Is Attorney-client Privilege justifation to keep innocent man in prison for 26 years?

[k4kyv]

CHICAGO - Alton Logan, who spent 26 years in prison, was freed on bond while he awaits a new trial for a murder another inmate confessed to his lawyers.

The attorneys revealed that their former client admitted to committing the crime that Logan was convicted of, but that attorney-client privilege kept them from coming forward. Logan did not kill a security guard in a McDonald's restaurant in 1982, the lawyers said.

For 26 years they kept a sealed affidavit of their client's confession to the crime in a locked box. The attorneys came forward in January after the former client died.

Was the lawyers' failure to reveal the confession justified? If Logan is acquitted at his second trial, shouldn't they be disbarred or even charged criminally for keeping an innocent man in prison for decades? Should Logan have the right to sue the attorneys for damages?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24207440

[ad5mb]

They did what they had to do. Attorney-client privilege ranks right up there with doctor-patient privilege and the seal of the confessional.

You don't have to like it, but you ain't going to change it.

[kc9jwa]

I always have thought man these dumb lawyer sor judges, ect. Keep a innocent guy in prision sue them heck yeah for millions, but does that put the time you were forced to put in, no , nothin can be good enough except to sue enjoy what little years you hsve left to live.:mad:

[W3MIV]

The two lawyers had no other option. The law would be a worthless joke without such safeguards as attorney-client confidentiality.

What is interesting is that the story relates that "another inmate confessed." There is a story-within-the-story here that is an important, but missing, element of this tale.

Not knowing anything more than is in the short piece cited above, it would seem that Logan may have been picked out of a lineup and railroaded in a fashion for which Chicago was infamous -- especially when the defendants were Black. Had he been an actual accomplice to the commission of a crime in which the security guard was killed he would have shared the guilt of the crime, regardless of which man pulled the trigger.

There is more here than is being told so far.

[kq9j]

New trial?? How about just dropping the charges. If some prosecutor was vile enough, he could probably object to admission of the statement made by the deceased person, as that person is not around to testify to its authenticity. Then the statement, or any mention of it, could potentially be excluded and the original evidence used to convict him again. If the DA had any decency he would simply move the court to vacate the original judgement and dismiss the charges. Or maybe methinks too much.

[KA8NCR]

The lawyers did the correct thing, but you still get the feeling it wasn't the completely ethical thing. I wonder if the lawyers sat around and had difficult discussions about who would fall on the sword in the name of true justice and face disbarment and felony charges?

Of course, that's easy for me to say that because I wouldn't be the one tossing away a completely good legal career for a total stranger. And the article didn't state if the sealed affidavit was papers confessing to the crime, or papers detailing an oral confession to the crime. If the latter, the above is moot because the real perpetrator would simply deny confessing.

[w6ire]

The issue is not that the lawyers knew *their* client had committed the crime. The issue is how easy it is in this country to convict an innocent man.

[kq9j]

The issue is not that the lawyers knew *their* client had committed the crime. The issue is how easy it is in this country to convict an innocent man.


Exactly. It's not the lawyers fault. They could have broken privilege and been disbarred and the guy could still have said that he didn't do it.

There are plenty of innocent people incarcerated. DNA testing is proving that constantly.

[w6ire]

There are plenty of innocent people incarcerated. DNA testing is proving that constantly.

Many people in prison are found innocent via DNA testing, but they must serve out their terms because they can't appeal their sentences because the statues have run or they are denied appeal because they could not show that the court had erred. A very frustrating situation. They can only hope for the Governor to pardon them.

[W3MIV]

...the article didn't state if the sealed affidavit was papers confessing to the crime, or papers detailing an oral confession to the crime. If the latter, the above is moot because the real perpetrator would simply deny confessing.

The article clearly states "a sealed affidavit of their client's confession." An affidavit is a written statement that is signed under oath or affirmation, and it is clear from the article that this affidavit is a confession.

[N8UZE]

At the very least, they should have petitioned the governor to pardon the wrongly convicted individual. There must be some way that they could convey to the governor the fact that they had certain knowledge of this but could not release it due to attorny/client privilege. What if the wrongly convicted individual had been sentenced to death? Should he die due to attorney/client privilege?

[n0ov]

This is going to make for an interesting law suit

[ka0gkt]

The article clearly states "a sealed affidavit of their client's confession." An affidavit is a written statement that is signed under oath or affirmation, and it is clear from the article that this affidavit is a confession.

It used to be a major tenet of our courts system that it was better for a guilty person to go free than for an innocent one to spend a day in prison.

I agree the attorney's hands were tied; however in a television interview, they both said that they had decided that they would have broken confidentiality had the other man been sentenced to death...a fine line indeed.

Even Priests have their own confessor to whom they may discuss matters of Christian ethics. Why is there not a judge somewhere who can act as an intermediary, confessor juris so to speak, who can look at the evidence and, under oath bring the information that the wrong man was on trial, to the judge in charge of the trial.

[n0ov]

That was before the media would take live video of a man raping a 13 year old girl and call him an alleged perpetrator.

Somewhere American values and perception of right and wrong have really got messed up.......

[k4kyv]

I recall a court proceeding that made national news years ago, denying the appeal by a man who claimed he was wrongly convicted. I can't remember the details but I do recall that it involved some technicality in the law, and evidence alleged to prove the man's innocence. The prosecution argued that a defendant's "guilt or innocence is irrelevant" if all legal procedures have been followed properly in accordance with the letter of the law.

This could have been a case involving Virginia's "21 Day Rule" (http://www.vadp.org/21day.htm).

[ad5mb]

Guilt or innocence got nothin to do with nothin.

DA is the only government office in which results can be measured in concrete numbers. You got a percentage of convictions. When the DA decides to try a case, a major component in the decision is the likelihood of winning. If the case is likely to boost the percentage, prosecute. If there is a good chance of a loss; no.

DA is under a lot of pressure in a murder or rape case. People take the chance of getting murdered and raped kind of personally. Many people on Death Row are very retarded, marginally functional, and not guilty. A conviction of convenience.

[KA8NCR]

The article clearly states "a sealed affidavit of their client's confession." An affidavit is a written statement that is signed under oath or affirmation, and it is clear from the article that this affidavit is a confession.

I'm not disputing the confession, I'm disputing the circumstances of the confession. They didn't explicitly state the perpetrator signed this, so you can't assume it to be so.

After all, would you blow any chance of parole if someone else was doing your time?

[N4AUD]

At the very least, they should have petitioned the governor to pardon the wrongly convicted individual. There must be some way that they could convey to the governor the fact that they had certain knowledge of this but could not release it due to attorny/client privilege. What if the wrongly convicted individual had been sentenced to death? Should he die due to attorney/client privilege?

I have read about this recently. The attorneys told every prosecutor "you are prosecuting an innocent man" but could not tell the prosecutors WHY. They did the right thing. The guy got shafted by the real killer, not the attorneys.

Everyone is saying how easy it is to convict an innocent man. The innocent man in this case was identified by eyewitnesses.

The other guy convicted in the robbery, though, testified that he had never seen the guy before in his life. I guess the juries and judges believed the eyewitness, which goes to show how unrealiable eyewitnesses are.

[W3MIV]

IThey didn't explicitly state the perpetrator signed this, so you can't assume it to be so.

Your comment makes no sense; one cannot assume it to have been otherwise and be an affidavit. An affidavit is a statement signed under oath or affirmation. Had the "perp" not signed it, it would not be an affidavit.

[W4INF]

I don't think the right to protect the guilty by way of client/scumoftheearth privileges (admission of guilt) should be allowed to keep an innocent man imprisoned. That is beyond human rights, which I thought at last check we were supposed to be defending.

Andrew

[wa8rti]

Prosecutors seem to invest a lot of their ego in their convictions. There have been many cases where overwhelming evidence has come out that proves a man is innocent and yet the prosecutor refuses to admit than an error was made. They both refuse a new trial and any hint of a pardon. Sad!!