A 26-year-old secret could free inmate

dds14u

Golden Member
Feb 24, 2004
1,310
0
0
C&P the first half of the article below.

I find it ridiculous that lawyers are bound by some "rules and ethics" that prevent them from revealing this kind of information relevant to the case. It's ridiculous.

In fact I would say that it would be unethical to NOT reveal that information!!


CHICAGO - For nearly 26 years, the affidavit was sealed in an envelope and stored in a locked box, tucked away with the lawyer's passport and will. Sometimes he stashed the box in his bedroom closet, other times under his bed. ADVERTISEMENT


It stayed there ? year after year, decade after decade.

Then, about two years ago, Dale Coventry, the box's owner, got a call from his former colleague, W. Jamie Kunz. Both were once public defenders. They hadn't talked in a decade.

"We're both getting on in years," Kunz said. "We ought to do something with that affidavit to make sure it's not wasted in case we both leave this good Earth."

Coventry assured him it was in a safe place. He found it in the fireproof metal box, but didn't read it. He didn't need to. He was reminded of the case every time he heard that a wronged prisoner had been freed.

In January, Kunz called again. This time, he had news: A man both lawyers had represented long ago in the murder of two police officers, Andrew Wilson, had died in prison.

Kunz asked Coventry to get the affidavit.

"It's in a sealed envelope," Coventry said.

"Open it," Kunz said, impatiently.

And so, Coventry began reading aloud the five-line declaration the lawyers had written more than a quarter-century before:

An innocent man was behind bars. His name was Alton Logan. He did not kill a security guard in a McDonald's restaurant in January 1982.

"In fact," the document said, "another person was responsible."...

Link added: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200..._us/the26_year_silence
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,913
3
0
I think the information couldn't be used in court because it would have violated attorney/client privilege.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
They were defending him, and lost, because they couldn't say someone else was responsible?

Edit: Oh, I read it. They defended the guy who was guilty... Why wouldn't they say something, even if it meant ending their careers or something?
 

Raduque

Lifer
Aug 22, 2004
13,140
138
106
That lawyer is screwey. He would feel guilty for breaking client/attorney privilege and "betraying" his duty to Wilson, but not feel guilty over hiding evidence that could've kept an innocent man out of jail? WTF??
 

pulse8

Lifer
May 3, 2000
20,860
1
81
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
They were defending him, and lost, because they couldn't say someone else was responsible?

They were defending the man who confessed to the murder and couldn't say anything because of attorney/client privilege.
 

RESmonkey

Diamond Member
May 6, 2007
4,818
2
0
^Whooow. That is somewhat of a serious flaw in the system. Can we get a ATOT lawyer's input on this?
 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,330
1
81
While it is unfortunate, I don't really say how a defense lawyer can mount a truly successful defense without open communication of information regarding the case. Even if they did commit said crime, it's innocent until proven guilty. Get rid of attorney/client privilege and not only does it become a battle against the prosecutor, but your own attorney as well.
 

Mo0o

Lifer
Jul 31, 2001
24,227
3
76
Would the revelation be admissable in court even if they had a change of heart?
 

dds14u

Golden Member
Feb 24, 2004
1,310
0
0
Originally posted by: BigJ
While it is unfortunate, I don't really say how a defense lawyer can mount a truly successful defense without open communication of information regarding the case. Even if they did commit said crime, it's innocent until proven guilty. Get rid of attorney/client privilege and not only does it become a battle against the prosecutor, but your own attorney as well.

Hmm, I think there ought to be some exceptions, but I get where you are going.

If a client can't trust his/her own lawyer, then cases might not get anywhere.

BUT STILL, the lawyers had witnesses and the bullet as some evidence that they could have slipped under someone's door... yea?

What's even more ridiculous is that the innocent guy isn't necessarily going to be freed.
 

rasczak

Lifer
Jan 29, 2005
10,437
23
81
even more ironic would be that logan get killed while in prison during hte trial in which he is evenutally found not guilty.
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
12
81
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Would the revelation be admissable in court even if they had a change of heart?

That's the thing... even if they did come forward 26 years ago it probably wouldn't have been admitted...
 

EGGO

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2004
5,504
1
0
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Would the revelation be admissable in court even if they had a change of heart?

That's the thing... even if they did come forward 26 years ago it probably wouldn't have been admitted...

Statute of limitations.

It was things like this that made me decide not to become a criminal lawyer. I had no idea how I'd take it if I had to defend someone I knew was guilty of a murder.
 

Mo0o

Lifer
Jul 31, 2001
24,227
3
76
Originally posted by: EGGO
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Would the revelation be admissable in court even if they had a change of heart?

That's the thing... even if they did come forward 26 years ago it probably wouldn't have been admitted...

Statute of limitations.


It was things like this that made me decide not to become a criminal lawyer. I had no idea how I'd take it if I had to defend someone I knew was guilty of a murder.

?
 
Apr 17, 2003
37,622
0
76
Originally posted by: EGGO
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Would the revelation be admissable in court even if they had a change of heart?

That's the thing... even if they did come forward 26 years ago it probably wouldn't have been admitted...

Statute of limitations.

It was things like this that made me decide not to become a criminal lawyer. I had no idea how I'd take it if I had to defend someone I knew was guilty of a murder.

I dont understand what SoL has to do with this? exculpating evidence can always be presented to the court
 

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
4,767
435
126
In this case, here are the choices faced by the lawyer who withheld information:

1. His career.
2. His conscience.

Guess which won out?
 

AgaBoogaBoo

Lifer
Feb 16, 2003
26,108
5
81
Damn... that's horrible, will there be any change in how lawyers can act on certain information?
 

EGGO

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2004
5,504
1
0
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: EGGO
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Would the revelation be admissable in court even if they had a change of heart?

That's the thing... even if they did come forward 26 years ago it probably wouldn't have been admitted...

Statute of limitations.


It was things like this that made me decide not to become a criminal lawyer. I had no idea how I'd take it if I had to defend someone I knew was guilty of a murder.

?

Whoops. Wrong thought. Happens when most of my attention is on something else while being tired this early in the morning.

[edit] Yeah jeez I have no idea what I was thinking.
 

OulOat

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2002
5,769
0
0
Client/ Attorney privilege is part of what makes our judicial system great. If either of those lawyers ratted out their client, not only would they have broken a promise to their client, but would have done the entire system a disfavor. What's the point of having attorneys if they cannot be trusted? The Supreme Court ruled that C/A privilege extends beyond the client's death, so these attorneys were lucky enough to get the client's permission to break the privilege on his death.
 
Apr 17, 2003
37,622
0
76
Originally posted by: Braznor
In this case, here are the choices faced by the lawyer who withheld information:

1. His career.
2. His conscience.

Guess which won out?

Due to the nature of the communication, I'm not sure that he would have been disbarred
 

paulxcook

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
4,277
1
0
Originally posted by: OulOat
Client/ Attorney privilege is part of what makes our judicial system great. If either of those lawyers ratted out their client, not only would they have broken a promise to their client, but would have done the entire system a disfavor. What's the point of having attorneys if they cannot be trusted? The Supreme Court ruled that C/A privilege extends beyond the client's death, so these attorneys were lucky enough to get the client's permission to break the privilege on his death.

:confused:

Being able to trust your lawyer is less important than punishing the right person for the right crime. And our justice system is not great.
 

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
4,767
435
126
Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
Originally posted by: Braznor
In this case, here are the choices faced by the lawyer who withheld information:

1. His career.
2. His conscience.

Guess which won out?

Due to the nature of the communication, I'm not sure that he would have been disbarred

Sure, he would not have been debarred. But would wealthy clients trust a man who would act upon his personal conscience than their orders? There is nothing more dangerous than a honest man amongst crooks. Undoubtedly his reputation may take a dent in such a situation.