

Thus in realty no way to resolve the situation without Wilson's cooperation, and Wilson never agreed.

[NashVegas]

43. Interesting to Get More Background From Previous News

On Feb. 13, police raided a beauty parlor where they thought Andrew Wilson had been hiding. While they did not find Wilson, they did find the revolvers belonging to Fahey and O'Brien, as well as a shotgun. Firearms tests linked the shotgun to a shotgun shell found at the McDonald's restaurant, according to court records.

But with two men already charged in the McDonald's shootings, which witnesses said involved only two gunmen, authorities never charged Wilson in that case.

Right there, an instance where Chicago PD didn't do their jobs.

Coventry and Kunz, both then assistant Cook County public defenders, were assigned to be Andrew Wilson's lawyers. In March, just a few weeks later, Marc Miller, then the attorney defending Edgar Hope, came to Kunz and Coventry to say that his client was contending that Logan was innocent.

"Hope said that had nothing to do with the McDonald's case, and that it was Andrew Wilson who was with him and Andrew Wilson who shotgunned the security guard," Kunz said.

Why didn't hope go to the DA? Or did he and the DA refuse to listen?

Jack Rimland, who defended Logan at that trial, said he always believed Andrew Wilson had killed the security guard because the shotgun used in the killing was found with the guns Wilson and his brother had taken from the slain police officers.

Okay, so why didn't this DA subpoena the Wilsons and ask them on the stand, how the gun got mixed up with them?

This is why people say OJ got "rich man's justice."

[happyslug]

48. Judges will NOT permit a defense attorney to call a witness to plead the Fifth.

Unless the person is willing to waive ALL of his fifth amendment privileges Judges will NOT permit such people to testify. Furthermore the Prosecution is the only person who could have given Wilson Immunity for his testimony. Thus unless the prosecution is willing give Wilson immunity to testify, wilson would take the fifth. Furthermore most prosecutors are tied to the hip with the local Police, if the police says someone did the crime, the prosecution view his job as getting the conviction. Given the additional problem of police Brutality (She my post above) I do not see the prosecution willing to do ANYTHING that would upset the case involving Wilson (Both the other Murder case AND the Brutality case).

The main problem, in my opinion, was the Police had Wilson on another charge and wanted someone else for this Murder, thus (from the Police point of view) Logan had to have done the Murder, the only other possible person was Wilson and they had him on other charges (including killing a Police Officer).

[NashVegas]

51. My Bad

The defense could have called the police who found the weapon, however. Yes?

[happyslug]

52. That is even worse, how can the attorney turn in his own client?

How can you expect your client to tell you the truth, if he believes you will tell the Police? No, the client has to believe what he tells his attorney is privilege i.e. NO ONE BUT THE CLIENT CAN TELL ANYONE ELSE. Once a Client has told his Attorney, in conference, than it is ONLY the client who can tell anyone else. This is much like the Priest-penitent privilege, it only works if it is absolute AND only when the Penitent can say what was spoken about afterward.

A similar situation has aroused in the Catholic Pedophile cases. The Catholic Church has said that a Priest who hears a confession of a "grave sin" (including Pedophilia) MUST try to convince the penitent who told him of the crime, to go tell a higher authority of the pedophilia, or other great crime, but at no time can the Priest till anyone about what the penitent told him. The courts have NOT held the Catholic Church liable for NOT telling the police or the Bishop of such allegations learned in the Confessionals (The Judgments against the Church has more to do when it is clear on the facts independent of the Confessionals that the Bishops should have known a priest committed or will commit pedophilia).

No the best solution is first to get the lawyer (like the Catholic Ruling mentioned above) to try to convince the person who told the lawyer of the wrongdoing to go to the Police and admit the truth. If the person who told the lawyer the truth does NOT want to tell the courts or the Police, the Lawyer, like the Priest, can NOT tell the Police for him or her. People need to feel free that they can be open to their lawyer (like a Catholic can be open with his or her Priest) knowing NOTHING said will be repeated to anyone else without the Client's permission.

[DiverDave]

46. They knew, and did nothing.

If there is a hell...

Goddamn them :mad:

[Q3JR4]

49. As someone who has contemplated going to law school

I must say that if this particular situation ever came up I'd risk being disbarred.

Yes it would suck, and I'd end up trying to pay for years of law school education without the income I'd expected, but at least I would have done the right thing.

Q3JR4.

[NashVegas]

50. I Contemplated It In HS

And then took an overview course on our legal system. It turned me off pretty hard.

[brentspeak]

55. Candidate for Dumb Quote of the Century:

Lawyer Dale Coventry on why the client-attorney confidentiality agreement would nevertheless apply in this outrageous case:

"The system wouldn’t work without it."

And how do you think "the system" worked out for Alton Logan, idiot?